Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

It's not about couples and love. The marriage ruling is all about you.
http://www.jsonline.com ^ | Aug. 5, 2010 | Patrick McIlheran

Posted on 08/05/2010 5:41:02 PM PDT by Maelstorm

Let's look at how the gay-marriage thing in California has unfolded so far:

The state’s Supreme Court in 2008, on a one-vote margin, decides to redefine marriage to dump one key parameter that had always and everywhere in human history been part of marriage: that it be between complementary sexes, not identical ones.

Within months, the voters of the state overrule the court, amending their constitution to say that, no, you can’t redefine basic social institutions against the will of the people. The losers sue the state.

And Wednesday, a federal judge – a judge, as in one – overrules the people, ruling, among other things, that “gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.” It doesn’t?

Gay “marriage” advocates cheered, of course, saying it’s a great advance for equality. Ask yourself, however, this: What changed, precisely, because of the decision (presume, for a moment, that all appeals courts agree with Judge Vaughn Walker).

Does this, as gay “marriage” advocates often say, remove some impediment to their preferred relationships?

No, it doesn’t. The fight isn’t about the freedom to love, since the law says nothing (nor should it) about who can love whom, a fundamentally private matter.

Does this change practicalities, such as the right to co-own a house or leave legacies to a gay lover?

No, it does not. Even in places that, like Wisconsin, have not redefined marriage, one may make wills, mortgages, adoptions, benefits arrangements and the like with whom one wants. For its part, California had civil unions carrying all the benefits of marriage.

Does this alter the ability to a couple to tell each other they’ll be faithful unto death, of one flesh, as married couples (ideally) do?

No. People have always been able to say and mean whatever they wish to each other. Again, the law has no say in such private matters.

Does this allow gay couples to be regarded as if they were married by friends? Does it allow acquaintances to think of long-time lovers as being married?

Again, no. People have long done this, and some churches have long been blessing such couples. That’s their right, of course. They require no judge to do so.

Does this mean that everyone else, including especially perfect strangers, must also now grant gay relationships the same unique and special public respect that until now society has always and everywhere reserved for married couples?

Yes, it does. That’s what the decision was exactly about: Commanding society to view homosexual relationships with a favor that society has been unwilling to grant.

Don’t take my word: As the New York Times explained it, gay-rights activists have increasingly sought same-sex marriage not simply to “lessen discrimination” but also as “an emotional indicator of legitimacy.” The paper quoted one activist as saying that to not redefined marriage “is to deny respect for the essence of who we are as gay people.”

Which is why the state’s civil unions, which conferred the practical benefits of marriage, weren’t enough: They sealed the relationship privately, while only marriage itself could mandate public approbation.

Gay-marriage backers constantly mock an idea they cannot grasp, that redefining marriage will damage it. What – they say – suddenly you’ll love your wife less? Obviously not, but as established a few paragraphs back, marriage isn’t a private affair. Its strength as a social institution – as the relationship at the core of the family – has certainly been damaged, too, by the explosion in divorce, but that’s no reason, either, to euthanize the whole thing.

The reason gay “marriage” damages marriage is not because it changes individual couple’s relationships but because it commands us all to accord as much respect to homosexual relations as society always has done to genuine marriage. Insofar as many people, by their own varied moral reasoning, freely choose to see homosexual relationships as somehow disordered, they will respond to this mandate, then, by according less respect to traditional marriage.

Early research shows this is how it actually works, just as easy divorce, while not necessarily changing any individual couple’s relationship, nonetheless reduces the social expectation that marriage is permanent. If marriage often amounts to a temporary thing, then people see it so even when it comes to couples who seek permanence.

If this is so (and I think the evidence shows it is), then Judge Walker’s decision will have won for gay couples an “emotional indicator” of a "legitimacy" that will rapidly diminish to meaninglessness.

Meanwhile: Paul Mirengoff sees collateral damage:

“Judge Walker's decision is the fruit of a lengthy process through which an eilite within the legal profession has worked tirelessly in an effort to blur, hopelessly, the distinction between the law and personal preferences of that elite. If the decision stands, its main impact will be a diminution, probably past the tipping point, of public confidence in the law and the courts.”

