Posted on 05/15/2008 10:02:52 AM PDT by NinoFan
“Extending the liberty that some have to more people. Enforcing the right to pursuit of happiness.”
No one was keeping gays from pursuing their happiness.
And you’re now the spokesman for them. How helpful of you.
Awwwww, what a shame! And her giggling schoolgirl tactics were working so well, too! She should have limited herself to being clueless. Once she went beyond that and began misrepresenting what others said in debate, she must have angered the moderaters. Oh, well, so much for FR's version of Tila Tequila.
Your attempts to get her to understand the legal, moral, and societal impact of this travesty were wasted on her but no doubt helped the rest of us refine our own stands on the issue.
Well, thanks again, I appreciate that.
I really wonder how much more we’ll take. I still believe most people are moral and at least marginally conservative. At what point will we push back?
The left has adopted the tactic of linking homosexuality to freedom, even going so far as to claim it's Taliban-like to get upset over homosexual propaganda being taught to elementary school kids. A small but vocal number of conservatives buy this nonsense. Usually, as someone mentioned in an earlier post, it's a conservative who has a friend or relative who's a homosexual. This clouds their opinion. Barry Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act because it banned racial discrimination in employment, and he didn't think the government should tell private employers who they could or could not hire. But years later, when his nephew came out as a homosexual, Goldwater sponsored a bill to force private employers to hire homosexuals.
These people are blinded to the fact that homosexuality is itself destructive. It isn't a "gay" lifestyle, but a sad one, and people trapped in it need to be led out of it. And even if they never come out of it, if it's kept in the closet they can at least try to live a normal life in public, rather than the 24/7 deal where they wear their homosexuality on their sleeve.
Homosexuals themselves know that what they do isn't normal. That's why they need constant positive reinforcement. You don't see adulterers or fornicators demanding to march in the St. Patrick's Day parade under a banner announcing their sexual conduct, but homosexuals demand exactly that. They likewise demand that all opposition be stifled and that their practices be taught to kids. Anyone with a sexual "fetish" like that who acts that way has issues, to say the least, and not healthy ones.
I have no idea how long we'll put up with this. I expect California voters to overturn the state court ruling this November, but until we reign in these rogue judges we'll always be at risk.
It was the California State Supreme Court that rendered this unconstitutional ruling, not the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sorry, that was dumb of me.... I meant to ask if the CA court was referring to the CA constitution or the US Constitution...??
It was allegedly based on the California constitution. I say allegedly, of course, because the four judge majority in this case deliberately and knowingly ruled incorrectly. There is no actual provision of the state constitution which supports any so-called right to same-sex “marriage”.
You could have just said "uppity." Very short, and it would have fit in with the bigotry you've been spouting on this board.
It's cute you think you are "countering terrorist propaganda" by clicking a button.
Ah, notice how the blowhard changes his tune from saying we're Nazis because we stamp out opposing opinions to saying that what we do has no effect. Well, which is it? Am I an oppressive censor or not?
I've loved this woman like a sister and she doesn't know how anti homosexual I've become. I realize that she has been brainwashed through her liberal education, the MSM, and her own ignorance. She is proof that just because she has an education (PhD in Social Sciences) it doesn't mean that you are intelligent.
I would like to encourage everyone to stop using the word “gay” when referring to homosexuals.
These people aren’t “gay” (happy, joyful) in the least!!! By calling them gay instead of homosexual it waters down what they really are which is perverted and brainwashed. See my tag line.
Sean and Rush stopped speaking out against homosexuality long ago which is one of the reasons why I stopped listening to them.
They no longer have any integrity.
God please forgive me but I hope I don't live long enough to see this happen. It hurts enough now to see how this country has gone down the toliet in my 51 years.
I’ve decided to marry my lasagna pan.
It’s legal now - right?
There is a gay agenda in this country for sure and it will never stop until EVERYONE accepts homosexuality in all schools,all forms of religions and the church will by law perform gay marriages. That is how evil works and never tires until good overcomes it. So yes this decision has an affect on all of us. The PEOPLE spoke in California and the court dismissed it. We have 50 million children dead due to abortion and still counting,what and how those children could have had an effect on this world we will never know.
You don't limit people based upon some monolithic enemy. The court affirmed the right to liberty and personal autonomy. By fighting the "gay agenda" and everything homosexual you are tramping on the rights of individual taxpaying citizens and relegating them to second class. The amendment which will surely pass now will be the only one I know which restricts people and does not enforce their right to liberty and pursuit of happiness.
You can save the sermon on abortion for someone who needs to hear it. It's not analogous.
As for evil, find another way to fight it than to restrict liberty.
And to the best of my knowledge, it never crossed the minds of a single one of them that the right to "marry" someone of the same sex was a basic attribute of human liberty.
Where did you get the idea that it is?
......the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happeness. Clauses of the constitution which allow equal access and protection. Where did you get the idea that they couldn’t?
I know it's a common debate technique here to quote the founders and others, but lets look at what they did.
Isn't it ironic that you cite their words and I use the same words to prove you are wrong?
In England a hundred years ago they put homosexuals in jail. I guess you really want to return to the good old days of the great men.
I can see that you thoroughly dodged my question.
However, since I think you're sincere (wrong, but sincere) I'll try to answer yours. The right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is not an open ended abstraction. It doesn't mean I have the right to do anything I please, and to additionally demand societal or state ratification for my actions. I can't open up a brothel, for example. Nor can I practice polygamy. Nor can I marry my sister. Nor can I use crack cocaine. Nor can I sell heroin. I can't flout a legitimate law and justify it on the grounds that I'm merely pursuing happiness as I define it.
As for "equal protection", that term was never intended to mean what you and others seem to think it means. I'll give you a very good, and totally definitive, demonstration of this. The equal protection clause is in the 14th Amendment. Yet, it took another amendment (the 19th), ratified nearly sixty years later, to give women a federally guaranteed right to vote. If the equal protection clause means that the states can't "discriminate" in any way, then why didn't it give women the vote? The answer is that the term "equal protection of the laws" does not mean that states can't discriminate in their laws. It means that if a law is enacted, that everyone who is covered by it (i.e., to whom it is germane) would have equal access to the courts to seek adjudication.
That's why it didn't give women the vote. It didn't give blacks the vote, either. That was accomplished by the 15th Amendment, ratified **after** the 14th Amendment with its equal protection clause. So the equal protection clause didn't give blacks the vote.
Yet, we're told today that that clause means the Boy Scouts can't use the public parks until the have homosexual scoutmasters, that we can't require people to show ID to vote, that we can't exclude women from VMI, and all kinds of other nonsense that never had a darn thing to do with the equal protection clause as initially written and ratified. In other words, it does not have anything whatsoever to do with the same sex "marriage" issue. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. The courts have rewritten this clause via deliberate misinterpretation and application, and they have perverted the concept of liberty as well.
And you speak for liberty while defending a ruling which strips us of our right to self-government, one of the most important aspects of liberty.
I know it's a common debate technique here to quote the founders and others, but lets look at what they did.
If the founders were so evil then maybe we should toss aside that concept of the pursuit of happiness. After all, they wrote it and you invoked it.
Isn't it ironic that you cite their words and I use the same words to prove you are wrong?
It would be ironic if that's what happened. But it isn't what happened.
In England a hundred years ago they put homosexuals in jail. I guess you really want to return to the good old days of the great men.
Well, we've come full circle now. You can be punished in England today for saying negative things about homosexuality in public. You should be pleased:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=486452&in_page_id=1770&ct=5
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.