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

Skip to comments.

End Government Recognition of Marriage
16 July 2004 | Me

Posted on 07/16/2004 8:09:37 AM PDT by Voice in your head

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-191 last
To: Voice in your head
So then would homosexual activity be permitted to be outlawed on public property. I'm not talking about sexual activity but simply kissing or holding hands.

It has to do with the fact that I have found most libertarians to oppose moral regulations until you find something they don't like. Dog kicking is usually what gets them.
151 posted on 07/17/2004 3:30:13 PM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: asmith92008
"So then would homosexual activity be permitted to be outlawed on public property. I'm not talking about sexual activity but simply kissing or holding hands."

Either outlaw kissing and holding hands or don't, but it must apply equally to all, since public property is owned by all. If a bunch of homos were routinely making a spectacle, I would vote to ban it.

"It has to do with the fact that I have found most libertarians to oppose moral regulations until you find something they don't like. Dog kicking is usually what gets them."

So it has nothing to do with this thread? If not, we have FReepmail and the ability to start new threads.

152 posted on 07/17/2004 4:26:40 PM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
So the public is not permitted to decide which kinds of displays of affection it finds immoral or distasteful enough to ban on public property?
153 posted on 07/17/2004 4:35:31 PM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: asmith92008

Yes, it is permitted. The restriction is that it must apply to all. So if you want to say no kissing, then that means everyone. You can no more legislate that two men cannot kiss than you could legislate that Bob and Jill cannot kiss. Those two homos are sick/immoral whatever you want to call it, but public property belongs to everyone and everyone deserves equal use within equal restrictions.


154 posted on 07/17/2004 5:31:51 PM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head

What are you a lawyer, trying to drum up business?


155 posted on 07/17/2004 5:45:29 PM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
Why not? The law applies equally to all men. I, a straight man, could not kiss another straight man. The law punishes the action, not the status of the actor. That is why it is incorrect to say that homosexuals cannot marry. They, like heterosexuals, simply cannot marry members of the same sex.
156 posted on 07/17/2004 5:55:11 PM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: asmith92008
"Why not? The law applies equally to all men. I, a straight man, could not kiss another straight man. The law punishes the action, not the status of the actor."

For the sake of argument, okay.

"That is why it is incorrect to say that homosexuals cannot marry. They, like heterosexuals, simply cannot marry members of the same sex."

I am not proposing a ban on homosexual marriage.

157 posted on 07/17/2004 7:21:06 PM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw

Prove it


158 posted on 07/17/2004 8:44:57 PM PDT by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras

Read a book. Better yet, read the Supreme Court opinion in Bowers v Hardwick. Sodomy was illegal during the colonial and post revolutionary period. It's only our modern "enlightenment" that has made things like homosexuality and adultery virtues instead of vices.


159 posted on 07/17/2004 8:54:48 PM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: asmith92008
Read a book? Learn to read.

The statement was made, I said prove it . It was about Washington. Prove it or go away.

160 posted on 07/17/2004 9:39:15 PM PDT by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
Read Paul Johnson;s A History of the American People. I believe that Fischer;s Washington's Crossing might also mention that Washington's army was not that forgiving of homosexuals. Though on the last, I might just be conflating it with Johnson's. I read them one after another, so I apologize for any confusion.

Also, read the Bowers decision. Justice White, I believe it was he who wrote the majority, detailed the history of the criminalization of sodomy.

If that's not proof enough, what will be accepted? A way back machine?
161 posted on 07/17/2004 9:51:37 PM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: asmith92008

"If you are going to quote the Constitution out of context, quote it correctly. Slaves were counted as 3/5 for purposes of apportioning representation."


I stand corrected. 3/5ths, not 4/5ths. Regardless, this FF provision holds no legal or moral authority today. Why? Because TIMES HAVE CHANGED.


"Until the 1960s (maybe earlier on some things, later on others) we did quite a good job of enforcing morality. Obscenity was outlawed and distribution through interstate commerce a crime. Acts like adultery were actually allowed to be civil torts against the person who helped break up the marriage and the law punished the married party in the property split. These are jst two examples of how the law helped enforce, and reinforce, the traditional morality"


Yeah, and until the 1960s, interracial marriage was outlawed in many states, with the people against it making similar arguments for segregated marriage as those today who make arguments against homo marriage.


I'm a happily-married hetero whose marriage is not at-all threatened by two pillow-biters wanting to engage in some legal civil union that gives them the same legal benefits as I. My institute of marriage is far more threatened by the farcical marital behaviors of Britney Spears, et al and the 50%+ divorce rate - a rate that's occurred without ass-pirates getting married, btw.