And: Orin Kerr at Volokh sees Walker as having missed entirely the rationality is society not wanting to have too-rapid change imposed on it.

And: Kathryn Jean Lopez talks to Dan Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, who tells of the violence and hate that defenders of traditional marriage have encountered. He outlines what’s at stake:

“Gay marriage has consequences. The goal of this movement is to use the law to reshape the culture so that disagreement with their views on sex and marriage gets stigmatized and repressed like bigotry. Children will be taught, whether parents like it or not, that traditional faith communities’ views on marriage are based on hatred and bigotry. In the new America they are attempting to build, core civil rights will be sacrificed for imaginary ones that will then be used to exclude most religious people and institutions from the public square. We are already seeing the beginnings of this great purge in the academy, and it will march from there through professional licensing and institutions in ways that will affect a great many people.”


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: agenda; bglobemanipulation; bishopromney; bostonglobe; bostonglobe4marshall; carpetbaggerromney; gaymarriage; homosexual; margaretmarshall; marriage; newyorktimes; novote4you; nytimesmanipulation; romney; romneyfascism; romneymarriage; romneyvsclerks; romneyvsconstitution
Very good points. Those who claim this is about the 14 amendment are idiots. The constitution has never forbade classification in relationship to the law. If so a person deprived of a drivers license could make an argument under the 14th amendment or if someone is denied a tax cut for buying an "environmentally friendly vehicle"/Green vehicle. The left needs to be careful because they are going to find the precedent this would set very distasteful if it holds up in the Supreme Court which I don't believe it will.
1 posted on 08/05/2010 5:41:08 PM PDT by Maelstorm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

regardless ...I am not ready to explain this to my grandson.


2 posted on 08/05/2010 5:42:57 PM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dalebert

How about: “Government has become a laughingstock” doesn’t just happen in fairy tales, my lad.


3 posted on 08/05/2010 5:46:46 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

Traditional marriage proponents need to start referring to it by its full title: “holy matrimony.”
That would put a quick end to any claim by homosexual couples.


4 posted on 08/05/2010 5:48:13 PM PDT by counterpunch (Heckuva job, Barry!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

What it is about is the end of “the consent of the governed.”


5 posted on 08/05/2010 5:48:13 PM PDT by La Lydia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

Exactly why must the government get into the business of promoting relationships of any kind? How about eliminating the differences in the tax code and other areas of law between married and single folk? All this goes away in an instant the moment the government gets its nose out of this area of life where they have no business (just like about 4 million other areas of our lives that they have no proper authoity to be involved in).


6 posted on 08/05/2010 5:48:40 PM PDT by Teacher317 (remember dismember November)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

When it comes to any law, terms such as ‘love’, ‘happiness’, etc, have no relevance. This is simply a matter of defining standards of contracts and measure (in this case, standardized meanings of terms and definitions on the contract).


7 posted on 08/05/2010 6:04:07 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317

I personally believe the tax code should be simplified. I don’t believe in rewarding someone or hurting someone with the tax code however that is irrespective of whether it is constitutional for the govt to license marriage as originally defined and not generic unions and call them marriage.
The judges ruling is crap and while I support less of a role of govt in my life govt supporting marriage as it has always been and rationally defined is not high on my list of oppression. What I do see as oppressive is those who would intimidate and deprive me of liberty because of my very valid and reasoned opinions concerning one form of “sexual” behavior.


8 posted on 08/05/2010 6:04:22 PM PDT by Maelstorm (This country was not founded with the battle cry "give me liberty or give me a govt check!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317; Maelstorm
Exactly why must the government get into the business of promoting relationships of any kind?

Several Constitutional arguments can be made around being authorized to define standards and measure (in this case a uniform definition of terms) and in regulating naturalization (as citizenship is tied to directly to birthright, parentage, and marriage.)

