YEAH BABY!!! YEAH!!!
Posted on 01/28/2006 12:51:09 PM PST by wagglebee
The raging debate over homosexual marriage took another interesting turn this week when Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock struck down Maryland's state law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The decision, handed down Jan. 20, claimed that Family Law §2-201 unfairly abridged the fundamental marriage rights of the nine homosexual couples who filed the lawsuit.
Judge Murdock was not satisfied with merely striking down the state statute, however. In her written opinion, the circuit court judge went several steps further by claiming that the prohibition of same-sex marriage in no way "rationally relates to a legitimate state interest." Murdock also dismissed the notion that same-sex marriage has any negative influence on traditional marriages or the nuclear family, or that "tradition and social values alone" can bolster what she deemed a "discriminatory statutory classification."
Regrettably, such rationale neglects one of the most critical elements in the emotionally charged debate over same-sex marriage and homosexual behavior in general – public health. As witnessed by Judge Murdock's decision, the issue of health is often turned aside in favor of arguments that hinge more on politics than fact. The problem with such a trend is obvious – the health ramifications of homosexual behavior should be at the forefront of the public policy debate, not on the periphery.
That is the principle reason conservatives should concentrate on both the cultural consequences of homosexual behavior and the public health ramifications. Such an argument will be a winner every time, especially when the facts are clearly presented.
For those who doubt, consider the evidence:
These findings are not those of conservative pro-family advocacy groups, but of non-partisan, non-political medical journals and organizations devoted to protecting public health. What conclusion can logically be reached other than that homosexual behavior is both hazardous to the public at large and often deadly to those who practice it?
For those who promote homosexual behavior in the name of love and tolerance, it's time to take a hard look at the facts surrounding the lifestyle. If someone is suffering from terminal cancer, is hiding the diagnosis and potential treatments of the disease the loving thing to do? Homosexuality is a cancer that affects every area of life – from the psychological to the spiritual – yet the medical facts are commonly swept under the carpet by politically motivated medical organizations and liberalism as a whole.
Those both inside and outside government ranks who truly value human beings created in the image of God will recognize the importance of being candid about the deadly health risks associated with homosexual behavior. Unlike modern interpretations of tolerance, true agape love has the ultimate physical, psychological and spiritual well-being of the individual at heart.
The good news is change is possible, but it starts with honesty. Homosexuality is not a benign lifestyle preference, but a death-sentence made possible by government neglect of public health concerns. Tragically, Judge Murdock's ruling is another despicable example of a jurisprudence that is eroding the public welfare in the name of tolerance.
Too bad the demoncRAT governor and the demoncRAT-run WA State Legislature doesn't believe this. They just passed the bill giving queers special rights.
Gays get special rights; smokers get no rights.
HA Ping.
bump
Absolutely. WA is an upside down state.
Yeh...liberals and gays have ruined the beautiful Emerald City. Throw in the fake illegitimate Gov. 'Fraudoire' and her little blinded minions and the table is set....their little utopia will come crashing down someday from being built on shifting sands.
Shudder! Yet, as long as they quit smoking and go on a diet they can work at Scott's Miracle-Gro. Since these companies are banning bad behavior they should go after this gay stuff, too.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1563554/posts
FReepmail if you want on/off the ping list.
The good news is change is possible, but it starts with honesty. Homosexuality is not a benign lifestyle preference, but a death-sentence made possible by government neglect of public health concerns. Tragically, Judge Murdock's ruling is another despicable example of a jurisprudence that is eroding the public welfare in the name of tolerance.
The bad news -there is no cure and or immunization in sight. The pharmaceutical companies seem focused on longevity rather than cure and as such the carriers of the disease can in essence spread it around more
The honesty required is that society treat HIV/AIDS like it would any other killer disease rather than grant the killer safe passage under poltically correct cover...
Rather than teach the public how to 'safely' play Russian roulette the people need to be told the reality -how stupid it is to even pick up the gun... e.g. there is no such thing as safe anal sex
No it won't. Supporters of same sex marriage would argue, incorrectly, that marriage would reduce the level of promiscuity among homosexuals by making them more a part of normal society. The reason to argue against gay marriage isn't because homosexual acts are unsafe, it is because marriage is about a man and woman. Anything else is not a marriage and should not be legitimized by the state.
And they want to call those opposed to homosexuality the ones with the "disorder?"
Yes, please pass me your bucket.
Are you allowed to "opt out" and find coverage on your own?
It might be worth looking into, and cheaper than being in with a group with high risk to disease.
A fictitious partner to gain financial gain is created by a Government directive and in the long run loses revenue for the government and loses revenue for the population for it is inherent in creating a political skimming of finances.
Political motivation is the only gainful scenario by such a penalty.
The stench from the bench is making me clench. -- M. Savage
This judge is obviously as mentally ill as the people she ruled in favor of.
Well stated Casloy.
I notice that the author avoided the word "gay" when referring to homosexuals. I like the choice of words.
I also wonder about the choice of words when we hear about infected homosexuals described as AIDS "victims". Not meaning to be disrespectful; however, aren't homosxuals actually AIDS volunteers?
.
The group coverage is just slightly better than jumping ship. I have very few choices in southeast Idaho. It would be a a "no brainer" if I was still in the San Diego area. My limited choice just happens to be the one whacked by adding "domestic partners".
It makes me sick just reading about this $#!t.
YEAH BABY!!! YEAH!!!
What a shame, and a cruel imposition. So many people, who've said that "gay marriage" (or "domestic partnership", as in your case) wouldn't effect them, didn't think of their pocket book when they pay their insurance premiums.
Are they going to be in a rude awakening soon, as if our health insurance premiums weren't already obnoxious enough.
Good luck to you.
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.