Posted on 05/27/2009 12:30:07 AM PDT by BCrago66
Sorry to step on your ‘gay’ sensibilities....
The game plan of the left is to push social change via the courts as a super legislature. This is about ENDORSING that a person playing with the genitals of another person of the same sex for recreation is somehow a benefit to society.
ALL Organizations that have Olson as a director or officers should be challenged or financially dumped.
Yes, up to a point when the compelling interest kicks in - 28 weeks/ 1st trimester in Roe v. Wade which was superseded by the current standard of whatever science deems viable today, 19 weeks(?) in PP vs Casey.
“Ok mr Olsen, when homosexual coitus can produce babies then homosexual unions meet the basic qualification for marriage. “
______________
Infertile people cannot legally marry?
No, it says marriage is regulated by statutory law.
Homosexuals cannot be monogamous. Mono-'gamy' denotes a biological procreation homosexuals are incapable of with each other.
Aside from that, nature determines how babies are produced. The natural law does not need human laws... All men are born of women.
Monogamy is a religious standard applied to the secular law.
Another convoluted decision like Roe v. Wade.
If Roe v. Wade says society cannot intervene in private reproductive choices, then public funding for abortion is illegal.
The homosexuals want their "separation of church and state," yet they will seek ceremonious sanctification in a marriage rite and some kind of esoteric absolution from the church of the state.
So you confirm -- the court said that marriage is a civil institution.
Mono-'gamy' denotes a biological procreation
You don't get to make up your own words. "Monogamy" means "having one and only one sexual partner".
Wrong... "gamos" is a medical terminology... it denotes procreation...
EXACTLY...
The Constitution specifically addresses INDIVIDUAL rights.
I just think it's possible to oppose someone on principle without going after them personally. I think Olson's wrong, but I don't have to insinuate that he's gay in order to oppose him on this. That's a technique of the left.
Yawn
While I'm no opponent of same-sex relationships (whether they call themselves married, domestically partnered, civilly unionized, or just plain going steady), I'm going to give Ted a bit of the benefit of the doubt here. Even the Lambda Legal organization (pro-homosexual law lobby) has said this suit is a mistake.
Regardless of Ted's personal motivations for this, opponents of gay marriage should welcome this suit. We all know that the Ninth Circuit is by far the most liberal of the appellate courts, and this is the first case ripe for them.
Washington State has had no recent law requiring one man, one woman marriage, and the constitutional amendments of Hawaii, Alaska and even Oregon were enacted some time ago. In the case of California, the amendment is very recent, and actually changed the law (court-imposed, of course) that allowed same-sex marriage. That didn't happen in any other state. Clearly, this is a severe temptation for the Ninth Circuit to rule in favor of the suit, and should they do so, there would be a fairly quick appeal to the Supreme Court.
Right now, the status of same-sex marriage is that it is legal in a few places, explicitly prohibited in about three-fifths of the states (recently so), and less than fifteen years ago was officially disfavored on the Federal level with DOMA.
Sotomayor replacing Souter on the Court does nothing to change the balance between conservative and liberal. The four conservative Justices can be depended on to be rock solid on this, only Kennedy is in question. I know how he voted on Lawrence vs. Texas, but there's a big difference between allowing an activity, and sanctioning it in a societal institution. Kennedy probably can make that distinction.
At this point, there is liable to be a ruling that may stand for many years that there is no Constitutional right to marry a person of the same gender. That could be what Ted's secretly trying to accomplish here. That tosses the issue back to the states, and sets a precedent for enforcing DOMA. You will have gay marriage in only the hard-core blue states, the ones that voted for Dukakis, at least for the next generation.
If you oppose letting homosexuals marry, what's the downside here?
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.