Skip to comments.How to Win the Marriage Debate (a must read)
Posted on 02/08/2012 9:06:26 AM PST by Paladins Prayer
The big news on the culture-war front is a federal court's striking down of Proposition 8, California's constitutional amendment protecting marriage. In a two-to-one ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit wrote, "The people may not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry."
Now, I'm not sure why the judges mention a "disfavored group," as if singling out a "favored" one for unequal treatment would be okay. As far as I know, the 14th Amendment, on which the court based its ruling, doesn't offer equal protection to only those the current fashions deem "disfavored." Thus, I think this is an example of emotionalism influencing a ruling and its language, sort of as if a judge sentenced a defendant and, adding an adjective, announced him as "stupid" Mr. Smith. Calling a group "disfavored" is similarly a subjective judgment. This is not the only thing the judges were subjective about, however.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
So if you lived in Washington State and you had a civil union (everything but marriage) then that somehow prevented hospital visitation and life support wishes?
Life support wishes can be taken care of through advanced directives and the like (legal instruments). As far as I’m concerned, a private hospital should be allowed to set its own policy on visitation rules. Don’t like them, go to a different hospital.
Is there a legal definition of “consummating” a homosexual marriage?
They must be good friends. Your first page of posting history going back to May of last year is 95% on homosexuality-related topics. Are those the only topics you come here to follow?
Hardly. In fact, I mostly try to avoid these threads.
I'm the type who feels the need to post only when I disagree with the going sentiment, and I think it's fair to say I have a moderate position on the issue compared to many FReepers who frequent the "homosexualagenda" list. But many times I can't help but respond to comments that I think are over the top.
Sorry for double post.
If you want to win the War on Marriage you’d be for civil unions as well. The major argument on which homosexual activists have some standing is in the legal realm. Civil unions provide the answer while protecting marriage as between on man and one woman. Civil unions are available not just to homosexuals, but to anyone.
We’ve already lost generation Y as they’ve been fully indoctrinated into the homosexual lifestyle. It will only get worse as time goes on since American parents do not control or influence their children’s indoctrination in government schools.
DOMA stands, but it isn’t sufficient as this court case shows. They’ll keep coming back until they flip Kennedy or some other mushy middler. The actual solution is to end government schooling through vouchers, but the ideological purists among us and the middle class fear vouchers. Not for the same reasons, yet with the same effect.
“Civil unions are available not just to homosexuals, but to anyone”
Far as I know in the US Civil Unions are for same-sex couples, a couple of foreign countries allow them for opposite sex couples.
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.