Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Defending Marriage, After Massachusetts: What the Court Did and How We Should Respond
National Catholic Register ^ | November 30 - December 6, 2003 | EVE TUSHNET

Posted on 12/03/2003 6:52:34 PM PST by nickcarraway

It's not every day a court gets to stand against all of recorded history.

That's what the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did Nov. 18 when, in Goodridge v. Department of Health, it ruled that marriage in Massachusetts is no longer the union of a man and a woman but the union of "two persons." The court argued that forbidding a man to marry another man constituted unlawful and irrational sex discrimination.

The Bait-and-Switch

The court drew on several laws and state constitutional provisions in making its case, including anti-discrimination laws, hate-crimes laws and a constitutional provision modeled on the failed Equal Rights Amendment forbidding discrimination on the basis of sex.

There's just one problem: When Massachusetts legislators voted for these laws, they were assured again and again that same-sex marriage would not be the result. There is virtually no chance that these laws would have passed if voters and legislators had believed they would lead to the radical redefinition of marriage.

The Massachusetts court is saying to citizens, "You all go ahead and vote for the laws. Then we'll tell you what you really voted for. Don't expect it to look much like what you thought you agreed to." The rule of law requires that laws be predictable and stable - that laws not be yanked out from under citizens like a carpet in a Tom and Jerry cartoon. The Massachusetts court (like the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade) has ignored this principle.

The funny thing is, this bait-and-switch approach to judging may be turned against the Goodridge decision itself in the future. As UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh (who supports same-sex marriage) has pointed out, the language the majority used in its decision gives no good reason to bar polygamy or adult incestuous marriages. If marriage is simply about commitment, well, obviously we can make commitments to more than one person. And we can make commitments to people who are already members of our families - for example, siblings. Why should these commitments not be recognized in law as marriages?

Although the Goodridge decision insists that the plaintiffs, and therefore its decision, do not "attack the binary nature of marriage [i.e. you can't marry more than one person], the consanguinity provisions [anti-incest provisions] or any of the other gate-keeping provisions of the marriage licensing law," why should the court expect its wishes to have any more force than the wishes of the voters and legislators the court has already ignored? If the court is willing to proceed from what it deems as the internal logic of various pieces of legislation, rather than either the plain text or the legislators' common understanding of what they were doing, why should later courts not apply the same test to Goodridge?

Procreation

The majority in Goodridge rejected the argument that marriage is an essentially procreative union, pointing out that couples who cannot have children are still permitted to marry. But this objection misses the point.

Marriage - civil marriage, not just sacramental marriage - is essentially a procreative union in two ways. First, marriage only exists because of procreation. Marriage developed as a universal human institution because when a man and a woman have sex, very often a baby is conceived. We've tried to convince ourselves that we have gotten around this "problem." But no matter how many hormones a woman pumps into her body, no matter how much latex we swathe ourselves in, intercourse still makes babies. If nothing else, the existence of almost 4,000 crisis-pregnancy centers in this country should prove that. Marriage developed because the children conceived by men and women need to be protected, and, especially, need strong legal ties to their fathers, whom biology allows to walk away far more easily than mothers.

And marriage developed because sexual risk is asymmetrical: Men and women face different risks when they sleep together. Men risk committing resources to care for children that may not be their own. Women risk being abandoned and left to care for a fatherless child. Marriage developed to minimize these risks. That's why no society - even among those that did have a social role for some expressions of male homosexuality - has instituted same-sex marriage until the past decade.

Second, marriage is procreative because marriage is society's way of ensuring that as many children as possible have mothers and fathers. A couple who cannot conceive children on their own can adopt, thus providing children with a mother and a father. Two men, however, can't replace a mother, nor can two women replace a father.

We see this most obviously in the inner cities, where many families consist of a grandmother, a mother and a child. Here, two women struggle to raise a child without a father. And the children say, again and again, that they need daddies. The sons say they had no one to teach them how to be men. The daughters say they had no one to teach them what to look for in a man, what role a man should play in the family.

Same-sex marriage says that men - fathers - are unnecessary in forming a family. This is one of the most detrimental messages a society can send.

What Now?

At first glance, the Massachusetts court seemed to have left a loophole for the Legislature: The court's ruling would not take effect for 180 days. In that time, court-watchers initially speculated, the legislature could seek to amend the Massachusetts Constitution, defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Such an amendment would override the court's decision.

