Posted on 06/17/2011 6:28:00 AM PDT by flowerplough
Same here.
Yes indeed. Consistently, too.
metmom: “Are there any libertarians who support slavery?”
It takes the thread a bit off the original topic, but you make an interesting point. I think slavery would be consistent with libertarian thought so long as the slave voluntarily gave up their freedom. For example, what if someone gambled their freedom in a bet and lost? Would a libertarian say that’s OK so long as it isn’t involuntary servitude? I think so. I suppose the question then is what would a libertarian say if the slave later wanted to renege on the deal? Would they want government to enforce the contract, or would they let people violate contracts at will? Hmmmm. All this libertarian nonsense is giving me a headache!
The problem here is, a pattern has been established. Listen, I don’t want gay marriage anymore than anyone else. That said, lots of legal minds figure that it’s going to be found legal sooner rather than later. What they cannot win at the ballot box, they take to a judge. The standard modus operandi of the left on lots of issues. I suspect that is the reason for the terminology of civil unions, leaving the term “marriage” to religious organizations. Even Ted Olson has gone over to the dark side on this issue. It’s hard to justify under the equal protection clause, lawyers are finding out.
Wasn’t ignoring everyone’s posts on this, but our area had a complete regional DSL wipeout the entire day Friday. I won’t be able to answer all who kindly pinged me on this thread because I am behind on other stuff I need to do online.
I haven’t had time to read this entire thread, as our region had a DSL problem tonight. And I cannot respond to every word, since I’m behind on tasks, but I’ll do the quickest thing I can.
You are preaching to the choir.
I am not & have never been a fan of gay marriage. Moreover, and to the point, I reserve special hostility for those who want to encourage gay adoption and those who advocate for in-vitro to produce a child for a gay couple. Children should not be treated like pets at a shelter; that any good home is better than the orphanage. And I resent those who want to produce via man, that which God will not permit; namely children “produced” by science just for the benefit of gay couples.
But I am a realist, too. I see the world in a conservative way. As it is, not as I wish it to be.
You have mistakenly stomped on the exact reason why good, solid conservatives might at some date consider civil union type things as a better alternative than what WILL be foisted upon us later on. And it is coming, I promise you.
Very good legal arguments can and will be made about why family members cannot marry. Legal precedent is full of them.
To forestall the legalization of polygamy, the definition of marriage has to include TWO people only. Period. Although Jeffrey Toobin has his bony hand in this. If we don’t exact at least this from courts, we are indeed opening the door to polygamy. And Sharia Law. And we will be powerless to stop it, much to my dismay.
Probably 20 years ago, I was at a picnic. It was a friend of a friend of a friend type thing. There were two ladies there, probably in their 60’s, age wise. I was told they were a “couple” who had been together since their mid-20’s.
They were very nice women. Friendly & engaging. They did nothing in public anyone would have to hide their children from seeing. Two grandmotherly types.
While I imagine they are both gone now, given their ages, there WILL be a case like this that finds its way into the judicial system. And the question will be simple:
“Why were these two people prevented from forming a legally recognized household, that would have afforded them the ability to have their household protected by the same laws that protect ALL households? Why would a surviving partner not be allowed to collect Social Security benefits, for example, after many decades of having a household?”
When this question reaches the SCOTUS (yes, even this SCOTUS), there is no where to run & nowhere to hide. If they are originalists, grounded in the Declaration and the Constitution, the question I raised above will be answered. Equal protection under the law means just what it says. And our side is going to be slapped down, regrettably.
I’m on YOUR side.
But I see the world as it is and not as I wish it to be.
Keep in mind I have not mentioned once how this battle is playing out in the younger generation.
If the Boss wants to kick me off for saying this, it’s his right. This is his place and I’m just a guest. But I always thought we were supposed to be about the give and take of ideas.
This opens the door to incest as a valid marriage. And anyone who thinks that if we redefine marriage and limit it to two people then that will end polygamy is naive at best. To allow homosexual marriage is to destroy the entire institution of marriage as we know it.
I’m on YOUR side.
Were.
If I read your post correctly you have surrendered to the dark side.
No.
You have either misunderstood or misrepresented what I’ve said.
I CLEARLY said in my post that it would not include members of the same family, citing many legal precedents for this. And yes, classifying marriage between two and only two people will give headaches to the polygamy crowd. And I do not believe the law will permit it. Why? Because they cannot be given PREFERENTIAL treatment. Recognition of polygamy requires that, which is another violation of the equal protection clause. Can you imagine the lawsuits? To recognize polygamy, one must conclude that if each wife has been around for ten years, that EACH of them is entitled, under the law, to draw on the full SS benefits of the husband. Think about that for about 5 minutes.
That will never happen, or we will be broke faster than we are already gonna be broke.
I note that you have not commented on the couple I referenced in my post. Under which part of the Constitution or the Declaration will you stake your claim? Are they entitled to any legal protection of their household or not?