I do like that anti-adultery law you cited. Perhaps if a Marriage Amendment had some provisions to prevent negative Hetero behavior, I'd be more in favor of it. Also, I'm still NOT in favor of homo couples being able to adopt, as the mother/father relationship is proven to be best for raising kids.



"So if times have truly changed, "

They have. Which is why non-property-owning women and blacks can now vote. It's also why Prohibition - previously a Constitutional amendment - is an archaic piece of history now, as we learned that you can't legislate morality.

BTW, I'm thoroughly enjoying this exchange, as you are intelligent and have taught me a few things. Thanks for keeping this above the beltline!


162 posted on 07/18/2004 12:32:09 PM PDT by Blzbba (Hillary Clinton - Dawn of a New Error.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw

"The social liberals always say that when pointed out that the founders would never have agreed with them."


Whatever. The fact remains.


163 posted on 07/18/2004 12:32:43 PM PDT by Blzbba (Hillary Clinton - Dawn of a New Error.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
1. AS to your typo, I once posted on here that China had 6 billion people. Brain farts happen. I just couldn't resist pointing it out.

More seriously, although the 3/5 compromise is morally indefensible now, the choice was either no Union, as the South would not ratify without some provision for slaves or a Union in which slavery allowed the slaves states to exercise enormous power if their slave populations weren't counted. Do you think either of those alternatives were better than forming a union in which slavery could eventually be banned?

2. The things that you all point to as "times have changed" all refer to democratically enacted processes. Suffrage issues and prohibition were all issues dealt within the constitution and ratified by the people. The only way that any state in the Union recognizes homosexual marriage is because of the acts of judges. As we speak, the democratic processes in Massachusetts are working to overturn that decision. I prefer to defer to the electorate on whether times have changed.

2. The arguments against homosexual marriage and interracial marriage are qualitatively different.
A: Anti-miscegnation laws discriminated on the
status of individuals, i.e, their race. Outside
of Michael Jackson, no one can change their
race. Homosexuality is a behavior and choices
are made to engage in that behavior. Thus,
comparing homsexuality to race is comparing
apples to oranges. and please no comments on the
fruit pun.
B: In overturning anti-miscegnation laws, the
fundamental definition of marriage as a union of
one man, one woman did not change. Homosexual
marriage is a fundamental redefinition of
marriage.
C: Anti-miscegantion laws were just as much an equal
protection violation as to whites as to black.
What they said in essence was that while a black
man could marry a black woman, a white man could
not.
The FMA is not arguing that homosexuals cannot
marry. It is simply saying that they cannot
marry someone of the same sex. As heterosexuals,
you and I are bound by the same restriction.
Therefore, there is not the same equal-protection
violation as in denying mixed race marriages.
3. You argue that homosexual marriage does not threaten heterosexual marriage. First, I suggest you read Howard Kurtz's analysis of the Scandinavian countries that have legalized same-sex marriage. There traditional marriage rates have plummeted.

Secondly, I point to the case of Bishop Gene Robinson of the Episcopal Church. In his case, he left his family for his homosexual lover when the stigma, both within his church and the community at large, was much tougher against such things. When the state essentially gives society;s blessings on homosexual marriage, isn't it likely that other marginal marriages that might otherwise be saved will hit the tipping point? Who knows what the numbers will be, but for those families, the results will be disastrous.

4. Legislating morality. This is my favorite argument. I'll hit you with (should have been Justice) Bork's though experiment on this issue. Do you support criminalizing animal cruelty, not discussing food/medical testing, in a situation in which the torture of the animal takes place in a soundproof room? People know it happens but it does not constitute an actionable nuisance, so the rights of other humans are not being violated. If you think the SOB torturing Fluffy should be dealt with in whatever fashion by the state, you sir ( I assume sir because your name gives no clue, Advanced apologies for any mistake) are legislating morality.

Indeed, your argument that interracial marriage should not be outlawed is also a form of legislating morality. If a state wants to outlaw such marriages, you are imposing your morality to say their morality is wrong. And, quite frankly, I agree with you.

5. I'll grant you that the divorce rate and the idiotic Spears marriage are threats to the institution. They are also results of previous attempts to monkey around with marriage in the name of greater "freedom." The sorry shape of marriage today is evidence as to why we should try to be preserving the institution and not morphing it into an anything goes party.

6. Wrapping it all, I have to apologize for the length of this post. I too am enjoying intelligent, above the belt line hits.
164 posted on 07/18/2004 2:29:40 PM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
Whatever. The fact remains.