9 posted on 08/05/2010 6:07:03 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

The US needs to reexamine the role of the Fed in family life. I suspect the ‘tax perks’ for the traditional family has run its course.


10 posted on 08/05/2010 6:15:32 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your Change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

How come nobody makes the argument that we want to encourage traditional marriage, as a society.

1. There is a cost to marriage. Ask any guy. There has to be rewards to compensate.
2. We (used to, anyway) want as a society to limit the number of unclaimed children underfoot. Having a stable family structure was a big help here.
3. Despite all the fake studies to the contrary, children need both a mother and a father. Only the willfully blind think that other arrangements are just as good.
So society decided to give special privileges to man and wife marriage. Sorry, other types of marriage do not help us.


11 posted on 08/05/2010 6:24:44 PM PDT by AdSimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

If I were granted Carte Blanche over the way we do taxes on the federal level here’s what I’d do:

An individual* income tax set to a universal fixed and uniform rate of 10% [for ease of calculation] with no exceptions, exemptions, credits, or write-offs which would be charged/billed semi-annually {NO WITHHOLDING}.
{*Individual because that would necessarily keep churches, which are not individuals from being taxed; pastors, however, are individuals. It would also keep corporations from being taxed on their profit/incomes/”capital gains” allowing them to R&D... which they will have to employ [more] INDIVIDUALS for.}


12 posted on 08/05/2010 6:25:10 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dalebert

The public school will make sure that your young grandson will understand that two men can have sex in preschool and K. Now they have the law behind them to start the brainwashing and indoctrination with Sesame Street and with full force now. The Day of Silence was indoctrination also and their sex education classes that the homosexual “safe” school czar will sexualize those in Kindergarten—start them to think about what they could be doing with their you know what.

It is the sickest thing in the world, what these selfish homosexuals are trying to do to children’s thinking. The radicals are doing it on purpose, so when these little kids grow up they will approve of that lifestyle. They will also dabble in it because it is learned and they will be conditioned.

It will make religion obsolete (paganism and orgies acceptable....there will be no sexual morality—how could there be).

Communism wants a Brave New World with no parental controls over children....they want the natural family to be obsolete because biological relationships create loyalty and groups that could be strong enough to oppose the State.

It is the NWO to abolish revealed religions. Very Sad...because the Christian paradigm creates the most egalitarian societies where EVERYONE has worth, esp. women, who never have equality when marriage is not protected by state. With polygamy (which is next) women are always marginalized and second class citizens.


13 posted on 08/05/2010 6:25:31 PM PDT by savagesusie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

I think all tax perks and penalties should be eliminated. Now this doesn’t mean I think we should raise taxes. I think we should start at a 15% flat tax across board and shrink the govt to match it. However the constitutionality of preserving marriage licensing in the context of normal heterosexual “monogamous” relationships is not unconstitutional nor has it ever been nor would anyone who created the constitution or participated in the passage of the amendments have assumed any such thing. If they had dreamed this kind of mess would be possible they would have written the supremacy of heterosexual marriage into the constitution as an obvious fact.


14 posted on 08/05/2010 6:28:44 PM PDT by Maelstorm (This country was not founded with the battle cry "give me liberty or give me a govt check!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AdSimp

Good point and marriage should be encouraged and the govt is completely constitutional in encouraging it. The problem we face today is that fringe sexuality has been given equal ground with heterosexual monogamy which is stupid and irrational but that is the world we live in. There is also no good reason to reward homosexuality.


15 posted on 08/05/2010 6:36:22 PM PDT by Maelstorm (This country was not founded with the battle cry "give me liberty or give me a govt check!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

bullshit!!

No one can ever make me accept queers in any way under any circumstances!


16 posted on 08/05/2010 6:42:51 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie

the future looks bleak indeed..


17 posted on 08/05/2010 6:46:13 PM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

5700+ years of Jewish and Christian civilization define marriage for me. Gays are supremely arrogant to defy this. Judaism was a rebellion against paganism which included the sexually bizarre including sanctioning homosexuality. Gays are just a pimple on the ass of our civilization and its history


18 posted on 08/05/2010 6:49:07 PM PDT by dennisw (2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch

You nailed it.


