Posted on 07/06/2006 5:49:43 PM PDT by Sunsong
The New York and Georgia state high courts have both refused to find a right to gay marriage under their state constitutions. (The New York opinion is available online here.)
I favor gay marriage, though I do think as a practical matter that it's probably better to achieve this goal through the political process than by judicial action....
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Gay "marriage" will make more lawyers wealthier, because along with gay "marriage" will be gay divorces.
"I favor gay marriage, though I do think as a practical matter that it's probably better to achieve this goal through the political process than by judicial action...."
Guess he'd rather not have it rammed down his throat like a .... Well, never mind!
Shock! A liberal against the judiciary acting as a legislature.
(The Palestinian terrorist regime is the crisis and Israel's fist is the answer.)
Well said! And I really don't understand those who want to leave the concept of "marraige" in the hands of politicians, period. It's flat-out, none of their business -- and they are attempting define something that many if not most of them aren't even good at (Teddy Kennedy? Hillary Clinton?). Politicians don't belong in our adult bedrooms, telling us what is or isn't OK, nor should they have the right to tell us who we should choose as a lifetime partner -- or even that we have to accept "gay marriage" if politicans choose to OK it. Defining "marraige" is the job of priests, ministers and rabbis -- not politicians. Here is where there truly should be "a seperation of Church and State" -- and in fact, there really isn't. The only thing that we, as citizens, owe the State and they owe us, is recognition of a "legal partnership" and equal obligation of the partners to care for any offspring. That's it. Otherwise, they should mind their own business! I am a Christian. I am not gay. It is simply a matter of principle -- the principle of freedom!
What Free Republic is all about:
Statement by the founder of Free Republic
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization. We pay all applicable taxes on our income. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. We sell no merchandise, product or service, and we offer no subscriptions or paid memberships. We accept no paid advertising or promotions. We are funded solely by donations (non tax deductible gifts) from our readers and participants.
We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.
Don't know about sunsong's previous post history, but it's hard to see that just by posting an article here by Glenn Reynolds, of all people, as a topic for discussion that anybody's promoting special privileges for homosexuals. You're not trying to say that we are restricted from debating this at all are you? I'll put up my straight, Christian conservative credentials (as I'm sure, from reading her post, that Bokababe could too) against anybody else's on FR, but there's lots of room for rational dispute about the proper extent of any government's role in the institution of marriage. It'd be a real shame if FR became a place where knee-jerk preaching to the choir is all that's allowed anymore. (Beliefs that are never allowed to be challenged aren't really beliefs are they?)
Sounds like we're on the same page but we both forgot something; to the list of priests, ministers, and rabbis being the ones who should have the ultimate say over the definition of marriage, we forgot the most important people: our MOMS & DADS! They are the ones who ultimately should have the final say, after inculcating us with their values & not, thank heavens, those of our politicians) whether or not their kids are "married", regardless of whatever type of legal contract they've got sitting in their top desk drawer!
"I really don't understand those who want to leave the concept of "marraige" in the hands of politicians, period. "
Uh, then you dont understand marriage, period.
Short answer: It's a *legal* definition of a sacred institution protecting real *families*.
Think of it as the legal underpinnings of western civilization and you wouldnt be too far off.
(Too late to explain.)
LOL -- and you're right.
Gay divorces...lol.
Well, I have been happily married for quite a while now, so I think that I have some clue.
"Short answer: It's a *legal* definition of a sacred institution protecting real *families*."
The legality of marriage is not what makes marriage "sacred", nor is the legality what makes "a real family" sacred. The sanctity of marriage and family requires more than a simple legal document to render it so. The legality of marriage just makes it "legal", period -- and this is not irrelevant, but it isn't everything either. In fact, the legality of marriage is rarely even an issue to a member of a couple, until or unless there is a divorce or death of a spouse. Beyond that, it is the active participation in the emotional and spiritual responsibilities of marriage that has the most day-to-day relevance to a couple succeeding as and remaining "a family".
"Think of it as the legal underpinnings of western civilization and you wouldnt be too far off."
Actually, I would agree that "marriage" is one of the most important "underpinnings of Western Civilization" -- but that has been eroding for quite a long time now, independent of it definition as a legal institution.
