Posted on 05/20/2008 9:12:13 AM PDT by porgygirl
One comment. The federal government can regulate INTERSTATE commerce, that’s not the same as prohibiting it.
Excellent! Then you should have no problem finding examples of the "right" to same-sex "marriage" being taken as a given throughout our history as a nation, as well as in our historical predecessor nation, Britain.
The freedom to go outside, to select dinner, and to chose your direction to walk etc. are also not in the constitution so what?
I didn't know the state was being asked to provide licensing for those things, along with government benefits for those activities. Not to mention that, as already stated, such actions have been the norm throughout our national and ancestral history. Not so, obviously, for same-sex "marriage".
Rights are not based upon their historical reality. Slavery for instance. You have a problem of very selective memory.
That's pretty funny coming from someone who apparently is unaware of the ratification of the 13th Amendment, banning slavery. You seem unaware that it A) took a constitutional amendment to ban slavery and B) that such an amendment was actually ratified. Not only that, but prior to ratification of the 13th Amendment, individual state laws determined whether slavery was permitted or not.
Unless and until a constitutional amendment to guarantee a right to same-sex "marriage" is ratified via the proper channels, there is no such right.
Abortion is the taking of an innocent life and not analogous to selecting whom you will marry.
The judicial misconduct in both cases is comparable.
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.
I rest my case. You aren't someone who supports freedom. You're someone who supports a cause, and you're perfectly willing to suppress dissent to achieve it. You don't have any respect for the rule of law or the rights of the people. You've developed an attachment to this deviant practice (though heaven only knows why) and you think self-government, popular sovereignty, the constitution, the traditions of the people, and even the freedoms of the people should be sacrificed so that this one deviancy can be elevated to a position it doesn't deserve.
Either the right to same-sex "marriage" is in the Constitution, in which case there should exist some ratification record for it, or it's a right so transcendent that the Founding Fathers never thought anyone would object to it and didn't feel it necessary to expound upon it (e.g, the right to walk out the front door of your house). If the latter is the case, then why is it that we've been able to walk out the front door of our house so easily for the entire history of our nation, while every jurisdiction limited marriage to people of the opposite sex?
I don't think you grasp what a dilemma you're in. Scylla on the one hand, Charibdes on the other.
you think spreading stv’s thru sodomy should be a right?
You have a serious logic flaw in the original post amnd now your reply. You might want to pay attention and let others carry your argument.
The purpurse of the historical comment was to show that "historical reality", your term, is not a standard for continuing the violation of human rights.
You lost that point and as in other points you refuse to acknowledge the defeat. So I'm out again. Isn't that where we left off before?
You might want to ask yourself how an American could put themselves in such an untenable positions as to be so adamant in the restriction of the rights of other taxpaying Americans.
I'm quite responsive, I just don't agree that liberty & the pursuit of happiness encompass state recognition of same-sex "marriage". You act as if it's generally understood that it does. Not only did the authors of that "pursuit of happiness" phrase universally reject your assertion, but so have all the great philosophers of liberty throughout history, and the majority even of the electorate today.
Also, you equate recognizing freedom with approving abortion. Serious logic flaw, as I said before.
You can't have misread my post that badly. I was comparing the illegitimate and unconstitutional judicial aggression involved in both Roe and the MA & CA same-sex "marriage" rulings.
The purpurse of the historical comment was to show that "historical reality", your term, is not a standard for continuing the violation of human rights.
It's certainly a constitutional standard, which is why it took a constitutional amendment to end slavery, another one to give blacks the vote, etc. Someone like you didn't just pop up and announce that her position on human rights was the one we should all follow (regardless of the law), and then proceed to use force to impose her position on the rest of the country. Even after the Civil War, it was understood that the only way to legally end slavery was with a constitutional amendment. Not a judicial fiat (as in Roe and the MA & CA same-sex "marriage" rulings) but a real, legitimately ratified amendment.
You lost that point and as in other points you refuse to acknowledge the defeat.
You quite simply don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.
You might want to ask yourself how an American could put themselves in such an untenable positions as to be so adamant in the restriction of the rights of other taxpaying Americans.
Are you serious? You act as if same-sex "marriage" was the norm throughout history and that America then came along and placed themselves in the "untenable" position of not recognizing such relationships. Such "marriages" have not been historically recognized because they are not real and legitimate marriages and no healthy society would ever dream that they are.
The traditional family is the basis of any stable and successful society.
That’s why the left seeks to destroy it. Every issue needs to be viewed through this lens.
Welfare, “Free speech” (porn), gay “marriage”, promoting teen sexuality, abortion.
All of these have an effect on the traditional family.
Depravity in and of itself is not evidence of a “sick society”.
Acceptance of that depravity as normal, nay, in need of “celebration”,
is what makes for a sick society.
All human societies have the last six commandments ingrained into them in some manner,
providing evidence of God writing right and wrong on our hearts.
The first four commandments are encompassed in what is called the “God shaped vacuum” in our being. You seek Him, and He will help you find Him, and then tell you about commandments 1-4.
“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
John Adams
The “birth document” of the USA was the Declaration.
However, we are not allowed to have our children taught its basic concepts in schools any more.
Creator
Creation
Moral Absolutes
Yes, but no one here is asserting that rights come from the state. Just that the idea that if you want to do something you have a “right” to do is has no historical basis whatsoever and the Founders would have been shocked by such a notion.
The right of a people to break away from their king over tax grievances and form a free nation had no historical basis, either.
There's nothing in the Constitution about rights needing to be established. And what's actually in the Constitution is the only thing that counts.
Again, I'm not arguing for gay marriage, only that D'Souza is dead wrong on the facts.
I have to ask:
What does Molon Labe mean?
take look at the CDC stats, see who is spreading std,s, thru the sewer of a place they have sex.the bacterial and viral soup they cause and consume makes them the number one spreading group of every std,from clap to aids.r u a top or a bottom? in AFRICA a top is not considered homo,now you know the real spreading group in AFRICA
What Cali voters need to do is push for a constitutional amendment defining marriage. Or, they can repeal the law that prohibits against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
While I find the concept of "gay marriage" laughable, I still think the judges made the right decision based on California law.
do u live in the tenderloin?
No. I live in New Jersey and I like tuna, NOT hot dogs! ;-)
Gay marriage should increase monogmy and lead to a reduction in STDs, a good thing for gays and all of us taxpayers. Welcome aboard.
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.