Posted on 02/17/2004 12:33:46 PM PST by You Dirty Rats
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:39:00 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
SAN FRANCISCO
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Oh, c'mon, you know exactly what would happen. Some "concerned citizens group" would go running to the nearest friendly judge and get an immediate emergency ex parte restraining order putting it to a halt, and rescinding any licenses that were issued.
Once they finish twisting this around to establish that it allows "marriage" for homosexuals, the next move will be to use it to revoke all concealed carry permits.
Think about it.
Aw, that's nuthin'.
I'm gonna use it as precedent, so that I can marry all of my cats and my dog, and get them under Blue Cross. These vet bills are killing our budget. This'll be just the ticket.
The analogy has nothing to do with genetics; it has everything to do with legal institutions. As recently as a few decades ago there were large numbers of people in this country who believed that miscegenation was immoral, disgusting, and against the will of God. To them, mixed-race marriages were not merely illegal. The very concept of a mixed-race marriage violated the fundamental meaning and historical definition of "marriage"; it was an oxymoron.
Those anti-miscegenists would have been quite comfortable with your formulation. It would have fit in perfectly with their worldview.
I don't think they really want to go there. Consider: They have found genetic conditions that make people tend toward various sociopathic behaviors (extra chromosome, etc.)
If "I was born this way" becomes justification for behaviors, then we've opened a pandora's box of monumental proportion. When the child molesters, rapists, and murderers can prove that they "were born that way" too, there's going to be a bit of a problem. Either their behaviors will have to be accepted as valid, or, the premise falls apart, and the homosexuals will find themselves bereft of their rationale for mandatory acceptance of their behavior.
Nice campaign footage for the RNC,and free to boot!!
You're dreaming if you think they'll ever use that footage. It would be... so... divisive!
Yeah, I'm serious. Wait and see for yourself if you think I'm wrong. It's not that long until November.
What is a miscegenist?
The GOP used Willie Horton, footage of perverted fags stampeding over each other to break the law and offend real Americans everywhere is a no brainer.
Guess which canidate and party will condemn the ads?
Actually, I think not.
For starters, alimony has been largely supplanted by "child" support, turned into alimony++. Unlike alimony, which is taxable income to the recipient, and deductible for the payer, "child" support remains taxable "income" for the payer, and is tax-free income for the recipient. And since the feministas managed to change the rules, so that instead of "child" support fees being based on actual costs involved in caring for the children, to a requirement to maintain the household at a certain standard of living (in Michigan, the poor schlub is required to maintain his ex's household at the standard to which the family aspired prior to the breakup), it's fat city for the recipients.
However, this is pretty much moot for homosexuals, because they are biologically incapable of reproduction, and in those rare cases where they manage to "pull it off" (to coin a phrase), the courts are apt to look as kindly upon them as they are now. In other words, when "Brent has Two Daddies", neither one of 'em will be The Evil Ex-Father, and thus, neither one of them will be beaten to a pulp by the vindictive court system.
Don't rely on any standards of law, common sense, or rational thought. We're through the looking glass. A whole new set of rules are in effect. They are a brutal affront to everything this country was built upon, but they've got the power, and they know it.
Can you say "fat chance"? Get used to it.
"A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked."
Once they finish twisting this around to establish that it allows "marriage" for homosexuals, the next move will be to use it to revoke all concealed carry permits. Think about it.
I suppose it could go either way: Revoke all CCWs, or require that CCWs be issued to everyone on equal terms. Of course the reality is that the courts are not likely to be consistent, even if they should be. Indeed, I tend to doubt that the California Supreme Court will interpret the state Constitution as permitting gay marriages, even though it's a plausible construction. We'll just have to wait and see.
As far as marriage goes, it would clearly be within the authority of Article I Section 7(b) for the Legislature to abolish civil marriage altogether. That would be my own preference. That way marriage could again become a purely religious sacrament, and people could separately enter into civil contracts of their own choosing to replace the one-size-fits-all civil marriage contract dictated by the state.
If government-defined marriages went away, along with all the special privileges (and liabilities, in the case of taxes) associated with them, the gay marriage issue would cease to be an issue. Some churches and religions would only sanctify heterosexual marriages, while others would permit homosexual marriages. If people chose to identify themselves as "married" they could do so without it having any legal implications.
Those anti-miscegenists would have been quite comfortable with your formulation. It would have fit in perfectly with their worldview.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, but in any event, your logic is flawed. It's like saying that because Ku Klux Klan members were against shoplifting, shoplifting is OK.
Or as Ewell Gibbons put it, when told by a socialite that she could never let herself eat Pigweed (delicious, by the way), because pigs enjoyed eating it, "madam, if you refuse to eat anything that pigs enjoy, you'll starve to death" (or words to that effect).
I suppose "those anti-miscegenists" were opposed to people marrying their children too. Shall we now legalize that, simply because "those anti-miscegenists" opposed it?
Exactly! I'm going to run for mayor of Raleigh over here, and, if I win, I'll tell everyone that I don't think we should have to pay any property or state income taxes. Think I'll have as much success as the S.F. mayor?
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.:
miscegenation
\Mis`ce*ge*na"tion\, n. [L. miscere to mix + the root of genus race.] A mixing of races; amalgamation, as by intermarriage of black and white.
The God of the Bible did not forbid mixed marriages. Check out the Pentateuch, and discover what the prophetess Miriam's most famous moment is. Also, read the Song of Solomon, with "the wise man" pitching woo constantly at "a black girl."
Racists who forbade cross-race marriages never had a Biblical leg to stand on in the first place. On the other hand, you can count the number of homosexual liaisons that were smiled upon by the Almighty on the fingers of a snake.
Nice try.
The GOP used Willie Horton, footage of perverted fags stampeding over each other to break the law and offend real Americans everywhere is a no brainer.
First off, it was a Democrat that first used the "Willie Horton Card" (a Gore operative, IIRC), yet, the Republicans took the heat, and continue to take the heat. You won't get a Republican to touch "Willie Horton" with a ten foot pole nowadays. They learned their lesson.
Guess which canidate and party will condemn the ads?
I'm guessing that if any ads are run vis-a-vis this travesty, they'll be run by Democrats, comprised of footage showing "angry white bigots", who are "objecting to equal rights for all Americans". Shouldn't be hard to round up a few seconds of ragged looking scruffniks holding up "vile placards", even if they need to place a call to Central Casting before loading up the cameras.
The GOP? Fuggedaboudit. They won't go near this hot potato.
But, let's not argue about it now. Let's just wait. It's only, what, nine months or so? We'll find out before too long.
Caveat: some "not sponsored by the republican party" individuals might -- on their own -- try to run an ad featuring footage of this freakshow -- that's if they can find a station willing to run "divisive, offensive, discriminatory, hate-filled" content.
If they do, the GOP will immediately respond to the predictable outrage by publicly distancing themselves from "those renegades".
Precisely. And which way do you think that card will fall? I don't think it's rocket science. They're constantly looking for ways to deny RKBA, and here's a perfect pretext.
Of course the reality is that the courts are not likely to be consistent, even if they should be. Indeed, I tend to doubt that the California Supreme Court will interpret the state Constitution as permitting gay marriages, even though it's a plausible construction. We'll just have to wait and see.
Most likely outcome IMO is for them to simply ignore it. They're not obligated to hear every case that comes their way, after all.
As far as marriage goes, it would clearly be within the authority of Article I Section 7(b) for the Legislature to abolish civil marriage altogether. That would be my own preference. That way marriage could again become a purely religious sacrament, and people could separately enter into civil contracts of their own choosing to replace the one-size-fits-all civil marriage contract dictated by the state.
If government-defined marriages went away, along with all the special privileges (and liabilities, in the case of taxes) associated with them, the gay marriage issue would cease to be an issue. Some churches and religions would only sanctify heterosexual marriages, while others would permit homosexual marriages. If people chose to identify themselves as "married" they could do so without it having any legal implications.
You're dreaming.
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.