But the Massachusetts constitution is difficult to amend, and it is impossible to amend in 180 days. So that route is out.

The Goodridge decision makes the question of the Federal Marriage Amendment all the more pressing. This amendment would prevent both courts and legislatures from enacting same-sex marriage. The most basic version of this amendment would read, "Marriage in America is and shall be exclusively the union of one woman and one man."

Amending the Constitution of the United States is a major project and not a step to be taken lightly. But if we do not take this step, we may lose the fundamental building block of society.

Eve Tushnet writes from Washington, D.C.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Massachusetts; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: conservatism; constitution; courts; family; gaymarriage; goodridge; homosexual; homosexualagenda; laws; marriage; massachusetts; prisoners; romans1; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-145 next last

1 posted on 12/03/2003 6:52:35 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; ...
Bump and ping.

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1), (Version 1.0)
Homosexual Agenda Index (bump list)
Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search
All FreeRepublic Bump Lists

Would you like to be part of the solution? To stay informed of the issues? A simple freepmail is all it takes to join the homosexual agenda ping list, and you can cancel at anytime.

2 posted on 12/03/2003 6:58:09 PM PST by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
I've got a perfect way to push the limits on same-sex marriage in a manner that will make a statement.

I need to find a 90+ year old single person who is willing to get "married" to one of his or her own grandchildren or great-grandchildren. Once the Court's own ruling in this case is used to justify a marriage between family members, we can hasten the demise of Social Security and other pension funds by providing widows' survivor benefits to someone who may very well collect them for 70+ years.

3 posted on 12/03/2003 7:01:13 PM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE North strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Gov Romney of Mass simply stated (concerning marriage), "I believe 3000 years of recorded history and not the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts." My self, living in Massachusetts its nice not having a pagen for a governor.
4 posted on 12/03/2003 7:05:34 PM PST by eternity (From here to...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Now there's an angle I hadn't yet heard. Criminals can marry each other and claim spousal privilege is another. Perhaps somebody should start compiling a list of all the issues folks have raised.
5 posted on 12/03/2003 7:05:35 PM PST by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
It's not a bad idea. Not that it matters, but do you know that there are still some widows of Confederate Veterans? I believe they receive a pension of some kind.

A kindly grandfather might want to marry his granddaughter just so she can have his social security benefits, starting at, I dunno, age 20? Who could it hurt???

6 posted on 12/03/2003 7:09:16 PM PST by ClearCase_guy (France delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: scripter
Not just two criminals, mind you.

Laws against polygamy should also be challenged, because if the Massachusetts law restricting marriage to a man and a woman is "arbitrary" according to the Supreme Judicial Court of Masschusetts, then any law restricting marriage to only two people is also arbitrary.

Law enforcement will never be the same once the entire Soprano crime family gets married to each other and can claim spousal immunity for everyone they do business with.

7 posted on 12/03/2003 7:11:10 PM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE North strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; scripter
If the Federal Marriage Amendment is enacted, will that negate any same-sex marriage that occur in MA?
8 posted on 12/03/2003 7:11:43 PM PST by Miss Maam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: Miss Maam
Perhaps but it will positivly definitly preclude it from spreading to other states and having ANY impact on federal law. No joint tax returns. No immigration tricks using homosexual marriages.
10 posted on 12/03/2003 7:15:22 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Not just two criminals, mind you.

Good point.

11 posted on 12/03/2003 7:31:00 PM PST by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Miss Maam
If the Federal Marriage Amendment is enacted, will that negate any same-sex marriage that occur in MA?

I thought I read something about that recently. I'm not sure but it could be discussed in this Weekly Standard article: Massachusetts vs. Marriage. I gotta run and can't check at the moment.

12 posted on 12/03/2003 7:35:17 PM PST by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
If the legislature needs more that 180 for a constitutional referendum they should just ban all marriage in Mass. until this is accomplished. No licenses for anyone is equal protection under the law. Let the courts chew on that.
13 posted on 12/03/2003 7:41:22 PM PST by Sneer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Maam
If the Federal Marriage Amendment is enacted, will that negate any same-sex marriage that occur in MA?

No, only marriages subsequent to the passage of the federal act. Ex post facto laws are constitutionally proscribed, so all marriages that occured before legal remedy would stand.

