Posted on 09/04/2003 10:50:37 PM PDT by kattracks
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:07:44 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
A federal law that defines traditional marriage is vulnerable to overturning by courts, two legal analysts yesterday told a Senate hearing.
Two U.S. Supreme Court rulings have found constitutional protections for same-sex relationships, Gregory S. Coleman, former solicitor general of Texas, told the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, civil rights and property rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
This court will rule, as it did in the Colorado case, that this law is motivated by animus against homosexuals.
Which it is.
Traditional marriage has three elements:
1) It is permanent, and non-dissolvable except under extraordinary circumstances not directly under the control of the parties.
2) It is sexually exclusive, and violations are punishable by the criminal law.
3) It is between a man and a woman.
Numbers one and two are dictated by the created nature of men and women. The establishment of permanency and fidelity in law practically guarantees #3, since permanency and fidelity are the natural law accompaniments of heterosexual marriage.
Once the heterosexuals of this country eliminated #1 and #2 from the "definition of marriage", the question arose of whether such a minimalist concept of marriage (i.e., non-permanent, non-exclusive, but for males and females only) could survive.
It probably won't. But the destroyers of marriage are the straight male legislators who passed the 1969-73 marriage "reforms", not a few gays who have drawn the logical inferences.
Scripter will be off line occasionally between now and the middle of September. I've agreed to help him out by running his homosexual agenda ping list.
Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links |
Homosexual Agenda Index (bump list) |
Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search |
All FreeRepublic Bump Lists |
A simple freepmail is all it takes to subscribe to or unsubscribe from scripter's homosexual agenda ping list. If you wish to be added to the list in scripter's absence, please FReepmail me.
I concur. This is what I said just the other day regarding Lance Armstrong's divorce:
People suggest that allowing people of the same sex to marry would destroy the institution. I say, gay marriage would only be the final stage of destruction of the institution that began with the concept of no-fault divorce.To wit: Once marriage [became] easier to legally escape than a health-club membership, the differences between marriage and shacking up began to evaporate. Now that people with normal sexual inclinations can shack up and get almost all the benefits of marriage, gays can say, "Hey, we shack up too!"
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.