Posted on 08/19/2010 6:18:04 AM PDT by throwback
Together with my good friend and occasional courtroom adversary David Boies, I am attempting to persuade a federal court to invalidate California's Proposition 8—the voter-approved measure that overturned California's constitutional right to marry a person of the same sex.
My involvement in this case has generated a certain degree of consternation among conservatives. How could a politically active, lifelong Republican, a veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, challenge the "traditional" definition of marriage and press for an "activist" interpretation of the Constitution to create another "new" constitutional right?
My answer to this seeming conundrum rests on a lifetime of exposure to persons of different backgrounds, histories, viewpoints, and intrinsic characteristics, and on my rejection of what I see as superficially appealing but ultimately false perceptions about our Constitution and its protection of equality and fundamental rights.
Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
He quotes “endowed by their creator” but forgets what that creator did to Sodom and Gamorah because of this very subject. Go figure.
Hahaha, amazing. I see what you did there.
Also, why would I even have to worry about supporting something that should be none of the courts business anyway? Separation of church and state! Remember that? MARRIAGE is a religious thing, not a legal one, if they want to be legally hitched, that’s fine, but they had better stay out of the church. Also, I think this should apply to people who are not religious, don’t marry using a bible and a church if you don’t believe in the entities behind them. Civil partnerships for anyone who has no religious connections.
Yes, it does. Words cannot convey the sickness evidenced in those photos.
Jim - maybe mods are busy this morning - this guy is consistently pushing the “gay” agenda nonstop!
that said, i believe that the founders, as well as most cultures of history began with the moral judgement against the homos, knowing that its counterproductive to anything 'normal' and healthy for society...
we are, i believe, simply witnessing the pattern of every fallen society...pick any 'sin'...the practice thereof doesnt necessarily bring immediate physical judgement, so it gets tolerated and spreads into the culture, and imperfect humans that desire to insult the Lord [at least subconciously] and/or demand 'gimmes' from society and/or ones just seeking a lil cheap thrill, willingly rush down the road to perdition...
a few generations and all bets are off, the government is a reflection of the decomposition of the culture, and those who have turned towards the Will of God are ridiculed and pitted against each other...and we search for the few that will grab the lifeline we are called to throw out into the midst of it all, while tip-toeing thru the minefield of 'the world' that is laid before us...
I'm prolly rambling at this point, suffice it to say that we all have our crosses to bear, and in the Lord's eyes, all sin is an abomination...but how we accept His Will and Plans for our redemption, which includes repentence not found in legitimizing/legalising the behaviors or attitudes, is what makes the difference in society...
by condoning the behavior, we are refusing to be good witnesses to His Glory, whether they 'hear' or 'see' what we are saying matters little, except to God...
San Francisco values at work.
I agree with you.
-Then set your energies to putting your own house in order before you start after the house across the street. You collectively have made a mockery of the sacrament of marriage and now you come before us to defend it. You collectively should all be ashamed of yourselves.
“You”? Meaning us normal people? My house is in order, thank you very much. I have not made a mockery of marriage. Legalizing “marriage” between two people of the same sex is mocking marriage. It’s like calling day “night” and night “day”. Words have instrinsic meanings. Natural law is natural law. Your deviant desires or twisted world view cannot change Reality. Objective reality exists apart from your twisted mind. Objective reality says that “marriage” means between a man and a woman. Not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. Never has, never will.
What "rights" are you giving? IIRC the government has no power to do that under our system ...
"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
I notice he didn't specify which religion, I wonder why?
Ha Ha Ha! An “internet martyr”!
Someone - grant him his wish! Please! Fry him good!
Unless we get government out of marriage, we will get homo marriage legalized nationwide, enforced and sanctioned by government within 10 years based on equal protection precedents. I don't like it, but that's what it is going to be, and it will be subsidized with my tax money which offends me even more than homo marriage does in the first place.
----------------------------
DJ - did you see the above??
see post 124. From what I researched, the founding fathers jailed or hanged homos. So much for the “constitutional” argument for depravity.
The information Olson’s side provided at trial in front of Judge Walker, goes against almost every single point he tries to make.
Divorce rates in Mass have risen 4.3% whereas the rest of the country has seen a 2.7% drop in divorce, all in the four years since homosexual marriage was judicially enacted (I’m pretty sure of my figures and can easily find out as the testimony from the trial is available to all).
European Countries that have legalized gay marriage not only have the lowest levels of married heterosexuals in the Western world, they also have the highest divorce rates.
Each one of their experts testified that gay marriage would change marriage in some way, not one would say that it had no effect on society. Most did say they did not know what effects would come from gay marriage, with one who specifically stated higher divorce rates are being noticed in all countries and states that have allowed gay marriage.
The first researchers who studied the possibility of homosexual marriage ALL are very open and honest about their desire to end marriage. Each went into their research with the stated intent to prove marriage has a harmful role in society and should be ended. They also admit to emphasizing in their research only that which fit their intentions while dismissing or ignoring anything that deviated from their beliefs.
These same researchers who championed homosexual marriage have also been proponents of communism, Marxism and socialism and have attempted to prove through their research that societies benefit only from complete government control in all areas.
No, their marriages are not meaningless, they are a stepping stone to ending marriages role in society while pushing for a society that is “married” to a huge, centralized, government with full control over every aspect of our lives.
It is one thing to claim that a law that congress passes is unconstitutional. But these liberal judges order the local governments to issue marriage licenses for the first time in history. They are claiming a lack of action, the non-issuing same sex couple marriage licenses, is forbid by the US constitution (suddenly) and they therefore order the state to do it regardless of the law and the state constitution. Sexual desire defines a special protected class with new rights to government action.
Watching Ted Olsen argue this liberal logic is sickening.
Ann Coulter put it best. " If you are going to replace a 10,000 year old tradition, at least give us a vote on it.'
We have what's needed already. Wills, power of attorney, power of appointment. Those cover what is needed. When it gets further pushed, then government starts sanctioning civil unions and partnerships, essentially endorsing gay marriage and that's where I start having a problem.
Government should get out of marriage. I agree. The rest should be private contracts between consenting adults without anything forced on others. No more. No less.
The difference is that the examples of heterosexuals” abusing their daughters is infinitessimal and condemned by 99.9999% of other heterosexuals, whereas affairs like the Folsom Street Perversion festival are common occurances in many cities and applauded and taken part in by large numbers of homosexuals and never condemned by any.
Your arguments are pathetically weak, lame and meaningless.
Noob, I'd tread carefully here. Show me that phrase in the Constitution.
Civil partnerships for anyone who has no religious connections.
No special rights based on deviant behavior.
See post 124. I rest my case.
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.