19 posted on 08/05/2010 6:49:44 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Mexico is the U.S. version of Hamas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Biology defines it for me. Homosexuality is illogical and unreasoned. Most of those who are homosexual have either been abused or have some form of sexual retardation or maladjustment. It is not something to be encouraged.


20 posted on 08/05/2010 6:51:30 PM PDT by Maelstorm (This country was not founded with the battle cry "give me liberty or give me a govt check!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
Exactly why must the government get into the business of promoting relationships of any kind?

Because married couples produce off-spring and families that strengthen the nation.

21 posted on 08/05/2010 6:51:42 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Mexico is the U.S. version of Hamas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

“Judaism was a rebellion against paganism”

.
In its inception, it was instructions from YHWH on how to survive as a migrant nation in the sinai desert.

Later men twisted it to suit themselves. That was a movement toward paganism, not away.
.


22 posted on 08/05/2010 6:53:32 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Obamacare is America's kristallnacht !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

“he problem we face today is that fringe sexuality has been given equal ground with heterosexual monogamy which is stupid and irrational but that is the world we live in. There is also no good reason to reward homosexuality.”

I’d like one person to attempt to rationally explain how any homosexual relationship is better than your average heterosexual relationship in terms of the state’s welfare. A heterosexual relationship produces children, ie the nation’s future, its tax base, its productivity, and it’s workforce.

A homosexual relationship produces? Well, nothing, other than some pretty entertaining hissy fits.

The two types of relationships are by no means equal. Why should the federal government reward an inferior lifestyle that produces nothing in the same way it rewards its future sustenance?

You can show me your castrated prize bull all day long, but I’m not going to pay you for it when there’s another one that’s going to produce prize calves because it’s fertile.


23 posted on 08/05/2010 6:53:55 PM PDT by CaspersGh0sts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dalereed

Well they intend to try. California schools already have courses in many areas that specifically indoctrinate kids as young as kindergarten to accept homosexuality as normal. It isn’t and will never be but they most certainty intend to shut those of us who disagree up whether it be through fine, loss of work or any number of other forms of intimidation.

Gays are love them, or love them, there is not leave it.


24 posted on 08/05/2010 6:55:02 PM PDT by Maelstorm (This country was not founded with the battle cry "give me liberty or give me a govt check!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

All religions can backslide into partial paganism. I see this everywhere today.


25 posted on 08/05/2010 6:55:57 PM PDT by dennisw (2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

“Gays are love them, or love them, there is not leave it.”

I can still beat the crap out of them!


26 posted on 08/05/2010 6:58:31 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm
Biology defines it for me. Homosexuality is illogical and unreasoned. Most of those who are homosexual have either been abused or have some form of sexual retardation or maladjustment. It is not something to be encouraged.

The old time psychiatrists didn't like it and had some good explanations. These days any shrink who condemns it has ruined his career

27 posted on 08/05/2010 7:00:34 PM PDT by dennisw (2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

Exactly.

This is not about rights or laws, they can do all that with civil unions and powers-of-attorney.

It is about all of us - each and every one - accepting and believing and promoting this type of “marriage” as being the same in every way, and just as acceptable and normal as traditional man-woman marriage.

And they will NEVER be happy until that happens, and it will NEVER happen.

I continue to get the impression that many gay people, in fact most of them, are deeply ashamed. They don’t want to admit it. But they want to FORCE us to accept them as normal to somehow give them legitimacy.

I will never do that. Period.
It is a perversion.


28 posted on 08/05/2010 7:04:18 PM PDT by djf (They ain't "immigrants". They're "CRIMMIGRANTS"!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaspersGh0sts

If you analyze it from a rational perspective accommodating a homosexual relationship is artificial and is dependent on govt for it to maintain any status at all. Gender is real and for real 100% sex you need two members one from each gender. We may call same gender relations sex but it really isn’t. Sex is an activity that could if both partners are fertile produce offspring. Homosexuals can not produce offspring with their same sex partners at least not without radical scientific intervention which is something we as a society will one day be asked to pay for just to be “equal”.

