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

Skip to comments.

How to Win the Marriage Debate (a must read)
American Thinker ^ | February 8, 2012 | Selwyn Duke

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: california; homosexualagenda; marriage; proposition8; ruling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-48 next last
This is the best article I've ever read on this subject. Be sure to read it to the very end. You won't be disappointed.
1 posted on 02/08/2012 9:06:30 AM PST by Paladins Prayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

The Ninth Circuit: rebuttal bait for Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas.


2 posted on 02/08/2012 9:10:31 AM PST by lurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer
Now, some will say the court accepts that there has been a redefinition of marriage. If so, they had best tell us what it is. Because, you see, our leftist marriage engineers have not redefined marriage.

They have undefined it.

Brilliant!!

3 posted on 02/08/2012 9:13:47 AM PST by Hodar ( Who needs laws; when this FEELS so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

Based on information and belief, single, competent adults currently have the right to marry in every state.


What is festive about sodomy?


4 posted on 02/08/2012 9:16:40 AM PST by seton89 (Starve the Beast)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

What would marriage provide for a gay couple that they don’t already enjoy through civil unions and legal contracts?


5 posted on 02/08/2012 9:19:14 AM PST by Baynative (The penalty for not participating in politics is you will be governed by your inferiors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer
This is why conservatives should never use the term "gay marriage," as this is an explicit acknowledgement that such an institution exists.

Ping to Maggie Gallagher, that vaunted "defender of marriage"!

Thanks for posting this. It is, as you say, well worth the reading.
6 posted on 02/08/2012 9:26:18 AM PST by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

It would be interesting to know what qualifies someone to serve on the 9th Circuit. I’m not even sure you have to be able to fog a mirror.


7 posted on 02/08/2012 9:30:49 AM PST by econjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

Forced acceptance on the rest of society through force of law.


8 posted on 02/08/2012 9:35:44 AM PST by ConjunctionJunction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

Excellent post — thank you.


9 posted on 02/08/2012 9:36:23 AM PST by Albion Wilde (A land of hyper-legalisms is not the same as a land of law. --Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack

I’m pretty sure the only requirement is to be an uber Moonbat.


10 posted on 02/08/2012 9:37:09 AM PST by ConjunctionJunction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer
unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry.

The issue for the left is largely monetary, of course. Spouses qualify under insurance plans, significant others generally do not. Social security benefits and pensions are granted to the spouse of the deceased, not the significant other.

So the real point for the left is to grant monetary advantage to a favored group, (rather than a disfavored group). I think they know their reasoning is inconsistent and contradictory. They just don't care since the goal is to work the system to 'get' something for one of their faithful groups. Leftists are usually motivated by self interest, the holier than thou rhetoric is merely justification, like calling baby murder 'women's reproductive rights'.

11 posted on 02/08/2012 9:37:29 AM PST by LucianOfSamasota (Tanstaafl - its not just for breakfast anymore...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack

Or as Michael Savage calls it, the Ninth Jerk-it Court of Shlemiels.


12 posted on 02/08/2012 9:37:29 AM PST by Paladins Prayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Baynative
What would marriage provide for a gay couple that they don’t already enjoy through civil unions and legal contracts?

It's not about "protecting" or "granting" "rights" to anyone. It's about the ability to MAKE other people bend to their will and accept something they find morally reprehensible.

If I want to believe Sarah Palin and I are married and live in a castle on the moon, that's my right. The issue arises when I try to force you to believe it. That authoritarian impulse of the left rises its ugly head again.

13 posted on 02/08/2012 9:37:38 AM PST by South Hawthorne (In Memory of my dear Friend Henry Lee II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer
The 9th Circuit errs because homosexuals are not denied the ability to marry. Look at Elton John. He is homosexual and was legally married. A homosexual may, however, be denied the ability to marry who they please. However, they are not the only ones being denied. Most states limit marriage to one man, one woman, of legal age, and not closely related. Under the courts ruling, a person who is a bigamist, zoophile, pedophile or wanting to engage in an incestuous relation is also being discriminated. By only focusing on one of the limiting factors in the statue they are themselves engaged in discriminating behavior and not providing equal protection under the law under their own arguments. Truly following their argument would allow any relation to be protected as a marital right. The “undefining” of marriage indeed.
14 posted on 02/08/2012 9:39:40 AM PST by Armando Guerra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: South Hawthorne

exactly.

It’s about shutting down religious adoption agencies.

It’s about suing churches for refusing to perform their ceremonies.

It’s about benefits.

It’s especially about school curriculum.


15 posted on 02/08/2012 9:42:07 AM PST by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

How can “civil unions” be civil when it is defined by sodomy. There is no “right” to sodomy-—something which is not conducive to the “general welfare” of a civil society by any amount of twisting the meaning of the Constitution. The Constitution and Just Law is designed to promote “Virtue”, the necessary element in a free nation and the fundamental reason for social contracts, understood by all Founders of the Constitution.

To deliberately promote ideas which destroy civil societies, should be as illegal as promotion of killing babies-—both vile, inhumane and need to be abolished.


16 posted on 02/08/2012 9:42:25 AM PST by savagesusie (Right Reason According to Nature = Just Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Hodar

I’ve been asserting that for years.

If you discard the ONE definition for marriage,
you have NO definition of marriage.

Once you cut loose society from its moorings,
you have set it adrift to define anything as right or wrong,
even things you think are repugnant now.

And if you say that society can change the definition of right and wrong as is accepted at the time,
then you have no business judging the holocaust or slavery in America.


17 posted on 02/08/2012 9:42:38 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife

“All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”
Benito Mussolini,
reprised by Barack Hussein Obama


18 posted on 02/08/2012 9:45:56 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife

The shutting down adoption agencies is about the indoctrination of children into an evil worldview-—the secular humanism where sodomy is “good” so these warped children will grow up thinking that “homosexual” marriage is rational.

It is why they have “gay pride” in all public schools....to force the concept that “sodomy is good”. It is to normalize a vile, demeaning urge to defile bodies—which will remove all Christian Ethics from our country.

It goes back to the Postmodern movement: God is Dead. They want Satan worshipped and excrement is what is glorified in Satanic rituals-—the Bohemian Grove Sandusky-type world.


19 posted on 02/08/2012 9:49:12 AM PST by savagesusie (Right Reason According to Nature = Just Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer
"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."

Hot dang! Does this mean me and my sister Shirley can get hitched now?

20 posted on 02/08/2012 9:50:05 AM PST by Ranald S. MacKenzie (It's the philosophy, stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-48 next last

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