Posted on 03/04/2004 7:35:53 AM PST by rface
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:11:45 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I UNDERSTAND the compulsion to "energize the base," but couldn't Republicans have found something a little less toxic than this brew of Gaytorade?
When President Bush came out in favor of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, he was stirring up a cocktail to keep the cultural warriors in the party. It's assumed that this elixir will give them a sugar high all the way to the election.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Hey, Ellen .. Mark Steyn you ain't.
This issue is devastating to Dems and they know it.
We didn't choose this issue. It was thrust upon us, and you Dems will have to live with the consequences of the behavior of your radical fringe.
Not yet. By 2025 the homonazis will decide that they are still being stigmatized as a minority. The Mass. supreme court will decide that all boys between 12 and 16 must act as "love receptacles" for adult males. "Our democracy is based on ancient Greek principles, and pederasty was one of them. Everyone should give buggery a fair chance."
I've visited friends in hospital. I didn't realize I was married to them.
An unmarried homosexual has more rights to marry then I do. He can marry any woman who'll have him (it worked for Cole Porter), while I would be arrested for bigamy. Why should the government prevent two people who love each other from getting married, just because they're married to other people.
Beastiality is not the discussion - marriage is
we have to start somewhere - and then escalate
I dunno, but this line of reasoning appears quite specious to me. Ms. Goodman is espousing the "individual rights" argument, alleging that gay men and women are somehow being deprived of their constitutional rights. But this is a total canard.
First of all, the Constitution does not confer rights, it secures them where they already exist. And as far as, say, Thomas Jefferson was concerned (if we want to take the DoI seriously), rights are endued in humans by their Creator; they are not, nor can they be, grants of the state, national or otherwise.
Moreover, gays cannot show that they are being deprived of the right to marry, within the traditional definition of that term. They just choose not to do so.
What is the traditional definition of marriage? William Bennett, on the O'Reilly show last night, had the pithiest definition I have ever come across. He said the purpose of marriage was "to civilize men, protect women, and raise children." Indeed, this is marriage's natural purpose, having been established over some 40-plus millennia ago, and a common feature of human existential experience in all cultures, all places, and all times ever since. It goes without saying that marriage has had enormous "fitness" (survival) value for the human species over time, and continues to be the bedrock social institution of a civilized society.
Here we have a situation when roughly 5% of the American population -- that part of it self-described solely according to preferred sexual practices that have never been regarded anywhere as "natural" -- is agitating on the basis that the other 95% is depriving them of their individuals rights. Yet no one is telling gays how to live their lives, or what they may or may not choose to do in their private lives.
Marriage is a public institution in a way that homosexual relations are not. For homosexual liaisons (of whatever duration) are mainly about sexual gratification, erotic experience; they are not concerned with the public purposes that marriage serves: civilizing men, protecting women, raising children.
Personally, one wonders why gay folks want to get "married," really. Civil unions would give them equal benefits with married folk; but this is somehow not good enough: They must have the term itself.
And so one asks: Why? The more radical activists hate marriage because they believe it is a "sexist institution." For such people, that's quite sufficient reason -- all by itself -- to mow marriage down. For it offends one by its "sexism."
And so society is to be stood on its head, just to gratify the narcissism and aestheticism of a tiny minority of the population who have zero sympathy for families, the demands of child-rearing, or respect for the requirements of our rule of law. And the means to do this is to execute an end-run around the Will of the People, expressed through duly-constituted legislatures, and head straight to confused public officials and (ultimately) activist judges for "judge-made law."
This hardly looks to me like a case of tyranny against a minority being perpretrated by the majority. It would be much more accurate to say this is the case of a minority tyrannizing the majority. And it is judges and justices acting outside the scope of their constitutional authority which makes all this possible.
As we saw in the case of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's one-judge majority, ordering the state General Court to accommodate gay marriage in the Commonwealth -- after the Will of the People had already been expressed in a constitutional referendum. The people of the Commonwealth by a huge majority clearly said "NO." One judge said "YES"; and that's all that was needed to trump the will and wishes of society.
This sort of thing is practically the textbook definition of tyranny.
Weasel-worded Kerry is trying (as usual) to have it both ways. He's not in favor of a federal constitution amendment to protect marriage, but he IS up for Massachusetts attempting to pass an amendment to our state constitution. But this is so deceitful of him -- for well he knows that, absent a federal amendment, it's only a matter of time before the Article IV "Full Faith and Credit Clause" ends up getting litigated -- and thus the issue finds itself back in the hands of judges. (Kerry is such a hypocrit I could spit.)
Personally, I am chagrined that the issue of a federal constitutional amendment has even come up. I hate the idea of being driven to such measures by the progressive left which hates America and most Americans. But the fact is, a federal amendment is the only thing that can keep the "Full Faith and Credit" issue from rearing its head at some not far-off time....
Thanks for the post, rface!
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.