What I am suggesting is more a "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". We elect politicians to produces laws, not render things "sacred" or not. Yes, there needs to be a legal container for a personal partnership, but it is simply that -- a legality. Leave its sanctity to those involved and not to politicians.
Otherwise, you may get what you didn't bargain for -- rendering the concept of marriage to include homosexual couples and who knows what else, defiling its true sanctity and further eroding what has indeed been a fundamental pillar of Western Civilization.
I think that Instapundit (Glen Reynolds) is right. Some form of gay marriage – whether civil unions or domestic partnerships or something else will happen. Maybe it will will 20 years from now. Maybe it will only be ten. Maybe it will be less. The Connecticut legislature has already passed legislation. The NY legislature may approve of something. People like yourself who try to control the debate and retreat into the past – won’t know what happened or how it happened if you continue to cover your eyes and ears and only receive information that you agree with.
Well said, Leilani!
I am beginning to think that there is big difference between a "Constitutional Conservative" and a "Social Conservative".
Constitutional Conservatives debate the issue from the standpoint of protecting the freedoms of choice that our Founding Fathers gave us and limiting the government's right to interject themselves into our personal lives, even when we actually don't approve of some of the individual choices that these freedoms allow.
Social Conservatives debate the issue from the standpoint of getting the government to do what they want them to do, as long as it limits freedoms in a way that they choose it to and not in ways they choose it not to -- with little consideration for how to accomplish this without dimishing the freedoms that both God and our Founding Fathers intended us to have.
I am a Constitutional Conservative, as I believe that you are. Perhaps that, at times, makes us "further Right" than many here on certain issues and at other times, makes us sound "further Left". That is a matter of perception based on the issue and on which kind of Conservative the reader is.
And I also agree that there is a big difference between "granting special privelidges to homosexuals" vs. recognizing that "they have basic rights as taxpaying citizens" just like the rest of us, and what they do in their bedroom is none of our business -- because if the government can make their behavior its business, then they can make our private behavior its business, too.
If all of us here agreed on everything, then there would be no "debate" -- we'd just be a mutual admiration society in this little corner of the cyber-space that wouldn't mean a rat's ass. But the point here is to debate issues of importance to our country and society -- and I fail to see how just trashing homosexuals on the board -- which is what happens most of the time that something like this is posted -- accomplishes that. If we have nothing more to do than that, then we are no better than a bunch of schoolchildren hurling taunts across the playground! And that isn't "conservatism" of any kind -- it's immaturity!
Some will try to paint this as a liberal or religious issue. I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please, as long as they don’t hurt anyone else in the process. No one has ever shown me how being gay or lesbian harms anyone else. Even the 1992 Republican platform affirms the principle that “bigotry has no place in our society.”
I am proud that the Republican Party has always stood for individual rights and liberties. The positive role of limited government has always been the defense of these fundamental principles. Our party has led the way in the fight for freedom and a free market economy, a society where competition and the Constitution matter—and sexual orientation shouldn’t.
Now some in our ranks want to extinguish this torch. The radical right has nearly ruined our party. Its members do not care enough about the Constitution, and they are the ones making all the noise. The party faithful must not let it happen. Anybody who cares about real moral values understands that this isn’t about granting special rights—it’s about protecting basic rights....."
A quote from a "Liberal"? No, think again! these were the words of BARRY GOLDWATER!!!
"What I am suggesting is more a "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". "
Marriage has been defined as a legal institution since the time of Caesar, in Western civilization as between one man and one woman. We can at least render some thanks that the Justinian Law of 500AD and every law since then defined marriage clearly in the West as one man and one woman.
The sanctity of marriage and family says something about its inherent goodness, but getting politicians involved is not about sanctifying anything, but about according it *legal protection*, which it needs to thrive. This is no different from saying that since religion is important, that we need a "freedom to worship" and tax exemption for churchs.
Only a fool would insist that a legal tax exemption 'sanctifies' a church!
It is sophistry, used often by those intending to weaken marriage's protections, to suggest that since something other than legality 'sanctifies' marriage, that therefore the legal underpinnings of marriage are unimportant.
That is a very wrong, very un-conservative or even anti-conservative argument to make, that thoroughly miscomprehends the role of law in this case. It's not an imposition of the law, its a matter of protection of something already understood as sacred in our culture. As we all know, legal structures undergird our public morality and incentivize our behavior. Read up on Edmund Burke and his 'little platoons' and the concept of Government as covenant between different generations.
Or in sociological behaviorist terms: Make marriage less palatable and less protected, and non-marriage thrives; allow polygamy/gay-unions as marriage, and culture decays; make divorce easier, and families get broken more. We see it already, as 'partners' get goodies once reserved for spouses, where the cultural inhibitions on sex, child-rearing, even family formation outside of marriage have fallen. etc. The negative consequences of the breakdown of family are too obvious and too legion not to notice.
"We elect politicians to produces laws, not render things "sacred" or not." Correct, and the most important laws they can pass or not pass are those that protect or not protect the vessels of our civilization. The people making the laws are like the curators at a great museum, and we entrust our important institutions to their temporary care to make sure the valuables of civilization not get stolen or damaged.
A definition of marriage in our laws is like repainting the Sistine Chapel ... in tangerine color.
You want to know the REAL meaning of Marriage, try going through a Divorce.
The issue is homosexual sex -those that feel rights should be afforded others based upon their feelings or actual choice to engage in homosexual activity versus those that consider such thinking absurd. Regardless the window dressing you wish to hoist upon the issue -that is the issue...
I will cool my jets when you cease posting leftist propaganda and leftist promotion of homosexual sex premised "rights"...
They already had "gay marriage". It was called Civil Unions. The only reason they want to get "married" is to force priests/preachers/etc to marry, or lose their tax exempt status. Its a bit analogous to when Satan tried to force God's hand (in keeping his Son from the cross) and forcing Him to "start over" in Eden.
Because the State has to arbitrate disputes regarding the rearing of children, and the natural institution for the care and nurture of children is the family that is headed by a man and woman committed to each other for life.
So the regulation of natural marriage is the business of the State.
What in the world are you talking about? Who is *they*? Who has civil unions and where (in what states) do they have them?
Your analogy is overly dramatic, imo.
Actually, it is more complex than that. One of the issues is whether all citizens have the same liberties. Another issue is whether civil unions or something along those lines provides the same liberties as *marriage*. But one issue that it is not is the one you describe - based on sexual acts. People are free to engage or not engage in sexual acts as long as they are not harming anyone else. The question is: why do some people *feel* that their view of sexual acts should negate others' views?
Not necessarily. It's good to hate sin.
You are free to hate, surely. And sometimes we do. But every thought we think produces a chemical in the body. Emotion, intense emotion like hatred, produce a lot more chemical than one thought does.
You harm your body with negative emotions like hatred, jealousy, envy, blame, hostility etc. And the *object* of your hatred, jealousy, envy, blame, hostility etc - will probably never know a thing about it. It accomplishes nothing or next to nothing. But I would agree - if your belief system is such that you feel hatred - better to express it appropriately than to suppress or repress it.
That question rightly as specific to homosexual sex should be debated on a leftist wacko website like DU -not here on FR. As such I will not engage in such absurd debate to give it platform here and again suggest you take it elsewhere...
It is impossible for two men or two women to marry since marriage is the lifelong union of a man and woman, the primary purpose of which is the begetting and raising of children.
Do people have unalienable rights to do the irrational, nonsensical, absurd or meaningless?
Of course not, since eternal unalienable rights derive from an eternal source, which is God. God does not grant us an absolute right to do the irrational, since God is rationality itself.
There are times when irrationality may be legally permitted for prudential reasons, i.e., when irrationality is fairly harmless, or when the harm to society caused by criminalization is greater than the harm to society caused by legal sanction.
But homosexual "marriage" is a form of irrationality that is very harmful. Legal sanction of homosexual "marriage" entitles homosexuals to legal adoption, which is very harmful to children, since it is natural for children to be raised by their parents, a man and woman, and barring that, an adoptive man and woman.
Another important harm includes the promotion of the idea that homosexual relationships are morally equivalent to heterosexual relationships, which they most certainly are not. Such relationships are wholly unnatural and disordered.
I would suggest that you cannot debate other ideas and that is why you attempt to bully and control the information and views expressed here on Free Republic. I can understand that you are fearful. But it would really be of benefit for you to engage in discussion on this topic because, as I say, some form of civil unions or domestic partnerships are going to happen in any number of states. It may feel safer to retreat into the past - but it won't change the future.
Fine. Hate it then. I don't agree with it however I worked several years ago with a homosexual and now with an out in the open lesbian (she's quite the hottie, sort of a shame IMHO). They know where I stand, I know where they stand. And we get along just fine. The point is don't use government to hate what you hold in disdain. One of the government's main purposes is protection of freedoms against others, not to limit our own freedoms to fit into your agenda.
My only exception is that the Framers did envision the separate and sovereign states would have the right to oversee such concerns as it pertained to the citizens of their respective states. But never at the federal level
So now I take it - you don't want to talk about hatred anymore? :-)
We disagree about inherent rights. I would suggest that since people engage in irrational, nonsensical, absurd or even meaningless actions and thoughts all the time - that that alone is proof that they have the inherent *right* to...at least in hundress if not thousands of cases :-) [they are not strck down by lightning, for instance :-)]
Whether it is legal or not is a decision of the people through the legislatures and the courts. And, as you say, we hopefully make those distinctions based on harm. We say that we are free to do whaever we please as long as we don't harm others. I like that and agree with it.
Whether or not the existence of homosexuals causes harm is a debate the people can have. I like what was posted here from Barry Goldwater. And I think that homosexuals make a good argument when they say that they want the same liberties as everyone else. They want the same financial perks from their partnerships as heterosexual couples get.
I live in Utah and I know that here gay men can adopt children. So that, if in conservative Utah, that is already settled... I don't know that you have much of an argument in saying that it shouldn't be allowed.
Suggest whatever irrelevant sideshow issues you want. I will point out that you cannot debate anything supporting any government sponsored and or imposed anything premised in homosexual sex. As such, you resort to posting leftist articles and propaganda pieces.
You want to debate then post something yourself supporting the homosexualization of society and get zotted otherwise your intent clearly is not to debate -your intent is simply to meekly support the homosexualization of society while hoping you do not get zotted...
I "feel" that you actually mean that men who feel like or choose to engage in homosexual sexual activity (nothing "gay" about it) can supposedly adopt children that are wards of the state...
Other than the homosexual sex requirement -what else does the state consider relevant to guaranteeing the safety of children placed with homosexual sex predisposed or practicing men?
Seems to me that you are very focused on the homosexual act. Wonder what that is about?
I am suggesting that some form of gay marriage (I used the word gay deliberately since it upsets you so) will be seen in several states - whether that be in 10 twenty or less than that number of years.
You may still be insisting that people talk about *the homosexual sex act* at that time. And it will be even more irrelevant at that time than it is now.
Whether people have sex, or how they have sex or if they refuse to have sex - as long as they are not forcing others to join them - is really none of you business:-) And, btw, that is the conservative postion.
SS has been posting drivel supporting hedonistic immoral crap for as long as I can remember. And no, I'm not pinging him/her to this comment to show my disgust for the many comments by him/her I've read.
The conservative position is that people who are sexually dysfunctional should not be calling the shots or receiving any special rights, nor should they adopt or foster children, nor should children in schools be taught the propaganda that "gay is good".
You, on the other hand, consistently promote "gay" talking points and propaganda and have as long as I've noticed your comments. Fullbore leftist liberal crap, without exception. Couldn't possibly be further from conservative ideals or philosophy if you tried.
LOL - thanks for that. That's funny :-)
Here is where you lose your way. The conservative does not obsess on other people's sex lives. The conservative has more dignity and respect than that. What other people do or do not do in the bedrooms is not your (or my) business. Something for you to think about...
The "conservative position" should be "mind your own business." That goes for homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.
Me: "The legality of marriage just makes it "legal", period -- and this is not irrelevant, but it isn't everything either.".
You: "It is sophistry, used often by those intending to weaken marriage's protections, to suggest that since something other than legality 'sanctifies' marriage, that therefore the legal underpinnings of marriage are unimportant."
I never said that two people who wished to enter into marriage required no legal document to support that partnership. I did say that I don't believe that politicians should be charged with defining marriage, because they are unqualified for the job -- and unlike you, I believe that if we leave that definition in their hands, then no one is going to be pleased with the outcome.
"That is a very wrong, very un-conservative or even anti-conservative argument to make, that thoroughly miscomprehends the role of law in this case."
Quite, the opposite -- it is extremely "conservative" argue that politicians should not be allowed to interfere with our personal lives and personal liberties!
"As we all know, legal structures undergird our public morality and incentivize our behavior. ....Make marriage less palatable and less protected, and non-marriage thrives; allow polygamy/gay-unions as marriage, and culture decays; make divorce easier, and families get broken more. We see it already, as 'partners' get goodies once reserved for spouses, where the cultural inhibitions on sex, child-rearing, even family formation outside of marriage have fallen. etc. The negative consequences of the breakdown of family are too obvious and too legion not to notice."
Yes, and all that has happened without "gay marriage". What do you think will happen when(and I agree with sunsong that it is a matter of "when", not "if") gay marriage is allowed to be legislated?
I have no idea how old you are, but I will tell you that I am in my 50's -- and virtually no one my age or younger is "attracted" or "incentivized" by seeing marraige purely as "a cultural institution". And frankly, the incentives and rewards for marraige purely as a "legal institution" are already virtually nil. (As we have heard before, who wants to be "institutionalized"?) Are our taxes lower as a married couple? Not by much! Are we more protected as a spouse or are our children more protected by marraige? No. "Family law" is a joke, to anyone who has ever had to deal with it! In fact, mates and children would be better legally protected under the concept of a legal partnership, where the concept of "good faith" actually means something -- unlike the "no fault" apsect of "irreconcilable differences" in a divorce!
The people making the laws are like the curators at a great museum, and we entrust our important institutions to their temporary care to make sure the valuables of civilization not get stolen or damaged.
That is far-sighted and noble sentiment. However, it is about 180 degrees from where politicans actually see themselves. Politicans want votes and campaign money to get votes; they are careerists, not idealists. If they think passing "gay marriage" initiatives will get them votes, they will do it -- and in a few years, that younger generation will give them their votes for doing it. My argument is simply to take that right out of their hands, by never letting them define "marraige" to begin with!
Now some in our ranks want to extinguish this torch. The radical right has nearly ruined our party. Its members do not care enough about the Constitution, and they are the ones making all the noise. The party faithful must not let it happen. Anybody who cares about real moral values understands that this isn’t about granting special rights—it’s about protecting basic rights....."
God, where is a "Barry Goldwater Republican" when we need him?
Because what I am reading here is making the Libertarians look better and better!
Because what I am reading here is making the Libertarians look better and better!
I know what you mean. I liked your comparison of Consitutional conservatives and social conservatives. The reason that I support and have supported conservatives is because I value personal freedom so much. Even though freedom is messy and sometimes things go wrong in a free society....my belief is that in time they work themselves out. Look at prohibition, for instance - or the view of slavery of the Founders. Women didn't get the vote until the 20th century!!
A free society is not a perfect society. A dictator can get the trains to run on time and so could a theocracy. But freedom, though imperfect, allows every person who chooses to become all that they want to be - and no dictator or theocrat can accomplish that.
The idea of freedom, which is foundational to what America is, means that other people are free to do things that you and I don't agree with - as long as they don't harm others. And just as we defend to the death the right for someone to say something we disagree with - we fight for the right for people to do things that we don't agree with.
Thanks for your posts. I have learned from your sharing of some of your thoughts.
Thank you, too, Sunsong! We are on the same page and I have learned from you as well!
BB
Amen Brother, Amen.
Ditto (Except the Wife passing part, although I dare say I'd almost have preferred that to what my Ex "Cruella De Hosebag" put me through, but I digress)
Well for starters THAT is the ONLY thing that "homosexuality" is all about -the ONLY thing differentiating it from the ordered norm... As I do oppose the homosexual agenda THEN it would necessarily follow that this opposition is specifically rationally premised.
The left prefers delusionally premised thought and action e.g. gay this or that or rainbow this or that or whatever else the leftists wish to consider clothing for the nude homosexual emperor; HOWEVER, it all comes down to sex -that is it...
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.