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 ...
Sorry, don’t know.
Natural Law such as Man is different from Woman and when combined, they produce Babies.
I left out polygamy since it was a detail. Even in religions or cultures that allowed polygamy, it still mean Man and Woman or Women. And even in those cultures/societies/religions it wasn’t the norm. It served the purpose as well of providing husbands for women when many men were killed in battle, became monks or whatever.
Doesn’t hurt my argument aka “the truth” one tad.
Thanks - thought you Knew All.
:-D
How much is a 'tad' anyway?
A little smaller than "a bit".
It’s so small that you can pinch in between your thumb and forefinger and you won’t feel it.
“Every being in the universe knows right from wrong, Mark.”
I don’t watch movies or TV and haven’t much in 40 years so I don’t know where that quote is from.
But I don’t care either.
Jus’ letting you know!
On this, I hope ALL of us here can agree!
Marriage in the secular sense is a legislative issue, and for any court to say a legislature can or cannot deem the requirements for a marriage under the law, is fundamentally insane.
If it is a legislative issue, then the rules must by equal for all participants - AND - there must be a compelling interest that allows the government to to establish the rules.
No homosexual has had any “right” violated by a legislature refusing to pass a law stating they can marry a member of the same sex, in fact they are being treated absolutely equal under the law.. The law says any 2 people can marry as long as they of different gender... So, any gay man can marry any woman they want, and vice versa. They can marry legally, they choose not to... to say the legislature does not have authority to determine this is treason.
Now we move into the problem area. We continue to say "marry" / "marriage" when we are discussing the obligations of two people in secular unions. The government DOES distiguish between the two, to the detriment of those in "secular unions" (this includes a man and woman living together, at least to a point ...). Secular "marriage" is nothing more than a contractual obligation between two parties that the government has decided to grant special priveleges.
Why? because its not about being “married” its about politics, nothing more. Attempting to force the majority to accept what they find generally abhorant behavior as “normal”.. not tolerate it, no but accept it as normal.. and that’s what this is about.
That it is about politics is 100% dead on! Forcing others to accept abhorant behaviour? We already DO! Or is homosexuality illegal? We allow them to live with who they want, for as long as they want and do with each other what they want.
This whole debate comes down to whether the government should grant the same priveleges to a homosexual union that it grants to a traditional one. 99% of the arguments on BOTH sides are emotional.
I guess the real question is: if two people enter into a secular "marriage" contract (for want of a better word!) where they agree to be one entity by law - is it proper for the government to grant only particular contracts special status.
"For your information: All beings have the capacity to cure themselves, Mark."
There is no union. They simulate hetero sex. The whole "relationship" is a simulation of the real thing. It is unnatural and will not result in a family. It is an evolutionary dead end and serves no purpose except hedonistically.
99% of the arguments on BOTH sides are emotional.
No. They are not.
And you ARE pushing homosexual unions.
I am quickly coming to the conclusion noob that you are unbalanced.
Yes. I was sorry I posted that reply because it seemed like taunting the slow kids.
I posted also but the attention is focused on you.
"I would say you're in need of a Thorazine drip, Doctor."
*pulls up a chair*
Hello.
..to encourage the production of a future society to carry on those blessings.
The mere feeelings of homosexuals contribute nothing to society.
homosexual special recognition does nothing for society in the future other than have a negative impact.
It seems to me this keeps getting back to whether homosexuality is acceptable or not.
Our society and our laws allow homosexuality - my moral code, and yours say this is abhorant to God (our relgious beliefs seem to be similar so I am taking the leave to make some comparisons - I intend no disrespect!). Our society allows them to live together etc... we believe this is a sin. From a religious standpoint - we should never allow for homsexuality to become acceptable within the church. Secularly, we are charged with providing an example - it is however, WRONG for us to legislate what we otherwise can not achieve through our witness. FORCING people to live according to God's will does not lead that person to salvation.
As to the "advanced" American Society - please! We established a great form of government which we promptly proceeded to destroy within a few years ... as a nation, we are MORE depraved than any nation in the history of the world and our morals & ethics leave a lot to be desired. Our rates of divorce, teen pregnacy, alcoholism, drug use, production and consumation of pornagraphy, abortion, murder and so on LEAD the "civilized" world.
Sorry, I fail to see how governments "protection" of secular marriage as between a man and a woman has done anything to allieviate the above - not that any other definition would be any better ...
"I travel light. That's a joke, Mark. You humans there's just no sense of humor."
Noob you taunt posters with posts that make no sense. That’s not appreciated around 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.