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

Skip to comments.

How legalizing gay marriage undermines society's morals
The Christian Science Monitor ^ | December 09, 2003 | Alan Charles Raul

Posted on 12/08/2003 7:12:17 PM PST by Kay Soze

How legalizing gay marriage undermines society's morals

By Alan Charles Raul

WASHINGTON - The promotion of gay marriage is not the most devastating aspect of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's recent decision. The more destructive impact of the decision for society is the court's insidious denial of morality itself as a rational basis for legislation.

This observation is not hyperbole or a mere rhetorical characterization of the Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health decision. The Massachusetts justices actually quoted two opinions of the US Supreme Court (the recent anti-anti-sodomy ruling in Lawrence vs. Texas and an older anti-antiabortion ruling, Planned Parenthood vs. Casey) to support the proposition that the legislature may not "mandate (a) moral code" for society at large. The courts, it would seem, have read a fundamental political choice into the Constitution that is not apparent from the face of the document itself - that is, that individual desires must necessarily trump community interests whenever important issues are at stake.

These judicial pronouncements, therefore, constitute an appalling abnegation of popular sovereignty. In a republican form of government, which the Constitution guarantees for the United States, elected officials are meant to set social policy for the country. They do so by embodying their view of America's moral choices in law. (This is a particularly crucial manner for propagating morality in our republic because the Constitution rightly forbids the establishment of religion, the other major social vehicle for advancing morality across society.) In reality, legislatures discharge their moral mandates all the time, and not just in controversial areas such as abortion, gay rights, pornography, and the like.

Animal rights, protection of endangered species, many zoning laws, and a great deal of environmental protection - especially wilderness conservation - are based on moral imperatives (as well as related aesthetic preferences). Though utilitarian arguments can be offered to salvage these kinds of laws, those arguments in truth amount to mere rationalizations. The fact is that a majority of society wants its elected representatives to preserve, protect, and promote these values independent of traditional cost-benefit, "what have you done for me lately" kind of analysis. Indeed, some of these choices can and do infringe individual liberty considerably: For example, protecting spotted owl habitat over jobs puts a lot of loggers out of work and their families in extremis. Likewise, zoning restrictions can deprive individuals of their ability to use their property and live their lives as they might otherwise prefer. Frequently, the socially constrained individuals will sue the state, claiming that such legal restrictions "take" property or deprive them of "liberty" in violation of the Fifth Amendment, or constitute arbitrary and capricious governmental action. And while such plaintiffs sometimes do - and should - prevail in advancing their individual interests over those of the broader community, no one contends that the government does not have the legitimate power to promote the general welfare as popularly defined (subject, of course, to the specific constitutional rights of individuals and due regard for the protection of discrete and insular minorities bereft of meaningful political influence).

Even the much maligned tax code is a congeries of collective moral preferences. Favoring home ownership over renting has, to be sure, certain utilitarian justifications. But the fact is that we collectively believe that the country benefits from the moral strength growing out of families owning and investing in their own homes. Likewise, the tax deduction for charitable contributions is fundamentally grounded in the social desire to support good deeds. Our society, moreover, puts its money (and lives) where its heart is: We have gone to war on more than one occasion because it was the morally correct thing to do.

So courts that deny morality as a rational basis for legislation are not only undermining the moral fabric of society, they run directly counter to actual legislative practice in innumerable important areas of society. We must recognize that what the Massachusetts court has done is not preserve liberty but merely substitute its own moral code for that of the people. This damage is not merely inflicted on government, trampling as it does the so-called "separation of powers." It does much worse, for when judges erode the power of the people's representatives to set society's moral compass, they likewise undercut the authority of parents, schools, and other community groups to set the standards they would like to see their children and fellow citizens live by. Indeed, it is a frontal assault on community values writ large.

It is thus no wonder that many feel our culture's values are going to hell in a handbasket. Yet, neither the federal nor Massachusetts constitutions truly compel such a pernicious outcome. Indeed, to this day the Massachusetts Constitution precisely recognizes that "instructions in piety, religion and morality promote the happiness and prosperity of a people and the security of a republican government." It cannot be stated better than George Washington did in his first inaugural address: "The foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the pre-eminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens and command the respect of the world."

• Alan Charles Raul is a lawyer in Washington. This commentary originally appeared in The Washington Post. ©2003 The Washington Post.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: activistcourts; culturewar; gaymarriage; hedonists; homosexualagenda; homosexuality; homosexualvice; ifitfeelsgooddoit; libertines; marriage; marriagelaws; perversion; prisoners; reprobates; romans1; samesexmarriage; sexualfetish; sexualvice
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-452 next last
"The more destructive impact of the decision for society is the court's insidious denial of morality itself as a rational basis for legislation.'
1 posted on 12/08/2003 7:12:18 PM PST by Kay Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
Democrats and liberal activist judges are the only ones mandating a "moral code" on the rest of the population.
2 posted on 12/08/2003 7:24:05 PM PST by Holden Magroin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
I think these quotes are appropriate here:

(For expressing that morality and government do indeed have a connection.)

"It is impossible that a nation of infidels or idolaters should be a nation of free men. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom." --Patrick Henry



"No man is a good citizen unless he so acts as to show that he
actually uses the Ten Commandments, and translates the Golden
Rule into his life conduct." --Theodore Roosevelt



"If men will not be governed by the Ten Commandments, they shall be governed by the ten thousand commandments." --G. K. Chesterton


3 posted on 12/08/2003 7:40:18 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
morality itself as a rational basis for legislation.

That got us Prohibition, the War on Drugs,  blue laws,
and people who vote a country dry, then move.

I'll take the Constitutional guarantees of equal protection every time
over some needle-nosed moralizer's plan for how everyone else should
be living their lives.
4 posted on 12/08/2003 8:08:40 PM PST by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
I'll take the Constitutional guarantees of equal protection every time over some needle-nosed moralizer's plan for how everyone else should be living their lives.

Or to be brief, you support oligarchies using the federales to enforce your moral code on every nook and cranny of America.

5 posted on 12/08/2003 8:12:47 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
There is simply no such thing as "gay marriage".

Marriage is between a man and woman by definition.
I wouldn't say that legalizing gay marriage undermines society's moral, as much as it reflects the moral blindness and depravity of that society.

6 posted on 12/08/2003 8:20:51 PM PST by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
read later
7 posted on 12/08/2003 8:25:12 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Or to be brief, you support oligarchies using the federales to enforce your moral code on every nook and cranny of America.

Hmm.  Let's see.  I denounced laws based on someone's notion of morality.
I  believe in basing laws on preventing people from using force or fraud on other people rather than a codification of someone's religious myths.  And you see that as endorsing an authoritarian morality on every one?  That last batch of Kool-Aid must have been a doozy.
8 posted on 12/08/2003 8:26:29 PM PST by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Morality is the *only* basis of legislation.

morality asked for abolition of slaves, the ending of child labor, etc. moral codes are what animates the hypocrites on the mass supreme court.

Your own expressions are an expression of a moral code...
'equal protection' - what is the basis of that? why a *moral* belief that that is what is due an individual.

now, I dont mind you imposing your morality on me and the rest of us, but you're a hypocrite when you dont admit your imposing your morality and falsely claim its just the other people doing it. yup, as phoney as a 3 dollar Bill.

I kindly ask that if you oppose imposing morality on others, you obey your own code and quit doing it yourself.


9 posted on 12/08/2003 8:45:53 PM PST by WOSG (The only thing that will defeat us is defeatism itself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
" I denounced laws based on someone's notion of morality."

AND

"I believe in basing laws on preventing people from using force or fraud on other people"

ARE 100% DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED COMMENTS.

You denounce laws based on someone else's notions of morality, and support laws based on your notion of morality.

How narrow-minded!


" ...rather than a codification of someone's religious myths. "
ah, anti-religious sentiment is the motive force. And what is so bad about "thou shalt not bear false witness" anyway??
10 posted on 12/08/2003 8:49:56 PM PST by WOSG (The only thing that will defeat us is defeatism itself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
Your own expressions are an expression of a moral code...
'equal protection' - what is the basis of that? why a *moral* belief that that is what is due an individual.


Equal protection means every citizen gets the benefit of being an American.
Not just heterosexuals.  Discrimination based on sexuality is immoral.  That's
where your 'morality' leads.  I'll take the Constitution, you can have your
commandments.
11 posted on 12/08/2003 8:51:19 PM PST by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
"Discrimination based on sexuality is immoral. "

How do you know this is true? On what basis is this moral statement made?

I thought you were against imposing morality.

Why are you contradicting yourself and imposing it on others?

Btw, according to your comment it is immoral to discriminate against a priest for wanting to fondle 15 year old boy.
So such a priest shouldnt be fired, right?
12 posted on 12/08/2003 8:55:42 PM PST by WOSG (The only thing that will defeat us is defeatism itself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
Equal protection under the law. Someone with your proclaimed intellect shouldn't be foundering around like this. I said I'd take the Constitution's equal protection applying to all citizens as being 'moral.' Denying the benefits of legalized unions between adults based on their violation of religious dogma (commandment morality) violates constitutional 'morality.'
13 posted on 12/08/2003 9:00:03 PM PST by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Equal protection is only a process. It doesn't address very much about morality in all its dimensions.
14 posted on 12/08/2003 9:02:11 PM PST by gogipper (He was my commander-in-chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: gogipper
Equal protection is only a process. It doesn't address very much about morality in all its dimensions.

I can agree with that.  Whether the law is moral or not, we must be accorded equal treatment under it.  That what civil unions accomplish, without sending up the
lightning rod of religious marriage.
15 posted on 12/08/2003 9:08:00 PM PST by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
Another thing this is doing is getting a lot of people outraged that government is involved in marriages at all.

This serves as another attack on traditional families. All "family units" are equal. Living with biological mother and father, living with biological mother and wandering biological father (M.I.A.), living with biological mother who hates biological father and now shacks up with lesbian co-mother, living with biological mother who never sees "homosexual" biological father who provided sperm sample for turkey basting and lesbian co-mother, living with biological mother and half-brothers and half-sisters from assorted temporary biological fathers some of whom are M.I.A....

And some wonder why Jerry Springer draws such a large audience.

16 posted on 12/08/2003 9:10:35 PM PST by weegee (No blood for ratings! This means YOU AOL-Time-Warner-Turner-CNN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Cruse, equal protection demands that all are treated equally. Anybody can get married as long as you marry a member of the opposite sex. A homosexual man can marry a homosexual woman, that is not proscribed.

What you want is special rights for a group of people. Which is fine but it is not based in equal protection or the Constitution. Of course once you extend "marriage" to same sex homosexuals there is no rational basis for keeping any two or more people from entering into "marriage" be it platonically or sexually under your Constitutional interpretation.

You simply support Lawrence v Texas and Goodridge because it accords with your ideology, there is no basis in the US Constitution or the Mass Constitution for either opinion of those courts. But that won't stop you from using the Constitution as toilet paper as long as your moral code is serviced. You're position is the one taken by those who support an overly strong central government ruled by the elite few in robes.

The truth? You can't take the truth! The truth is Cruse, you're the statist. :-}

17 posted on 12/08/2003 9:13:12 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: scripter
ping
18 posted on 12/08/2003 9:15:50 PM PST by Kay Soze (How does the "W" fit in at a gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse; gogipper; WOSG; jwalsh07
I think we agree the Constitution requires us to apply the protection of the law equally. Equal protection is a process, not a moral code.

Does the Constitution require us to reject laws on the basis of their codifying religious beliefs? Of course not.

Does equal protection under the law require us to be blind to the fact that heterosexual coupling produces children? Of course not.

19 posted on 12/08/2003 9:16:59 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
"Cruse, equal protection demands that all are treated equally. Anybody can get married as long as you marry a member of the opposite sex."

You're still harping that beat-up old nonsensical bit of straw around?

People are supposed to marry the person they love, not the person you approve of.

20 posted on 12/08/2003 9:20:02 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
"Does equal protection under the law require us to be blind to the fact that heterosexual coupling produces children?"

I can walk out of my front door and knock on the doors of four heterosexual married couples who either can't or won't have children...I guess they shouldn't be allowed to marry?

21 posted on 12/08/2003 9:22:04 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Round and round and round on these threads.

You can keep ignoring that "homosexuals" as a classification are people who identify themselves based on a sexual fetish.

People who want to eat horse meat in America are prohibited from doing so by law (even though horse meat is processed for export for human consumption in America).

If the government cannot regulate what goes on in the bedroom (but can legislate how much water your toilet flows in your bathroom), why are there any age of consent laws?

We know that teens are having sex (and underage sex used to be prosecuted as statutory rape). We know that adults are having sex with teens below the age of consent and that states make exceptions in the law for "Romeo & Juliet" (and now "Romeo & Romeo") cases where the adult is within 4 years of the minor below age of consent.

Therefore the persons consenting to legal sex acts are not "consenting adults". And those who are both below age of consent are definitely not considered legally able to "consent". In rare cases (say a 14 year old and a 10 year old) it will be considered molestation or statutory rape but the difference in age (not "maturity") is no different than the exception made "later" in the underaged teens years.

These would still appear to be "morals" sex laws.

Either the government has jurisdiction there or it doesn't.

22 posted on 12/08/2003 9:22:07 PM PST by weegee (No blood for ratings! This means YOU AOL-Time-Warner-Turner-CNN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Blood related couples are prohibited from marrying because the offspring they produce could be prone to genetic defects.

Either the government can regulate marriage or it can't.

23 posted on 12/08/2003 9:23:37 PM PST by weegee (No blood for ratings! This means YOU AOL-Time-Warner-Turner-CNN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
I'm going to take a whole lot of crap from people here, but read this.
24 posted on 12/08/2003 9:24:03 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
People are supposed to marry the person they love, not the person you approve of.

Yeah I know, thats what the SJC of Mass said in their opinion and you're repeating of it verbatim confirms my informed opinion that neither you nor they have the power to redefine words by fiat.

But I believe you've shown yourself to be polyphobic here Luis by using the singular. Who are you to limit marriage to two people? Though I must admit your definition and the SJC's are magnanimous enough to allow a brother and sister, et al, to enter into a platonic marriage to access econoomic advvantages not currently available to them.

25 posted on 12/08/2003 9:25:40 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
You are the one foundering. You admitted that you:
"denounced laws based on someone's notion of morality."

You declared it wrong to legislate on the basis of morality, then
you declared your own moral statements as a basis for laws!

There is a word for this: HYPOCRISY.

physician, heal thyself! ... You need to understand your own logical contradiction to understand the reason the author of the posted article has an excellent point.

"I said I'd take the Constitution's equal protection applying to all citizens as being 'moral.'"

In the constitution, equal protection is given "under the law". To presume no distinctions in law are valid is bad 14th amendment reading and impossible law. the basis of the law is morality (again) and it by definition creates categories. A helmet law for motorcyclists doesnt discriminate against motorcyclists per se. likewise granting status to men and women who wish to marry does NOT discriminate against those who dont wish to join into those responsibilities. There are perfectly rational reasons to maintain the traditional family as a structure that is deserving of a greater amount of protection and consideration than other unions based on homosexual relations etc. thus there is not a whit of denial of equal protection in codifying the tradition definition of marriage ie between 1 man and 1 woman into law.

see the Goodrich dissent that totally skewered the phony grandstanding of the majority opinion on this. The Mass supreme court ruled CONTRARY to the direct words of the Mass constitution, Mass. law, and legal logic.

To use equal protection as a blanket bar is to claim that we have no right to stop incest polygamy or ANY set of relations. It's absurd. The majority ruling was bad law and bad logic.

" Denying the benefits of legalized unions between adults based on their violation of religious dogma (commandment morality) violates constitutional 'morality.'"

bad thinking again. Why is any morality an invalid basis of a law? There is NO SUCH CONSTITUTIONAL BAR. Again, morality is the 1 key ingredient to all laws. The only reason to oppose such a basis as presumptively invalid is anti-religious prejudice. That itself violates your own statement!

26 posted on 12/08/2003 9:25:47 PM PST by WOSG (The only thing that will defeat us is defeatism itself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: weegee
Your rights end where mine begin.

The right of blood relations to marry end when the rights of the unrealized issue of their union come into play.

By the way, a great number of States OK the marriage of blood relatives as long as there is an agreement, or no possibility, of any issue.
27 posted on 12/08/2003 9:26:24 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Why don't you quit your normal tactic of engaging in slippery slope arguments, and stick to the issue being discussed for once?
28 posted on 12/08/2003 9:27:48 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
"Yeah I know, thats what the SJC of Mass said in their opinion and you're repeating of it verbatim confirms my informed opinion that neither you nor they have the power to redefine words by fiat."

By the way, as usual, you countered by attacking the poster, and not addressing the actual issue.

29 posted on 12/08/2003 9:28:57 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Why don't you quit your normal tactic of engaging in slippery slope arguments, and stick to the issue being discussed for once?

Luis, it is impolite to answer a question with a question. But I understand your reticence to engage in debate here. You either have to extend marriage to all who are exercising their "transcendent liberty" or you have to draw lines and regulate.

I am clear where I draw the line, you evidently do not have the wherewithal to draw a line.

30 posted on 12/08/2003 9:31:12 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
By the way, as usual, you countered by attacking the poster, and not addressing the actual issue.

Small violin, tears streaming.

31 posted on 12/08/2003 9:32:22 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
What do you say to the argument that marriage was, at one time, between a man and a woman and another woman? That arrangement has legal and religous presednese.
32 posted on 12/08/2003 9:32:40 PM PST by Unassuaged
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
"Cruse, equal protection demands that all are treated equally. Anybody can get married as long as you marry a member of the opposite sex. A homosexual man can marry a homosexual woman, that is not proscribed."

Here's your principle applied to a different situation.

The State of Texas outlaws the performance and/or observance/participation of all Jewish religious rites in the State. The Texas legislature defends their ban by arguing that all citizens are aqually treated under the law, as Catholics, Episcopalians, Baptists, at al. are equally forbidden to perform and/or participate in Jewish religious rituals.

33 posted on 12/08/2003 9:33:36 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
"I think we agree the Constitution requires us to apply the protection of the law equally. Equal protection is a process, not a moral code."

Well said ... equal protection is a process, not a result.
You need to work forward from the process to the result.


"Does equal protection under the law require us to be blind to the fact that heterosexual coupling produces children? Of course not."

The gay activists would say 'yes'.

34 posted on 12/08/2003 9:34:57 PM PST by WOSG (The only thing that will defeat us is defeatism itself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
"You either have to extend marriage to all who are exercising their "transcendent liberty" or you have to draw lines and regulate."

Why would that be?

We are talking about one adult making the choice to marry another adult.

35 posted on 12/08/2003 9:35:35 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
The State of Texas outlaws the performance and/or observance/participation of all Jewish religious rites in the State. The Texas legislature defends their ban by arguing that all citizens are aqually treated under the law, as Catholics, Episcopalians, Baptists, at al. are equally forbidden to perform and/or participate in Jewish religious rituals.

You really should take a refresher in the Constitution, both the US Constitution and the Texas Constitution. Start at the 1A of the US COnstitution.

36 posted on 12/08/2003 9:35:47 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
You simply support Lawrence v Texas and Goodridge because it accords with your ideology, there is no basis in the US Constitution or the Mass Constitution for either opinion of those courts. But that won't stop you from using the Constitution as toilet paper as long as your moral code is serviced. You're position is the one taken by those who support an overly strong central government ruled by the elite few in robes.

Ah,yes... file this under: The Ends do no justify the Means!

37 posted on 12/08/2003 9:36:10 PM PST by WOSG (The only thing that will defeat us is defeatism itself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
"The State of Texas outlaws the performance and/or observance/participation of all Jewish religious rites in the State."

No it doesnt ... put down the crack pipe.

38 posted on 12/08/2003 9:37:30 PM PST by WOSG (The only thing that will defeat us is defeatism itself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
We are talking about one adult making the choice to marry another adult.

More polyphobia. I think you are a repressed polysexual who is acting out against polysexuals.

Recognise that argument? :-}

39 posted on 12/08/2003 9:38:03 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
"I am clear where I draw the line, you evidently do not have the wherewithal to draw a line."

The only thing you lack however, is the chalk to draw that line with.

The US Constitution guarantees that even those who you would leave on the other side of your "line" get a voice.

The mistake lies in the very fact that there is government involvement in marriage to start.

40 posted on 12/08/2003 9:38:45 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
ah, a hypothetical ... never mind previous comment. ... the analogy doesnt compute.

pedophiles and non-pedophiles are equally told not to molest children. Equal protection problem against pedophiles?

(oy vey, I shouldnt ask!)
41 posted on 12/08/2003 9:40:38 PM PST by WOSG (The only thing that will defeat us is defeatism itself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: WOSG; gogipper
Well said ... equal protection is a process

It was gogipper who made that point.

42 posted on 12/08/2003 9:41:17 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
The only thing you lack however, is the chalk to draw that line with.

Honest debate requires honesty Luis.

Let's try again.

Would your redefinition of the word marriage include whatever individuals wanted it to include or would you limit it to couples, be they heterosexual or homosexual?

Jump in Luis, the morality is fine.

43 posted on 12/08/2003 9:41:18 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
"More polyphobia. I think you are a repressed polysexual who is acting out against polysexuals."

I guess I should point out the obvious to you.

I have Biblical precedent to argue in favor of polygamy.

Now, you cite the Constitutional passage that grants the Federal government the power to deny Mormons the right to engage in polygamy.

44 posted on 12/08/2003 9:41:47 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
The US Constitution guarantees that even those who you would leave on the other side of your "line" get a voice."

Indeed, and nobody is proposing denying anyone the vote, here.


"The mistake lies in the very fact that there is government involvement in marriage to start."

oy vey - WE HAD TO DESTROY THIS VILLAGE IN ORDER TO SAVE IT.

45 posted on 12/08/2003 9:43:25 PM PST by WOSG (The only thing that will defeat us is defeatism itself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: weegee
while we're at it can we dump those hore meat prohibitions.
46 posted on 12/08/2003 9:43:57 PM PST by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
"Would your redefinition of the word marriage include whatever individuals wanted it to include or would you limit it to couples."

I guess the reason I don't answer that question is that I don't suffer from a runaway case of megalomania which leads me to believe that I get to make those sorts of decisions.

47 posted on 12/08/2003 9:44:03 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
There is a vast difference between Holy Matrimony, and marriage.

If you need, I can explain it to you.
48 posted on 12/08/2003 9:44:54 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
I have Biblical precedent to argue in favor of polygamy.

Then argue for individual "transcendent liberty" for all. Take a position, any position.

Now, you cite the Constitutional passage that grants the Federal government the power to deny Mormons the right to engage in polygamy.

You're confused Luis, I believe in a republican form of government for all the states as the Constitution requires. You are the fellow arguing in favor of judicial fiat from a central authority. Try to keep the scorecard straight.

49 posted on 12/08/2003 9:45:28 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
I guess the reason I don't answer that question is that I don't suffer from a runaway case of megalomania which leads me to believe that I get to make those sorts of decisions.

LOL, ah this is rich, Luis Gonzales is bereft of an opinion on FR because it doesn't become the law of the land.

50 posted on 12/08/2003 9:46:54 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-452 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