I’m not trying to be coy, but I am trying to make you understand that this is the question the courts will be expected to answer.
Ok, I will. This is what you wrote:
There were two ladies there, probably in their 60’s, age wise. I was told they were a “couple” who had been together since their mid-20’s.
They were very nice women. Friendly & engaging. They did nothing in public anyone would have to hide their children from seeing. Two grandmotherly types....
While I imagine they are both gone now, given their ages, there WILL be a case like this that finds its way into the judicial system. And the question will be simple:
“Why were these two people prevented from forming a legally recognized household, that would have afforded them the ability to have their household protected by the same laws that protect ALL households? Why would a surviving partner not be allowed to collect Social Security benefits, for example, after many decades of having a household?”
If we are going to give these rights and priviledges to two grandmotherly women who have lived together for 20 years, then what is the rationale for denying these rights and priviledges to EVERYONE who has shared a house for 20 years? Why would we deny this benefit to sisters who live together, or brothers who live together, or a Father and Daughter who live together or a mother and son?
It seems to me that the qualifier for your scenario is that as long as these people are not closely related and as long as they have engaged in sodomistic behavior for a period of time, then they should therefore qualify for all the benefits of marriage and be entitled to share in social security death benefits.
I'm hoping you simply have not thought through your position. However it sounds to me like you have given up the traditional marriage fight and have surrendered to the enemy.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Furthermore, any argument for “civil union” is an argument for the demise of marriage. As wagglebee has carefully pointed out “marriage” has been a governmental issue for centuries and centuries. Of course it is: it is the only safe and effective way to care for the next generation.
Civil union cheapens the protections given to potentially child-rearing couples by ignoring the state’s legitimate interest in the next generation.
In all other cases, there is nothing preventing homosexuals from signing contracts and drawing up wills.
Correct. And disputes over those contracts should be resolved in regular Civil Court and Probate Courts and should not be under the jurisdiction of Family Law Courts.
You know, sometimes on controversial issues here on FR, we sometimes resort to the very human thing of shooting from the hip, name-calling, and all. I know. I have probably done it myself, much to my regret. I sincerely appreciate the passionate, yet dignified way that you state your thoughts, without personal amimus. We all care about this deeply; it’s just that some of us are approaching things from other angles.
I have thought about ALL those possibilities that you mentioned. And probably a few that you didn’t.
Here is what I am looking at these days. I am trying to force myself to read some of the arguments that are being made in court, both IN favor and AGAINST in the Prop 8 case in CA, for example. I have a ways to go before the cases brought in other state. I started with CA because Ted Olson is a party to this and he used to be on our side. These are long, boring legal arguments, but I am doing my best to get through them.
I believe it is important to know upon what grounds these new “rights” are being argued and its what I am trying to do. That is the only way, I believe, that we are going to be able to come up with defending our traditional position.
To illustrate this:
Just a “for instance” here is this argument: The notion that gay couples should have to go to the expense of legal documents to secure rights that others already have, is proof of the violation of the equal protection clause. That is one of their claims. I continue to read more of this stuff and promise to report what I find. You can’t fight the other side, unless you know their game plan. It’s the reason why everyone else is watching Hannity, etc. that I make sure to roll over to MSLSD to see what those kooks are saying.
So that is what I am doing now.
When Congress made Christmas a national holiday, they cited the fact that Jesus was the greatest philosopher who ever lived. Seeing that His teachings are the underpinning of Western Civilization, it is somewhat absurd to give Washington and Lincoln holidays and not the man who inspired all of what they fought for.
THAT IS PURE UNADULTERATED BULLCRAP!
Your understanding of the Equal Protection clause is as silly as your gay marriage pimping.
Gay people, be they single or couples have the same rights as everyone else. They can marry people of the opposite sex who are not immediate family members and who are not already married to someone else.
A Lesbian can marry a homosexual man. Then guess what? THEY ARE THEN A LEGALLY MARRIED GAY COUPLE! Nobody is stopping gay people from legally marrying people of the opposite sex. Every American has that right.
If a gay man marries a lesbian, they then have all the rights and priviledges (AND RESPONSIBILITES) accorded every other married couple. They can have children. They can adopt children.
The whole purpose of having a legally acknowledge marital status in this country and throughout the civilized world is TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF CHILDREN. Certainly the system does not work perfectly, but there is NO LEGITIMATE PURPOSE to be served by recognizing a marital status that HAS NO POSSIBILITY OF PRODUCING NATURAL OFFSPRING!
Now, if you want to continue to spout this nonsense, then I suspect your posting days here are numbered. The gay agenda is not welcome here. If you don't already know that, then maybe your ought to read some of Jim Robinson's many pronouncements.
If you want to post one of their arguments to find out how to shut it down, then that's just great. If you promote such arguments, I suspect the next time I click on your forum page I expect to see that you have been suspended or banned.
Happy Father's Day.
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.