14 posted on 12/03/2003 7:47:48 PM PST by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Miss Maam
Do not count on it. Courts can acknowledge an Admendment to the Constitution but ignore it by pointing out a "compelling national interest" to do otherwise. Example, look what happened to affirmative action. The judges acknowledged that the law does not allow the usage of race, creed or national origin as a basis for college admissions, but points out that there is a "national compelling interest" (not even discussed in the US Constitution) to maintain diversity. Only way to solve this is give the GOP 60+ Senators so we can put the right types of judges in the federal courts.
15 posted on 12/03/2003 7:59:45 PM PST by Fee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. I don't see how letting gays marry each other is so detrimental to the institution of marriage. I say live and let live. I don't give a crap who anybody marries. It's none of my business. I certainly do understand though why gays would want to marry, and it's not all about recognition of their lifestyle (which I personally find creepy). Mainly it's about money and protecting assets. It's about having the same protections that other couples who make the life long commitment to each enjoy. For instance, if two gays split up after being together for years, they have a really hard time getting equitable property division by the courts. Problems pop up in estate planning and other areas for gay couples that really can't be adequately addressed by contracts.

I'm totally opposed to a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. I suggest what the rest of you do is just wait and see how this works out in the countries and states that allow it. Sooner or later you'll all see that the sky is not going to fall. This isn't going to effect normal families. It's not going to lead to our society turning into one giant Sodom and Gomorrah.

Man I just wish people would live and let live. I can't believe what busybodies so many supposed conservatives are. You guys are turning our nation into the worst kind of nanny state that micromanages every aspect of our lives.
16 posted on 12/03/2003 8:09:14 PM PST by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
Some things are right and some things are wrong. Because murder is wrong, there are laws against it. Homosexuality is either right or wrong. If we pass a law recognizing it, then the government is saying it's "right".

Homosexuals make up only 2% of the population
Anf they have:
Much shorter life expectancies
Much higher incidence of substance abuse problems
Much high incidence of domestic abuse
Much higher incidence of child sexual abuse
Much higher incidence of mental illness.

I think homosexuality is merely a form of mental illness (and it used to be categorized as such). It's not so much a question of "Why do Conservatives think it's wrong? All of the above show why it's wrong. The real question is: Why would we want our government to declare it "right"?

17 posted on 12/03/2003 8:31:18 PM PST by ClearCase_guy (France delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
Man I just wish people would live and let live. I can't believe what busybodies so many supposed conservatives are. You guys are turning our nation into the worst kind of nanny state that micromanages every aspect of our lives

TKDietz, just wait and see, is not an option anymore. It's here NOW. . It's not going to lead to our society turning into one giant Sodom and Gomorrah.

Yes, my friend, it will.

18 posted on 12/03/2003 8:41:12 PM PST by Miss Maam (I'm at a loss...help me expound...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Good points ClearCase but the fellow you are addressing has already made up his mind.
19 posted on 12/03/2003 8:41:54 PM PST by eternity (From here to...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
I can't believe what busybodies so many supposed conservatives are. You guys are turning our nation into the worst kind of nanny state that micromanages every aspect of our lives.

I can't believe the pinpoint vision your opinion evidences. The only reason conservatives are pushing for a Constitutional amendment protecting marriage is because the gay activists are trying to destroy marriage. Conservatives are not busybodies trying to poke their noses in other peoples' business. They're trying to prevent others from doing just that. You must not have read much about the gay activists' poking their noses into, for instance, classrooms here in California - since, I think, 2001. (Mandatory gay-positive sex-ed, courtesy of Planned Parenthood and others, paid for by MY and others' tax dollars).

Or the gay activists and their handmaidens in the legislature creating crazy laws that force businesses to hire cross dressers, for instance.

Or the gay activists trying to destroy the Boy Scouts? Is that the act of conservative busybodies? People trying to protect adolescent boys from homosexuals are being nosy busybodies? They're just trying to maintain the moral standards which have, up until now, been the accepted norm.

What about in England, Canada and other countries which now enjoy "hatespeech" laws - is that conservatives nannying what other people say, or is it the gay activists minding other peoples' business, what they can say and what they can't say?

Give me a break. Conservatives are not the ones trying to poke their noses into other peoples' business, it's the gay activists and their assistants who are poking noses and who knows what else into OUR business.

If homosexuals did what they do in the privacy of their own homes, I could give a flying big f. But they are intent on making their business MY business, and I resent that. They have no right to re-make the world into one that suits their strange sexual desires.

