Posted on 02/23/2014 11:44:35 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
In 2006, 57 percent of Virginia’s electorate voted to amend their state’s constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Last week, U.S. District Judge Arenda Wright Allen ruled the amendment unconstitutional.
In 2004, 76 percent of Oklahoma’s electorate voted to amend their state’s constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. On January 14, 2014, U.S. District Judge Terence Kern ruled the amendment unconstitutional.
In 2004, 66 percent of Utah’s electorate voted to amend their state’s constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. On December 20, 2013, U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby ruled the amendment unconstitutional.
In 2004, 75 percent of Kentucky’s electorate voted to amend their state’s constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. On February 12, 2014, U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II “struck down part of the state ban that he wrote treated ‘gay and lesbian persons differently in a way that demeans them’” (Washington Post).
In 2008, 52 percent of California’s electorate voted to amend their state’s constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. On August 4, 2010, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled the amendment unconstitutional.
There is no doubt that federal judges will continue to do this throughout the country. Even the vote of 81 percent of Alabama voters will count for nothing to some federal judge.
Society is no longer being permitted to define marriage in the only way marriage has ever been defined in the annals of recorded history. Many societies have allowed polygamy, many have allowed child marriages, some have allowed marriage within families; but none in thousands of years has defined marriage as the union of people of the same sex.
None of this matters to these judges or to all those who seek to redefine marriage and can’t convince a majority of their fellow citizens to agree.
For them, it is identical to ruling that laws that banned interracial marriages were unconstitutional. But that argument is utterly flawed. First, the analogy is false because there is no relevant difference between black people and white people, while there are enormous differences between males and females. Second, no great moral tradition or thinker ever forbade interracial marriages (interreligious marriages were sometimes forbidden). Moses, for example, married a black woman, and neither the Bible nor God hinted that it was wrong.
Some conclusions:
Proponents of same-sex marriage regularly label opponents “radical” and “extremist.” However, given that no society in thousands of years has allowed same-sex marriage, it is, by definition, the proponents of same-sex marriage whose position is radical and extreme. You cannot redefine marriage in a more radical way than allowing members of the same sex to marry. You can argue that this is the moral thing to do. But you cannot argue that it is it not radical.
All these judges have a hubris that is simply breathtaking. They not only know that they read the Constitution more accurately than the vast majority of the residents of many of America’s states. They are also entirely comfortable with forcing great majorities of Americans to accept this new definition of marriage.
That it is conceit rather than legal reasoning is easily shown when one peruses the opinions of these judges.
I will cite only Judge Vaughn Walker as an example:
Walker: “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.”
“No rational basis”? This is hubris. What he is stating is that for all of Western history — and contemporaneous non-Western history — there has not been a rational basis for defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Vaughn Walker is convinced that he thinks more rationally than every moral leader and thinker in history, not one of whom advocated same-sex marriage. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, the Enlightenment — all were irrational regarding same-sex marriage, according to Judge Walker.
In his mind, it is irrational, just to cite one example, to prefer that men and women form families in order to provide children with a mother and a father.
Walker: “Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.”
Yes, without in any way reducing the worth or the decency of any gay human being or dismissing the depth of same-sex love, California, like the rest of the world, has indeed believed in the superiority of man–woman unions. Not in the superiority of straight men and women as people: The gay human being is created in God’s image every bit as much as the straight human being; and there are gays who have led vastly more moral lives than many straights. But regarding how the family — the building block of society — should be constituted, the civilized world has always believed that it should be based on a married mother and father.
Society has also believed in the superiority of mother–father families to single-parent families; and that, too, never meant that every married person is inherently superior to every single person.
Walker: “Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis.”
This is another example of the lack of serious thought — as opposed to serious passion — that underlies the movement to redefine marriage. If American society has a “constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis,” then there is no plausible argument for denying polygamous relationships, or for denying brothers and sisters, or parents and adult children, the right to marry.
On the matter of same-sex marriage, mass passions and coercive judges are winning. Above all, hubris is winning. That is why proponents always assert that they are “on the right side of history.”
But history is very long. Our grandchildren, or their grandchildren, will judge whether this is true. The Left since Marx has asserted that every one of its radical positions — such as the demise of capitalism — is on the right side of history. Virtually none turned out to be.
Doesn't matter what I think, it matters what God says. I think he is against it, at least that is what the Bible says.
Catholics view marriage as a sacrament and a covenant. The couple performs the sacrament for each other. The priest presides to insure that they have the proper matter (Man and a woman) and follow the proper form (exchange of vows).
In time, proponents of same sex marriage will publicly be portrayed as sewer dwelling filth.
Well put!
What the hell do they care? Actually?
The agenda has been to SMASH THE PATRIARCHY, SMASH MONOGAMY, and establish antiestablishmentarianism (end the rule of law, upend the church, wrong is right, down is up).
They aren’t concerned about history or moving forward. They seek to overturn the applecart and fulfill their own carnal desires.
Same sex divorce and the adopted children of such self-centered relationships are never discussed.
As they said in the 60s, “LA LA LA LA LA LA ,live for today...”
I’m not sure about the divorce lawyer angle. Gays are a pretty small portion of the population, and altho common sense says that they may divorse at a higher rate than the rest of the population (the novelty will wear off), they, cognizant of the financial downsides of marriage (marriage penalty, increased under Obamacare) will marry at a lower rate than the rest of the population.
Various forms of socialism (national socialism, soviet socialism, etc.) were also on the “right side of history” and that terrible error lasted nearly a century. Being on the right side of history doesn’t mean something is a good idea.
I'd say they were on the back side of history
I’ve been saying the same thing since the push began.
Ponder this:
The media keeps referring to that NBA guy as “the only openly gay player”. Does that mean there are dozens of closeted gays in the league?
What say I? Heterosexual marriage is the testimony of history except for the last decade or so. Unnatural marriage is, then, flawed in the eyes of history. In fact, unnatural marriage is rejected STILL in a majority of this current world. So, not only is it flawed historically, but it is flawed NOW.
What will come of it?
It will make our children’s culture far more dangerous.
It is time for Christians to first be tied in the bonds of Holy Matrimony in their churches, and afterwards to go to the justice of the peace for a license. It is time for natural marriage Christian Churches to AGREE on a document of Holy Matrimony, which can only be issued by one of the churches in the agreement.
Why Matrimony? Because the root word is MOTHER. It is the holy estate designed as a protective environment for mothering. Unnatural marriage can NEVER be that.
In spite of what one reads about the homo emperors of Rome, and in spite of the existence of homosexuality, it was always considered a vice in ancient Rome.
only people that have never studied history would make such a claim.
Marriage is the legal protection provided to a biological relationship, in which a pair of people of opposite sex form a bond in order to produce children. The relationship is a biological imperative, evolved to guarantee the propagation of one’s genetic heritage.
No judge can change this biological reality.
Homosexuals simply cannot form pair-bonds. Most of them do not even have long-term relationships. They are suffering from a pathology, and the best we can do for them is attempt to find effective treatment—not pretend that they are normal by allowing them to meaninglessly sign the documents that legally protect pair-bonded couples.
God’s way or man’s way. I’ll go with the former.
I’d say this: I think one of these fascist judges are going to end up annoying the wrong well armed American at some point.
The radicals of the 60s march to upset a society that they disagreed with has taken the shape of turning what is good bad. Same sex marriage is the latest idea to push western culture and Christian values out of the US.
First thought: the winners write the history books, which is why this fight cannot be abandoned.
Second thought: like so many other cliches (’affordable health care’), this one has been taken up by the leftist masses because they love its self-righteous tone.
Wrong side of biology.
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.