The alternative is to have a third party involved which only complicates and legal status and guardianship of offspring. All children who are not biologically connected to the parents are more likely to suffer abuse. I know we have seen several studies which were conducted for the sake of activism trying to norm homosexuality but there should be real questions about encouraging partnerships in a group where drug abuse, suicide, domestic violence, sexual disease, sexual abuse, mental disorder, and relationship instability is much higher. Add a child who has no biological relationship to one or both parents and you are setting up a very dangerous combination.

The very first male couple that was allowed to Foster children in the UK was found to have molested them. The social workers ignored signs in the form of lewd pictures which the men had been taking of the boys age 8 -15.
What gets me is the unreality of the way homosexuals are dealt with. They are given kid glove treatment and people refuse to apply even a fraction of the caution that known science and research should warrant.

Even conservatives are reluctant because the gay lobby is such a bully. Anyone who thinks this doesn’t affect them is living in a naive little bubble.


29 posted on 08/05/2010 7:13:26 PM PDT by Maelstorm (This country was not founded with the battle cry "give me liberty or give me a govt check!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: CaspersGh0sts
A heterosexual relationship produces children, ie the nation’s future, its tax base, its productivity, and it’s workforce.

Exactly, good post, as are many on this thread.

30 posted on 08/05/2010 7:20:13 PM PDT by prairiebreeze (We don't have a leader in the Oval Office, we have a reader in the Oval Office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch
Traditional marriage proponents need to start referring to it by its full title: “holy matrimony.”

If it is a matter of calling it "Marriage" or "Holy Matrimony" or "Civil Union", then maybe the answer it to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and render unto God the things that are God's.

The State, whether it be the State of California or the Government of the United States, does not deal in "holiness" or religious meaning. The State deals with inheritance law, allowable deductions on your 1040 Form or your California Income Tax Form, who gets stuck with paying alimony in case of a divorce, etc., etc.

A ceremony performed at the Courthouse by a Justice of the Peace "by the authority vested in me by the State of California" deals only with "the things that are Caesar's". God is not even mentioned ...... or else the ACLU would file a "separation of Church and State" lawsuit.

Only religious marriage ceremonies ever mention God and each religion defines what it and what is not considered "Holy Matrimony".

So, why don't we take the definition of "Holy Matrimony" out of the Courthouse and out of the hands of secular Judges and put it back in the Church or the Temple where it belongs?

Let the State issue the licenses and make the laws regarding "the things that are Caesar's" and have the State deal only in the creation of "Civil Unions" FOR EVERYBODY.

So, the State wants to consider that Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve are in "Civil Union" that allows them this or that tax category and allows the State to decide who will get how much of the other person's stuff if they break up. Fine. Whatever floats the State's boat.

Once you jump through the legal hoops, you then get a Certificate from the State proclaiming that Person A is now in a "Civil Union" with Person B ...... a purely legal act that has no more moral or spiritual implications than forming an S Corporation for your small business.

In the meantime, for example, the Catholic Church will maintain that Adam and Steve are NOT joined by Holy Matrimony.

As a matter of fact, if Adam and Eve never bothered to go to the Church to obtain the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, the Catholic Church will maintain that NEITHER Adam and Eve NOR the other Adam and Steve are "married". In the eyes of the Catholic Church, BOTH couples are "living in sin".

Not even a unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States can change that.

So, if you want "Holy Matrimony", and you want to render unto God the things that are God's, you go to your Catholic Church or Baptist Church or Synagogue and the Priest or Minister or Rabbi will perform the ritual, before God.

Then God, not the pencil-pushers of the State, the will define "Holy Matrimony".

"Marriage" is a term that has very deep religious connotations and the State, by the First Amendment, has no business redefining the term or using the term if it differs from the traditional religious meaning.