20 posted on 12/03/2003 8:57:01 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
To tell you the truth, I don't really care one way or the other. If a state wants to legalize gay marriage, fine. If a court in a state finds the ban on gay marriage unconstitutional in that state, fine. I just don't want to see our national Constitution amended to ban gay marriage. To me there is nothing conservative about amending the Constitution. It's a big thing to go changing our Constitution, and it shouldn't be done for petty reasons such as this.

Personally, I'm not big on legislating morality on private, personal issues such as this. Legislating against murder is one thing, legislating against something like gay marriage is another entirely. I don't care if you think homosexuality is wrong. I certainly don't think it is "right" either. But the big difference between you and me is that I just don't care about little things like this. It's not for me to tell my neighbor that his love for another man is wrong. And in fact, the person who has lived across the street from me for close to fifteen years is a gay man. For the first eleven years, he had a "mate" living with him, but that fellow died of cancer. He now has a new live in buddy. I don't like to think about what they do behind closed doors, but I have no problem with them as neighbors. They've been excellent neighbors, far better than many others I've had the displeasure of living near.

People worry so much about what message government may or may not be sending with their laws. The reality is that nobody listens much to government's subtle little messages. On issues like this nobody much cares what government thinks.

Is government sending a message that gay relationships are wrong? Should they? Would everyone all of the sudden think gay relationships are perfectly moral and okay if government allowed gay marriage? I don't think so. Most would still think they are wrong. Most Christians would still look upon them as sinful unions entered into without God's blessings.

What are you so worried about? Are you afraid everyone is going to turn gay? I assure you, my revulsion to the notion of gay sex would not change if gay marriage was no longer illegal, and I doubt your's would either.

People just need to live and let live.
21 posted on 12/03/2003 9:01:58 PM PST by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
"The only reason conservatives are pushing for a Constitutional amendment protecting marriage is because the gay activists are trying to destroy marriage."

What a load of crap. Why on earth would these people want to destroy marriage? They just want to be included with the rest of us.

Look, these gay rights extremists annoy me too, just like these nut-cases who insist on attacking Christianity at every turn. I'm personally leery of mixing religion with government, but all these crazy lawsuits like the one a while back attacking some poor kid for mentioning Jesus in her valedictorian speech and some of these other attacks by these atheist extremists do really bother me.

But I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm also cognizant of ultra right wing extremism too. This certainly does exist. And I don't think of it all as being conservative. In fact, much of it does not appear to me to have its roots in conservatism. It's zealotry cloaked under the label of conservatism and it's something I want no part of.

The thought of Constitutional amendments to secure the imposition of moral biases on free Americans doesn't sit well with me. We have more than enough restrictive laws as it is.
22 posted on 12/03/2003 9:17:31 PM PST by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
A Constitutional amendment protecting marriage - keeping the same meaning it has had throughout the history of this country - is not imposing moral biases.

When the SCOTUS ruled in favor of homosexual sodomy this summer, Rick Santorum predicted it would lead to gay marriage, and other anomolies, because if there are no rules about what is beyond the acceptable limit in sexuality, what gauge is there? The gay activists and their handmaidens all said, No no no, it won't lead to gay marraige or anything else. There is no slippery slope.

Well, well, well - here we have homosexuals wanting to change the meaning of marriage - and even a polygamist is now on the bandwagon. Is NAMBLA far behind? There are many socially and academically respected scholars and psychologists who argue that some sex between adults and children is beneficial for children. It's on the horizon. Peter Singer - a highly respected professer at Princeton University says that adult/child sex can be defensible, and even human/animal sex is fine.

What do you think of that?
23 posted on 12/03/2003 9:26:37 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Miss Maam
You know, we are one of the most puritanical countries yet we are also among the most depraved. We have such polarity and so little middle ground. I wish we were more pragmatic and more tolerant in this country.

I'm not sure that this post is particularly responsive to yours. It's just what struck me when I read your words.
24 posted on 12/03/2003 9:29:19 PM PST by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
INTREP - SOCIOLOGY - SODOMITE AGENDA
25 posted on 12/03/2003 9:29:31 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
What do I think? I think that there is a limit to what society will tolerate. Do you think that our society would ever allow grown men to marry boys? Sexual abuse of minors is a serious crime and there is no indication that that will ever change.
26 posted on 12/03/2003 9:39:49 PM PST by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
"If homosexuals did what they do in the privacy of their own homes, I could give a flying big f. But they are intent on making their business MY business, and I resent that. They have no right to re-make the world into one that suits their strange sexual desires."

I have to admit that I am bothered by gay activists myself. I wish there were no gay marches. I wish there were not gays making out on TV. My kids caught a glimpse of Brittney Spears and Madonna kissing last night because I was flipping channels on my slow digital cable system and just as I happened to flip through a channel that scene appeared right in the few second windows before the next channel cycled in. Brittney and Madonna may or may not be gay, but still it's awkward trying to explain that type of kiss to a three year old and an eight year old.

I wonder though if we just let these people have these basic things that they want, if gay activism would lose purpose and more or less fade away. I mean, what's the point in marching if you have what you want? If we all stopped making such a big deal out of it, it wouldn't be such a big deal.

Right now gays have a cause. They have reason to march around with signs and file obnoxious lawsuits. It seems to me that those of you who fight these people with such vigor are just exasperating the problem you seek to alleviate. These gay rights issues are going to have a prominent place in the public discourse as long as there is the perception by a large percentage of our population that gays are being treated poorly. Let them have the big things that they want like the right to marry in some sort of civil union and eventually the majority will get bored with gay activists who will no longer have pressing issues that carry much weight with the broader population.


27 posted on 12/03/2003 9:59:35 PM PST by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz; little jeremiah
Why on earth would these people want to destroy marriage? They just want to be included with the rest of us.

I have some interesting statements from homosexual activists along those lines. About the only one I can find now is:

Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine:
...to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution...The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake--and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely." "Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.
You might find this of interest as well:
The Homosexual Propaganda and Media Manipulation Game...
Manipulation is key with homosexual activists. Checkout a list of links on the subject:
Homosexuality and Manipulation
I'm also cognizant of ultra right wing extremism too.

As I see it, the GHF (God Hates F...) group falls into that category. I don't know anybody on this forum that falls into that category. We're interested in the truth of the matter and deal in what the experts say.

I think the world would have a different perspective on homosexuality if the facts of the matter were better known.

28 posted on 12/03/2003 10:01:18 PM PST by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
Actually there is a big push in academia for acceptance of adult/child sex. Heck, the ACLU is defending NAMBLA right now, I think in Boston. There was some gal in the midwest - a professor - who wrote a book published by the university she teaches at or works for (can't remember the state) which ran into two printings, in which she advocates child/adult sex. It is definitely on the horizon.

Not "marriage" between children and adults, but legality and social acceptance for "consensual relationships". Eliminating the age of consent has been a goal of gay activists since their published platform of goals in 1972. They have since changed their stated goal to "lowering" the age of consent, since eliminating it was too outrageous for us backwards primitives at the time.
29 posted on 12/03/2003 10:01:38 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
If we all stopped making such a big deal out of it, it wouldn't be such a big deal.

If the gay activists were like you and me, then your assumption would make sense. Unfortunately, they don't want to be allowed to "be who they are". They don't want me and others like me to be who WE are. They don't want acceptance, they want to silence anyone who disagrees with them - look at hatespeech laws. It's not about tolerance - they can't tolerate any disagreement with their stated agenda (note the quote scripter just posted from Michelangelo Signorile).

Right now gays have a cause. They have reason to march around with signs and file obnoxious lawsuits. It seems to me that those of you who fight these people with such vigor are just exasperating the problem you seek to alleviate.

It's the typical liberal tactic - demand a ten, get a five, amp up and demand a ten again, get a five, and they keep doing it over and over again. They will not be satisfied with crumbs. The stated objective of the gay movement is to change society, not joining it.

30 posted on 12/03/2003 10:08:56 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Actually there is a big push in academia for acceptance of adult/child sex.

There's some of that documented here.

