Posted on 03/17/2009 4:35:18 AM PDT by DirtyHarryY2K
Homosexual activists have submitted proposals to California's attorney general, hoping to overturn Proposition 8.
California Catholic Daily reports same-sex marriage proponents hope to get the two measures on the 2010 ballot in case the Supreme Court decides to uphold Prop. 8.
One initiative, called the "Domestic Partnership Initiative," would remove the term "marriage" from government legislation. It claims its purpose is to "provide equality amongst all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, without offending the religious sect." Marriage, then, would become a social ceremony recognized only by non-governmental institutions instead of a legal bond.
The second proposal would repeal Prop. 8 and remove the state constitution's wording that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. However, it adds that it does not intend to force any clergy to perform any service incongruent with his faith.
To qualify for the 2010 ballot, either initiative would require nearly 700,000 signatures of registered California voters. Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, says neither one will make the ballot.
"One of them is an unpopular idea, even with homosexual activists, of getting rid of marriage entirely as a government institution," he explains. "The other would get rid of Proposition 8, opening the door for the legislature run by Democrats to create homosexual marriage again and have a Democrat governor in the future sign it."
Thomasson points out why he believes neither proposal is a serious attempt to challenge Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman. "They are promotional stunts," he notes. "They're trying to get the attention of the judges who have a little under 90 days to decide and issue a decision on Proposition 8."
“gay marriage” is but one of the avenues of attack,
most of the agenda of the left has the same goal,
but people with blinders on see each of these agenda items in isolation and unrelated.
The left does this with everything - remember how all the Clinton scandals and all their associates being convicted were all “isolated incidents” and not part of a bigger picture of corruption.
well now this would require legislative approval would it not? Since such a level of change was deemed a “substantive constitutional issue” by the legislature.
No. Marriage is not a creation of the church or the State. Marriage is a social institution deemed to be a postive influence on society as a whole. As such, the Government chose to recognize and encourage it by providing certain benefits/incentives.
Replacing marriage with "domestic partnerships" is nothing more than an attempt to destroy the nuclear family, IMO.
More a clear-away-the-wreckage-of-corrupt-bourgeoise-etc.-etc. kind of thing.
Well, you might have a point. Some of the original queer radicals were, in fact, card-carrying Communists. The Mattachine Society was founded in an attempt by some non-Communist gays whom the Communists had tried to attract, to distance themselves from the guys who were getting investigated by HUAC and the FBI, back in the late 1940's and early 1950's.
Ironic that the FBI was being run by a big old femme in fishnet.
See my post #21. Believing in the strength of the nuclear family whilst simultaneously fearing homosexuality as a thread to it is contradictory. Furthermore, I don’t believe in using government power for social engineering, which is really what marriage laws really are if you think about it. As you said yourself, “the Government chose to recognize and encourage it by providing certain benefits/incentives.” Sounds like social engineering to me...
It isn't fear of homosexuality -- just recognition of the bigger picture and the ultimate goals. Ever read the goals of the Communist Party? Try these two for starters:
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.But why fight Communism? After all, anti-Communists are really just "Social Engineers!"41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
Furthermore, I dont believe in using government power for social engineering, which is really what marriage laws really are if you think about it. As you said yourself, the Government chose to recognize and encourage it by providing certain benefits/incentives. Sounds like social engineering to me...
LOL. Well, then let's just do away with all police forces, schools, highways, etc. Those are just "social engineering" projects, aren't they? Illegal immigration? Nah... no such thing -- that's just social engineering! Why have laws at all? Anarchy is obviously a better solution. And why concern ourselves with the survival of civilization -- just more "social engineering."
You have still failed to explain how removing the concept of state marriage will encourage more homosexuality, and even if that were true, how that would discredit the family as an institution. Family doesn’t need government recognition to exist. It will be just fine.
Hello?
I never said any such thing. Why should I try to explain something that I never asserted?
and even if that were true, how that would discredit the family as an institution.
Nope... never said that, either.
And, BTW, you failed to address anything in my post which WAS responsive to your post.
Then I have no clue what you’re trying to say. Why do you think it’s necessary for the state to enforce marriage? How will failing to do so bring on the destruction of the nuclear family?
LOL!!! Try asking those parents with children in Massachusetts public schools how the homo-agenda has encroached into their kids lives against their wishes or knowledge since "marriage" can now mean anything there. Or ask Catholic Charities how their mission has been changed in the state.
You must truly be wearing lib-colored glasses - and I don't mean libertarian.
Wrong. "Ideas have consequences." Who said that one?
Marriage is under coordinated, long-prepared legal attack. There are hundreds of homosexual attorneys working right now on a Constitutional attack on marriage. Their goal is the Supreme Court, where a closeted Justice Souter waits perfidiously to offer their lying briefs a civil reception.
This is seminar-poster boilerplate.
You are not being straight with us.
If you take marriage out of the hands out the state, that removes their ability to attack it. I don’t understand why anybody would be opposed to this position.
What sort of seminar? How am I not being straight with you? My position is clear; take the definition of marriage away from the state, give it back to the church, where it belongs. The traditional family is a strong enough institution that it doesn’t need government protection. If you believe that it’s foundation is so weak it can be threatened otherwise, then we have bigger problems.
It may not be particular “Marxist” though Marxist thought has become so embeded in so many branches of liberal, “progressive” and politically correct thinking that it becomes hard to be sure of the philosophical pedigree anymore.
But, like Marx, it - destruction of marriage - is from the view of the artificial, engineered man, that must be preceded by man without any moorings. It is impossible to create, to engineer a “new man” unless you have destroyed what supports organic human civilization.
What Marx did not understand, and neither do the practitioners of all the schools of thought who use Marx as a base, is that their social engineering agenda will always fail, because it goes against human nature. They may not see it immediately, do to some short term success, but it cannot create sustainable societies.
The rightful concern is that they - those seeking to destroy marriage - CAN succeed, possibly, for a time, even though, in time, the resulting society will fail; and fail possibly because of their temporary success.
Again, the crux of the philosophy is not necessarily “pro ‘gay’”; the same arguments can, and most likely will, be used to support legalized polygamy and legalized ‘group’ marriage down the road. Added together with modern in-vitro fertilization, legalized adoption as a “right” to any single, or conjoined set of “responsible” adults, and regardless of the number of “gays”, heterosexual “singles” are, already, and more will be offered legitimacy to any “committed” relationship, sans traditional marriage.
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.