Posted on 06/30/2003 5:54:56 AM PDT by PhiKapMom
Northern Assault Threatens Marriage
2003-06-30
Oklahoman Editorial
We thought the institution of marriage was fairly secure in the United States -- notwithstanding legislation recognizing civil unions in the republic of Vermont. If not public opinion polls showing overwhelming support for traditional marriage, then surely the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed a few years ago in Congress made it clear the one man-one woman model was to be protected in America.
Looks like we thought wrong.
The legalization of homosexual marriage in Canada and legal challenges to DOMA in this country signal new threats to traditional marriage are at hand.
In Canada, an appeals court in Ontario ruled earlier this month that the country's ban on homosexual marriage is unconstitutional. As a result, Prime Minister Jean Chretien says a law to legalize same-sex marriage is coming soon.
The effect is fairly obvious. Homosexuals married north of the border will return to the United States expecting their unions to be recognized, with all of the same rights and standing as traditional marriages.
Democrat Howard Dean, a candidate for president (and the former governor of the republic of Vermont) recently declared on NBC's "Meet the Press" that if elected he would "insist that every state find a way to recognized the same legal rights for gay couples as they do for everybody else."
Dean went on: "If a couple goes to Canada and gets married, when they come back, they should have exactly the same legal rights as every other American."
This would be even more frightening if Dean was electable. But the basic point is scary enough: Developments in Canada will put tremendous pressure on the United States to do as Dean says, to begin recognizing those unions as legal and meriting the same benefits as traditional marriages.
In this country, homosexual groups are mounting challenges to DOMA, which has been adopted in some form by 37 states, including Oklahoma. The Massachusetts Supreme Court is considering a case right now, and similar challenges will appear in other states as well.
As we say, the ground upon which traditional marriage rests again is under assault. Those in Congress who've defended marriage in the past need to gird for the next battle, which is just around the bend.
I was wondering in the day of the old testament it was more like one man and 8 women. That sounds like pleasure and pain. I heard that women together get thier cycles at the same time.
ARGH!!!!!
No objection here. This is way too important.
Please do not take this CANADIAN law out of context. It was merely intended as a protective measure to keep valuable sled dogs from harmful and demoralizing abuse.
Furthermore, I do not expect it to slow down Canada's major exports to the US: truculent hockey players, sheet-rockers, and the odd Islamic terrorist.
I was watching CBS news last night (at least I think it was CBS) and saw two men that were married in Canada and currently living there. One is an American citizen and the other is an Irish citizen. The Irish guy said he always wanted to become an American citizen, so since he's married to an American man, he wants to get his citizenship here due to marriage. They are planning on moving here and challenging the right to be recognized as married and as a citizen of the US.
And end up there it will. Considering the current behavior of the Court, the outcome will be anybody's guess. _My_ guess is that there is a relatively strong -- not guaranteed, but "strong", nonetheless -- possibility that our side could lose.
With Vermont, and soon Massachusetts, we will have lost "two for two". I predict that if gay marriage comes before the New Jersey Supreme Court (one of the most liberal in the nation), that we will lose there as well. That will make it three for three.
Gay marriage is taking exactly the same "trek towards legitimization" that _abortion_ took before the Roe v. Wade decision. This is no mistake -- it is intentional and well-planned.
The routine works like this:
1. Gain a "foothold" for your argument by getting your cause "legitimized" in a few states (even though the majority of the remainder of those states still outlaw it).
2. Build a measure of public opinion supporting your issue (again, the majority of public opinion still against you notwithstanding).
3. Get your issue before the Supreme Court, and persuade them to "cross the line" between adjudicating and law-writing. This might be deemed the "penumbra of rights" tactic.
It worked with Roe. And -- particularly considering the Court's "Sodomy ruling" only a few days ago -- has a very good chance of working again with gay marriage. The "legal groundwork" is already there. All that is necessary is to coax the Justices to "reach" just a bit further in their reasoning.
For this reason, the outcome of a Supreme Court challenge to the Defense of Marriage act cannot be guaranteed. Presuming that our view of "traditional marriage" will survive a Supreme Court challenge carries great risk.
For that reason, it should not be allowed to happen. It _can_ be prevented, but we must act soon.
And the ONLY way to prevent such an eventual Supreme Court challenge, with its uncertain outcome, is to do an "end run" around the courts. Of course, this will require a United States Constitutional Amendment.
My proposed amendment to the United States Constitution:
============
"The United States, and the Several States, recognize that the legal and moral contract of marriage may be established only between one man and one woman. Neither the United States, nor the Several States, will sanction nor recognize any form of marriage other than that entered into by one man and one woman."
============
This is what it will take -- and can be the ONLY possible solution -- to stop the "gay marriage" movement in its tracks. Nothing else will work. Let me repeat that for you lunkheads: NOTHING ELSE WILL WORK. If you really want to "stop them", this is how you will have to do it.
From time to time, I have encountered individuals on this board who counter my thoughts with the supposition, "this isn't a matter for the Constitution" (or the courts). Your point is well taken, from a strictly intellectual viewpoint, but in the end you will lose if this is the only argumentative weapon you choose with which to do battle against the other side. THEY will use ALL weapons at their disposal in order to achieve their goal, and WILL NOT STOP FIGHTING until they have achieved that goal.
Like the obstructive Democrats of the Senate who are fillibustering the nomination of federal judges, they realize that our side may lack the "will" to take decisive and final action to stop their onslaught. In the case of the Senate, our side could quickly and easily end the fillibusters and force judicial nominations to the floor by use of the so-called "nuclear option" -- but they're _afraid_. Afraid of exactly _what_, only G-d knows.
And so it follows that we are "afraid" to press on -- and fight hard -- for the only "nuclear option" that will stop the gay marriage juggernaut. In our hearts, we know what must be done.
But will we do it?
Cheers!
- John
Not meant for the aberrant to legitimize their behavior in an effort to advance their cause, which by their very nature means recruitment.
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.