One of the articles you'll find at the above link is: Normalization of Pedophilia Growing, Experts Say

The following sites might make you lose your dinner so I won't make the URLS active:

http://www.glgarden.org/
http://www.freespirits.org/
http://home.uni-one.nl/hostroom/fcl/index2.html
http://www.nambla1.de/
The above are pedophile sites. I used to have a link to a course taught at San Fransisco University by a Mr. DeCecco (if I remember right) and the course was on the beneficial aspects of molesting children, or something along those lines.
31 posted on 12/03/2003 10:11:41 PM PST by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Clearly, it is high time to strike back at these tyrannical judges who believe that they know better than anybody else, what should be in the "constitution" (rather than what is) agreed to by the people. The legislature and/or the people should start removing these smarmy bastards from office!
32 posted on 12/03/2003 10:12:42 PM PST by GregoryFul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scripter
I remember that professor's name. I wrote a letter to the editor (Chronicle) about him. Of course it wasn't printed. (Duh.) His class was mandatory - and he also was a contributing editor to the Dutch magazine or publication called, I recall, "Peda-something or other" - a professed pedophile publication. But the university deemed it ok because he only theoretically advocated pedophila, he hadn't been arrested or anything.

And that was over 11 years ago. I wonder if it is the same guy?
33 posted on 12/03/2003 10:19:17 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
The magazine was called: Paidika, I believe.
34 posted on 12/03/2003 10:24:13 PM PST by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
Clearly, you have absolutely no moral compass! You must be a recent graduate (or current pupil) of the perverted public schools!
35 posted on 12/03/2003 10:24:45 PM PST by GregoryFul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
"Eliminating the age of consent has been a goal of gay activists since their published platform of goals in 1972. They have since changed their stated goal to "lowering" the age of consent, since eliminating it was too outrageous for us backwards primitives at the time."

I do not believe that. Certainly there will always be oddballs out there with strange causes, but that does not mean that all or even the majority of gays or "gay activists" want sex with children to be legal. You are making an unfair generalization.

I think you are reading too much into all of this. Just because some professor wrote a book and the ACLU is defending NAMBLA's rights does not mean that legalized sex with children is on the horizon. College professors are always writing stupid books and the ACLU is always standing up for the rights of unpopular organizations.

A "big push in academia," sheez, a couple of screwy professors publish some fringe element theoretical musings and you call it a "big push." I guarantee you that if you took a poll among college professors and asked how many are for sex between children and adults nearly all would say they are against that sort of thing. I have family members who are college professors who would be appalled at such a notion. I taught at a university for two years and I cannot imagine any of the people I worked with advocating such a thing.
36 posted on 12/03/2003 10:24:55 PM PST by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GregoryFul
Actually, I'm a middle aged professional person. The last time I was at a university I was teaching business law and civil litigation to night students.
37 posted on 12/03/2003 10:27:04 PM PST by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
This article mentions Paidika, DeCecco and his filth: Adult-child sexual relationships next?

A Google Search on paidika and DeCecco.

38 posted on 12/03/2003 10:28:32 PM PST by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
I think you are wrong in your assessment. I wish you were right, but among psychologists there is a growing move to accept some child/adult sex.

You taught at a university - what school? (I mean that in the sense of was it psychology, engineering, etc.) The technical schools have fewer liberals than disciplines like history, psychology and the arts.

I have seen footage of "Gay Pride" parades with grown men dressed in black leather (here and there) holding chains, to which were attached little boys - with dog collars around their necks. And this was years ago.

I do think you are wrong, and I wish you weren't. Have you checked into scripter's links?
And as far as lowering the age of consent (and their previous goal to eliminate it) I have read their own publications and stated objectives. They aren't going to lie about their own goals.
39 posted on 12/03/2003 10:31:08 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
I guarantee you that if you took a poll among college professors and asked how many are for sex between children and adults nearly all would say they are against that sort of thing.

It's late so I may not get this right, but I believe the APA recently (this year) stated pretty much the same thing DeCecco said. That is, adult/child sex may not be as harmful to children as first thought. After a public outcry, the APA responded and said something about how they didn't mean to endorse pedophilia. Still, damage was done and who knows what confused person is going to use that reasoning to molest a child.

40 posted on 12/03/2003 10:33:11 PM PST by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: scripter; TKDietz
Paidika.

That was it. Scripter, you are a veritable mine of information!

So it is the same perverted creep that was teaching years ago! Advocating child adult sex at a San Francisco university. Wonders will never cease.

TKDietz - I just read the classes you taught. The social liberals/child-sex advocates aren't usually in those departments.
41 posted on 12/03/2003 10:34:41 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: GregoryFul
"Clearly, you have absolutely no moral compass!"

I take offense to that remark. I am one of the most moral people you will ever meet. I am a good father, a good husband and I live my life in service to God and people less fortunate than I am.

42 posted on 12/03/2003 10:35:03 PM PST by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
I'm gone for the night. The categorical index may have something on the APA's statement...
43 posted on 12/03/2003 10:35:07 PM PST by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: scripter
People who want to molest children don't need the APA to tell them it's okay. Do you think people read this stuff to see if they have the go ahead?

I believe you are responding to a paper presented my 1 pysch and disavowed by the organization. Now you are using it as a cause celebre.

If someone can show that it happened otherwise, I'll stand corrected.

44 posted on 12/03/2003 10:35:38 PM PST by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
You are missing the entire point. The courts are assuming authority that they don't have. And if we let them get away with it, they are going to keep doing it, and to a greater degree. If you want gay marriage, don't trample the constitution to get it, okay. I find it disturbing you so casually dismiss the Constitution and the rule of law.

Don't come crying to me when a court somewhere decides that someone has a RIGHT to your private property.

45 posted on 12/03/2003 10:47:04 PM PST by nickcarraway (www.terrisfight.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
"A Constitutional amendment protecting marriage - keeping the same meaning it has had throughout the history of this country - is not imposing moral biases."

It most certainly would be an imposition of a moral bias or belief on others. It would also be a further extension of federal powers. I am against that sort of amendment on more levels than I have time to go into.

We just aren't going to agree on this and I'm tired of arguing. It's past my bed time.

I will say this though. The slippery slope that scares me more than anything is the direction faux conservatives are leading us in. Be very careful when considering any further amendments to our Constitution. Think long and hard before getting behind any further limitations on freedom in this country and any further expansion of the powers of our ever expanding federal government. Like my daddy used to say, "be careful what you wish for 'cause you just might get it."

I realize that you could say the same to me, but the way I look at it is that I always try to err on the side of freedom unless the rights of others are substantially affected. I'd rather freedom be our undoing than anything else. People should be free to do whatever they want as long as they don't cause significant unjustifiable harm to others or create a substantial risk of causing significant and unjustifiable harm to others.
46 posted on 12/03/2003 11:13:05 PM PST by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
I don't know that the Massachusetts' court assumed authority they don't have. I didn't read the case and I've never read their Constitution. I cannot offer an opinion as to whether the decision was proper given the applicable caselaw, statutes and Constitutional provisions. My main beef in this thread is that I do not believe an amendment to our national Constitution is appropriate under the circumstances.

I for one appreciate the system of checks in balances under which laws promulgated by the legislative branch are subject to judicial review. It sounds to me like you are the one who is casually dismissing this important safeguard. It worries me that I see what appears to be a push to do away with the power of the judiciary to determine the constitutionality of laws, which would further concentrate power in the legislative and ultimately the executive branch of government, thus greatly increasing the likelihood of abuses by government against the people.

Our system may be messy at times, and even downright dysfunctional for extended periods, but so long as we maintain our system of checks and balances our system should be self correcting. Concentrate too much power in any one branch of government and we risk throwing the whole thing permanently out of whack.
47 posted on 12/03/2003 11:29:59 PM PST by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
Look.

Gays CAN marry each other in every state of the union RIGHT NOW.

Just as long as one of the gays is a woman and the other one is a man. This is perfectly fair and does not discriminate.

It just recognizes that marriage is something with historlcal and biological significance that can't just be waived out of existence by a 7 or 9 people in black robes.

And, make no mistake, the court in Massachussetts did not order the expansion of marriage to include gays, it rediffined marriage out of existence.
48 posted on 12/04/2003 12:39:38 AM PST by John Valentine ("The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
:

:

49 posted on 12/04/2003 2:00:32 AM PST by ppaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
I hope you had a good night's sleep! Maybe we aren't inthat much disagreement. I am not in wholesale favor of tweaking the Constitution any more than you are. But the meaning of the Constitution is being, for want of a more polite word, raped - and has been for two generations. Society is becoming a "everything that isn't forbidden is mandatory" type centrally managed overlordship, with states and counties fiefdoms for the select.

Add to that the forced "acceptance" and mandated "tolerance" of every single sexual deviancy the mind of man can think up, and the rejection of every ghostly vestige of religion, and totalitarianism of an unbenign type is upon our heads, with most of the population asleep in front of their cable TVs.

50 posted on 12/04/2003 7:57:03 AM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-145 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson