Posted on 11/11/2004 5:46:09 PM PST by SJackson
WARREN THROCKMORTON, Ph.D.
Seven out of 10 voters in 13 states have rejected same sex marriage in 2004. Every state that has put the issue before voters has added a prohibition on same sex marriage to the state constitution. What can we expect now from advocates of same sex unions?
Following the 2004 election pundits immediately seized upon exit polling showing record turnouts among rural voters and evangelicals. Clearly social issues mattered to people and the one issue that seemed to galvanize these voters most was marriage. Specifically, people in eleven states on November 2, in addition to Missouri and Louisiana in the past several months, were able to opine with votes about the wisdom of banning gay marriage via their state constitutions.
Overwhelmingly, voters felt such bans a wise move. But what about those who have championed gay marriage?
Expect them to head to the courts. And judging from the immediate reaction of gay political groups, the courts will be busier than ever.
The appeal to the courts will be framed in terms of civil rights denied by the majority. Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said in a press release, "The results underscore why we have a Bill of Rights — because it is always wrong to put basic rights up to a popular vote. In fact, even today, 213 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified, it is doubtful Americans could win our freedoms of speech, press and religion at the ballot box." In other words, if most people will not vote to redefine marriage, we will file lawsuits until we win.
This strategy may well produce considerable chaos over the near term. Already, the Louisiana vote has met judicial challenge. Most if not all of the states recently amending their constitutions to make marriage a solely man-woman event will face court challenges. Some may be decided in favor of the gay marriage advocates and some in the direction of the will of the people.
Most readers know where this is all heading. It looks increasingly clear that the matter will not be finally adjudicated until we reach the Supreme Court. Handicapping this issue is difficult at best. Conventional wisdom is that President Bush may have the opportunity to appoint justices who may be less disposed to viewing same sex marriage as a "basic right." As the elder George Bush appointee Justice David Souter demonstrates, however, not all conservative appointments render conservative jurisprudence.
If the Supreme Court sides with the states on this matter, it may take a while but I suspect all states will eventually amend their constitutions to reflect traditional values. However, if the Supreme Court finds a basic right for gay marriage in the constitution, then where will that leave the states and the voters who find traditional marriage to resonate best with their understanding of basic rights?
While the road would be long and circuitous, it may eventually lead back to the voter. A federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman will likely take on urgency at that point. If the Congress passes a federal amendment, then three-fourths of state legislatures must also ratify the amendment for it to become part of the constitution. While not a complete full circle, this issue then comes back to the states where voters can express their preferences up close and personal to their state legislators. Given the current lopsided victories for traditional marriage, one does not need to be politically savvy to speculate that politicians, beholden to voters as they are, will be inclined to vote the will of the people.
What then will be the strategy of gay political groups?
As noted, the courts will be tied up with this matter in the near term. And in the court of popular opinion, we can expect a prolonged media effort and much rhetoric from such groups and a sympathetic press about the crux of the issue being one of civil rights for the class of people known as homosexual. More emphasis than ever will be focused on studies that purport to demonstrate a genetic determination for sexual attraction, thus leading to claims of discrimination directed at this group.
Expect protracted legal, media and legislative battles. A generation of children will grow up with this issue. When it`s all over, if traditional marriage finally prevails, I expect we will look back and say the election of 2004 was a turning point in the effort to maintain marriage as a union of one man and one woman.
Warren Throckmorton, a new contributor to The Jewish Press, is director of college counseling and an associate professor of psychology at Grove City College. His research "Initial Empirical and Clinical Findings Concerning the Change Process for Ex-Gays" was published in the June 2002 issue of the American Psychological Association`s publication Professional Psychology: Research and Practice.
Ping.
This is encouraging. While I am disappointed that the majority of Jewish groups endorse gay marriage, I find hope in the small (15%) that don't.
I'm not aware of any Jewish groups that "endorse" gay marriage.
I only wish that a question had been put forth, in the booth, in regard to abortion, because I believe that the same statistics would have resulted, in that, the people are ardently against abortion, and would prefer that an amendment ban government involvement in abortion, leaving mother and father and baby in God's hands, or better written words to that effect.
The Constitution grants federal judges a job for life...and furthermore, their pay cannot be diminished during their term. The Constitution does not say that they must get raises in pay, however.
I don't think the question's been properly framed yet, the left has won that battle so far. I'd agree that most people would be against abortion, but lot's of the same people would be for "choice". There's lots of work to be done there yer.
But I think anything we succeed in doing to limit the powers of the judiciary could well come back and bite us. The judiciary may one day be the only thing between us and tyranny. The real remedy for bad judges is to make sure to elect a President and a Senate that will appoint and approve decent, principled judges and justices who will interpret the law instead of making it -- that's the constitutional check on the power of the judiciary. This month's election was a good start.
"As the elder George Bush appointee Justice David Souter demonstrates, however, not all conservative appointments render conservative jurisprudence."
True, but when David Souter was appointed, the Senate had a 58 to 42 Democrat majority and conservatives were spooked by the 1987 smear campaign against Robert Bork. So Bush the elder had to find a nominee who could win substantial support from liberal Senators. I agree that Souter is a dissapointment, but the President had no good options back then. Now, the Senate is 55 to 45 Republican, and the last Senate 'Rat leader was defeated in part due to his obstructionism.
BTTT
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
A summary of the "gay" marriage situation as it stands now, and where the homo-promoters will likely take it.
Duh. To the Nazgul.*
Two of the most important things tactics, if you will, needed to protect traditional (i.e. REAL) morality, are these:
1. Take your kids OUT - O.U.T. - of public schools, unless you are one of the tiny minority who has a good school somewhere that is untouched by GLSEN and liberal teachers. And if you think your school is safe from hedonist/homosexual promotion, double check, okay?
Help your grown kids get your grandchildren out of public schools. Encourage relatives, friends, neighbors and fellow congregants to save their kids from the indoctrination camps otherwise known as public screwels.
2. SPEAK UP! SPEAK OUT! Don't lose heart, don't lose courage. By a huge majority, Americans do not approve of two men or two women "marrying" each other, nor most of the "gay" agenda. We've just been too darn tolerant for our own good.
Time to get INtolerant for a change. And the more you're outspoken, you'll be amazed how people will furtively agree with you. Your courage will give them courage. And the people who will dislike you? Don't worry about them. Better to speak the truth than K.A. so people will "like" you.
Let me and Scripter know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
*I'm not saying they're all Nazgul. If the hood fits, they can wear it.
The buzz in DC was that he "grew" after coming to Washington, viz., he was traduced through social interaction, much of it orchestrated by the late Pamela Harriman at her famous parties.
She gave Souter a social life, he gave the Democrats a Supreme Court vote in gratitude.
He didn't succeed in that particular showdown, but in the longer run it worked. Justice Owen Roberts swung over to FDR's side -- it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Roberts wanted to be Chief Justice -- and gave him some important victories thereafter, including the Supreme Court majority that upheld the constitutionality of the Social Security system. And on that one Supreme Court vote were built 60 years of Democratic domination of the American agenda, that has only in the last 10 years, since the Contract with America, begun significantly to recede.
The left wing lunatics with the exception of elections in the Blue cities can't win elections.
So they are doing two things.
1. Their thousands of gay advocates who are pseudo journalists will be pouring out thousands of articles each month pushing gay marriage, bashing GW and of course we the Republican voters.
2. Then like with abortion and so many of their mandates against normal human beings, they will work behind closed doors with their perverted judges, member of the ACLU and the National Lawyers Guild to push the gay marriage agenda.
America spoke on November 2,2004. We can't stop now Grandpa Dave. The courts as I'm sure you know are the third in line in the Constitution. Since WW2 the left wing lunatics (cultural marxists) have been eroding America from the inside out. We have to keep supporting President Bush and America. God Bless our people in uniform for everything they do for us. God Bless America. Grandpa Dave I know you know this, I just want you to know I'm in there with you.
Thanks Joe. We won an important battle, and now we have to keep battling the mediots who as you pointed out, have been eroding America since WW2.
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.