So that is the solution:

Have the State only declare "Civil Unions" FOR EVERYBODY. Have the State stick to "the things that are Caesar's". Have the State stick to tax regulations, inheritance laws and divorce lawyers fighting over alimony payments.

Have the Churches and Temples "stick to the things that are God's" and decree, according to their own religious law and traditions, who is actually in a state of "Holy Matrimony" in the eyes of God.

"But .... but ...... Adam and Steve claim that they have a 'Marriage' when all they have is a 'Civil Union'!"

So? What does it matter what Adam and Steve call it?

"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." .... Abraham Lincoln

31 posted on 08/05/2010 7:20:30 PM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

>> If they had dreamed this kind of mess ...

Maybe they didn’t exclude the possibility of such things.

The issue has wobbled incrementally out of our control, and into the hands of corrupt law and bureaucracy. Who didn’t anticipate the potential problems with Prop 8 as it might be ruled Unconstitutional? The implications are disastrous for traditional values, institutions, and corporations that recognize the benefits of the ‘whole’ family.

Advancing law that governs ‘non-criminal’ behavior is not unlike a crap shoot where the gamble is to have govt rule in your favor while risking the chance it will rule against you. The natural form of society is better equipped to manage social issues, and capable of discouraging undesirable behavior.

Concerning marriage, the govt should have no role whatsoever including issues that involve discriminatory charges against organizations not supporting homosexual relationships. If for example a photographer decides not to offer services to homosexuals, then that photographer must not be charged with criminal discrimination for that choice.

Repeal, repeal, repeal. We have too many damn laws.

BTW, I don’t consider abortion a ‘social’ issue - it’s a crime against humanity; those tiny little humans.


32 posted on 08/05/2010 7:26:53 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your Change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: djf

Many of them are also many of them harbor horrible secrets. The one gay man I know the best was molested by his gay uncle. I know for certain he showed interest in girls before this event forever changed him. I know that not all gay men have been molested but I find it alarming how many have been. Yet this is mostly ignored along with the fact that self identified homosexuals are more likely than the general population to commit sexual abuse.

You are right they will never be normal because they aren’t and most people know instinctively what normal sexual relationships are.


33 posted on 08/05/2010 7:34:23 PM PDT by Maelstorm (This country was not founded with the battle cry "give me liberty or give me a govt check!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm
That’s what the decision was exactly about: Commanding society to view homosexual relationships with a favor that society has been unwilling to grant.

Precisely! They don't want tolerance, they want acceptance.

34 posted on 08/05/2010 7:42:03 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

I’ve never encountered the degree of outright hostility and intolerance as I have when discussing this issue. A lot of people have simply been brainwashed by the media and refuse to think rationally. It is amazing how pervasive it is. It was bad with Global Warming too but not nearly to the degree as it is with the failure of sexual liberalism.

All liberal sexual policy has failed horribly. Gay marriage is just another that will fail but as has been the case in the past a lot of people will fail with it. The problem is that the media refuses to be critical of liberal sexual behavior outside of where it is politically advantageous.
The cost to society is huge, if you include the rise in kids born out of wedlock their dysfunctions, and the rise in sexual disease, the cost of mental health care, you end up with numbers in the billions all for the sake of a group of people who don’t want to be sexually responsible and have had as a goal the destruction of the basic family unit.


35 posted on 08/05/2010 8:43:07 PM PDT by Maelstorm (This country was not founded with the battle cry "give me liberty or give me a govt check!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch

That’s it. It’s a language thing. There is now and will be a need to draw a distinction. The word “marriage” is being altered in meaning. There is still a need to draw that distinction. Maybe it will be “traditional marriage”. That will be the new target? That was my first inclination, but I like “holy matrimony” better.


36 posted on 08/05/2010 10:37:45 PM PDT by blackd77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm
The money quote:

That’s what the decision was exactly about: Commanding society to view homosexual relationships with a favor that society has been unwilling to grant.

Re-education camps, here we come.

37 posted on 08/06/2010 9:13:37 AM PDT by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson