Posted on 05/20/2008 9:12:13 AM PDT by porgygirl
You’re exactly right. “The right to universal health care”. Liberals talk about it long enough and people start to think that right actually exists. And sooner or later some power hungry judge will decide to make a name for himself (the Linda Greenhouse effect) by declaring free health care a fundamental right. You know, it’s right there in a penumbra emanating from a combination of the liberty clause and the equal protection clause.
I don’t really think we’ll actually need for a judge to impose socialized medicine on us, because as fast as our country is tracking leftward our sheeple voters will vote it in without the “necessity” of a judicial fiat. The people still retain a little bit of common sense on something like simple biology (i.e., a man cannot mate with another man) so it takes raw government power to deliver same-sex “marriage”.
And for those people who think the court legalized same-sex “marriage” to expand freedom, I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for any of those four judges to come to the defense of anyone charged with hate speech for criticizing homosexuality. Or of a private group such as the Boy Scouts when they’re pressured by government to give up their freedom of association. Or of a Christian restaurant owner who refuses to seat two gay guys who come in wearing dresses and kissing one another. Or of a Christian photographer who won’t agree to film a same-sex “wedding”.
The court didn’t legalize same-sex “marriage” to advance freedom, but to use it as a battering ram against freedom.
My response had to do with your saying homosexuality is a sign of a diseased society, and that you must believe that most societies are/were diseased.
powerful and so true
Read the constitution, hold it up to the light, squeeze lemon juice on it--you won't see a right to gay marriage in there. It is simply not an enumerated right, nor is it a right that can be clearly derived from other enumerated rights.
Please. I know that he's read the Constitution, yet he perpetuates the myth that enumerated rights are somehow the only rights we have.
The Founders couldn't have been clearer about it:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Not a whole lotta gray area there, Dinesh.
I'll forgive him for not knowing or understanding the historical context of the Bill of Rights, that so many Founders were opposed to it for this very reason: that it would be misunderstood as an exhaustive list. But it's hard to forgive him for not knowing or understanding the very clear language of the Constitution itself.
This site is awful; massive browser slowdown. And I’m using Firefox on Linux.
This is not a democracy. It's a republic, with checks and balances from courts to make sure the majority doesn't oppress the rights of the minority.
If you find you're opposing any body's rights, gay or otherwise, maybe you need to re-examine your position.
God never gave anybody the right to marry someone of the same sex.
Sodomites make God sick.
Anyone, who is honest with themselves, knows homosexuality is abnormal, deviant behavior, and without even being told, I may add.
After all, do moral people (adults, as children must be taught) need to be told that robbery is wrong? Arson? Murder? Rape? Abortion?
And if we, as a society, are not moral, what are we?
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE
You're not thinking.
The Constitution also never refers to marriage. And it's no surprise that the Constitution never refers to the Bible or marriage. This is because the mostly Christian Founding Fathers (<-click) wrote the 10th A. so that government powers not enumerated in the federal Constitution are automatically reserved for the states.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.So the states have the power to not only outlaw gay marriage according to the will of a state's majority voters, but also to teach the Holy Bible in public schools. This regardless of the USSC's perversion of Jefferson's "wall of separation," but provided that people's 14th A. protections are respected.
“It is simply not an enumerated right, nor is it a right that can be clearly derived from other enumerated rights.”
It’s a disfunction in nature that has no rights to anything. Only our sick whack left “friends” find it necessary to give them validation. The only thing I keep in mind about gays is their beyond believe stupid parades....
Being married to someone doesn’t automatically mean that you have to have sex with them. Just ask any married man.
OK
Tell you what, since this is a free country you have the right to have whatever imaginary fantasy marriage you want. Just have your own little marriage ceremony. Just don’t ask the government to officially sanction and endorse your deviant lifestyle. Demanding government approval of same-sex “marriages” goes beyond demanding tolerance for your “rights.”
I think you have the Declaration of Independence confused with the Constitution. Not, I suppose, that it makes much difference since same sex "marriage" is recognized by neither document.
Where does it say that all rights have to be in the constitution. Don't I have the right to go outside? Where is that stated?
They don't all have to be in the Constitution but they have to have some historical basis in reality. This is why there is no right to inject heroin or to engage in prostitution. These are things that have no historical basis as rights under the common law or in any historically developed constitutional system. Ditto for polygamy, perverted "marriage", and so forth. Ditto for abortion.
Wouldn't the right to chose whom you would marry be part of liberty and such a pursuit.?
Since marriage is the bonding of people of the opposite sex, two people of the same sex can't "marry". Marriage is a gender-based institution.
This is not a democracy. It's a republic, with checks and balances from courts to make sure the majority doesn't oppress the rights of the minority.
Unelected branches of government do not legislate in a Republic. It takes an especially brazen and power mad government to take it upon itself to overturn the entire constitutional history of the nation with the stroke of a pen, not to mention 1,000 years of Anglo-Saxon common law, 5,000 years or more of tradition, as well as biology, common sense, and the English language.
If you find you're opposing any body's rights, gay or otherwise, maybe you need to re-examine your position.
Name any time in the history of America, or in the common law of the colonies, when two people of the same sex ever had the "right to marry". This so-called right doesn't exist, and no one even thought it did until the madness of left-wing judicial aggression began to sweep through our courts.
What it really comes down to is that you want to use raw government power to jackboot a deviant sex practice down the throats of the American people, and if you have to steamroll the rights of the people in the process, you're perfectly willing to do it.
"Where does it say that all rights have to be in the constitution. Don't I have the right to go outside? Where is that stated?"
They don't all have to be in the Constitution but they have to have some historical basis in reality.
No, they don't.
There is no requirement in the Constitution that all rights had to be recognized at the time, or at any time in history.
Our nation, after all, was founded on the radical notion that a people could rise up and cast off their king solely because he infringed upon their liberty. That no previous society had been truly free, and that we would be the beacon of liberty for the world from here on out.
This is why there is no right to inject heroin or to engage in prostitution.
Well, we can argue about whether drug laws are Constitutional (though I hate drugs, it's pretty clear that they aren't, or we wouldn't have needed to amend the Constitution to regulate booze).
Prostitution, however, is commerce. The state has a certain authority to regulate commerce. Personally, I'd like to limit that authority as much as possible, even when it comes to commerce of which I do not personally approve.
None of which changes the very clear language given us by the Founders in the Ninth Amendment, the one amendment so many who call themselves "conservatives" (including D'Souza) are eager to ignore.
Anyone is free anytime they wish to hold a ceremony and make so-called marriage vows to another person of the same sex, to multiple people, or to a lampshade. But there is no obligation on the part of any state to recognize that. That is a public policy decision and the people ought to have some say in the matter.
Let's compare polygamy and same-sex “marriage”, for example. Of the two, polygamy has more historical basis. Many societies throughout history have sanctioned polygamy. That's not true of same-sex “marriage”. No one even dreamed of such nonsense until we recently began losing our minds.
So why are some leftist judges so aggressive in pushing same-sex “marriage”, rather than polygamy. I know that courts can't make their own cases, but why haven't polygamists even bothered pushing court cases, while homosexuals have? The reason is that these activist rulings are not based on any legitimate concept of liberty, but on the prevailing leftist political agenda. Homosexuality is more fashionable than polygamy (which many people associate with fundamentalist sects rather than chic secularism), so leftist judges are jumping on the “gay” bandwagon. There's no comparable incentive to push for polygamy. If polygamy were all the rage among the elite “beautiful people” crowd, instead of homosexuality, courts would be pushing for polygamy rather than same-sex “marriage”.
This is why we now live under arbitrary government.
And state sanctioned same-sex “marriage” is not an expansion of liberty. It's the forced alteration of a societal institution for ideological reasons desired by the state, over the objections of the people. The supposedly self-governing people. Yes, I know we don't have majority rule on everything, but there are no constitutional provisions recognizing same-sex “marriage” and there is no historical basis for such recognition. If a constitutional amendment to guarantee a right to same-sex “marriage” had been proposed at any time in American history, would even so much as a single state have ratified it, let alone three-fourths of them? Would it have been approved by the Constitutional Convention? Has there been any point in American history where two-thirds of both houses of Congress would have approved it?
The answer to those questions is obviously “no”. So, in the absence of that, what justification does any court have for forcing a state to sanction such “marriages”? Is it a right so obvious (like leaving your house) that the Founders didn't even bother to mention it? Hardly. It's an ideologically driven assault on our culture, pushed by leftists who desire to nullify the traditional basis of our society.
It isn't an expansion of freedom. It's an assertion of power by the state. It's their way of telling us that they'll decide what our institutions and traditions will be, rather than us telling them. If the American Revolution was an epiphany, this is an anti-epiphany, and assertion that the state is under no obligation whatsoever to seek the consent of the governed.
TYPO: In my first paragraph, “to do is” should be “to do it”. Reads a little better! :-)
But my point was that the court in California can't make a ruling based upon the Bible. Given that homosexuality is no longer regarded as a character disorder, sexual perversion or mental illness by the major scientific and medical organizations, it's not very surprising that the court would rule in favor of same-sex marriage.
Rights are not based upon their historical reality. Slavery for instance. You have a problem of very selective memory.
Abortion is the taking of an innocent life and not analogous to selecting whom you will marry.
Your third paragraph merely repeats the fallacy of the historical argument.
-----an especially brazen and power mad government to take it upon itself to overturn the entire constitutional history of the nation---- Hyperbolic description of a court ensuring that rights are not being restricted.
Your last paragraph reveals an extreme paranoia. No one is forcing you to marry someone of your gender. You are in the dissonant position of describing rights as being enforced by jackbooted fascists. If it takes that to enforce rights, then so be 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.