It's not relevant, unless you want to toss out the constitution and the federalists papers as well.

165 posted on 07/18/2004 2:46:10 PM PDT by Hacksaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: asmith92008

1. "More seriously, although the 3/5 compromise is morally indefensible now, the choice was either no Union, as the South would not ratify without some provision for slaves or a Union in which slavery allowed the slaves states to exercise enormous power if their slave populations weren't counted. Do you think either of those alternatives were better than forming a union in which slavery could eventually be banned?"


Excellent reply, to which I counter (i.e. concede defeat on slavery) with a request of an explanation of Prohibition, which was a direct 'product of the times' aka WCTU protests, etc. and ended up a disastrous attempt at legislating their morality?


2. "As we speak, the democratic processes in Massachusetts are working to overturn that decision. I prefer to defer to the electorate on whether times have changed."

This is a draw, then, as I am in favor of states' right to decide an issue such as this. No Amendment to the Constitution.



3. "...Homosexuality is a behavior and choices
are made to engage in that behavior. "

While I actually agree with you, there is no scientific evidence emphatically proving either point. Personally, I see it more as a mental illness...but handicapped people are allowed to marry in this country, to my knowledge. Also, given the really negative lifestyle that constitutes the stereotypical, multi-partnered, 'flaming', 'perverse' gay , I think someone would HAVE to be mentally ill to choose that lifestyle of alienation from normal society.



3. "There traditional marriage rates have plummeted."

As they have here...


"he left his family for his homosexual lover..."

This guy's marriage sounds doomed anyways, honestly. I have known of several hetero couples that were all briefly involved in a 'swingers' lifestyle (with different sets of people), all of whose marriages collapsed. How is this not worthy of legislation also, as I personally consider anyone who'd watch someone else bang their wife to be as 'perverse' and immoral as the flamingest of pillow-biters? This minister should've never been looking in the first place and probably shouldn't have married in the first place.



4. "Do you support criminalizing animal cruelty, not discussing food/medical testing, in a situation in which the torture of the animal takes place in a soundproof room? People know it happens but it does not constitute an actionable nuisance, so the rights of other humans are not being violated. If you think the SOB torturing Fluffy should be dealt with in whatever fashion by the state, you sir ( I assume sir because your name gives no clue, Advanced apologies for any mistake) are legislating morality."


You got the gender correct - LOL! It's short for 'Beelzebubba', which is already taken here, believe it or not. It was a character name from an online game played long ago, but I digress....

I don't feel that animals should be given the same rights as humans, so I wouldn't support legislation to the contrary.


5." I'll grant you that the divorce rate and the idiotic Spears marriage are threats to the institution. They are also results of previous attempts to monkey around with marriage in the name of greater "freedom." The sorry shape of marriage today is evidence as to why we should try to be preserving the institution and not morphing it into an anything goes party."


So what do we do - shut down Vegas 24 hr. chapels? Require people to sign something saying that they've dated X years and are thus, ready for marriage? How do we stop people from making mistakes of the heart? Good luck here - you could make a TON of cash if you figure this out. Hell, you could have your own TV Talk Show! Smack Oprah for me, if this happens.



6. Wrapping it all, I have to apologize for the length of this post. I too am enjoying intelligent, above the belt line hits."


Just to guarantee a response, I going to claim victory, based on my numerous, irrefutable points above! (joking? :)






166 posted on 07/18/2004 5:38:50 PM PDT by Blzbba (Hillary Clinton - Dawn of a New Error.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: asmith92008
If that's not proof enough, what will be accepted?

You can't remember if George Washington had made statements about homosexuals as the other poster claimed, but I'm supposed to believe it happened and that it's proof in lieu of a "way back" machine?

C'mon, give the world a break. The poster said something imbecilic, and until you can prove it wasn't with hard proof, it remains imbecilic.

George Washington never said the things the other poster attributed to him, so save yourself some time. And save me some time by dropping this goofy contention.

The statement was, "".. homosexuality is a filthy and evil perversion and not only shouldn't be approved by the government, but should be vigorously stamped out. "

He never said that nor anything like it, the poster made it up, and then disappeared. You should too.

167 posted on 07/18/2004 8:19:13 PM PDT by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
I referenced you two books. I couldn't remember which of the two had the comment. As to the exact wording of Washington's statement against homosexuality, I make no claim to the previous poster's exact wording. If you don;t want to read those books, fine by me.
168 posted on 07/18/2004 9:33:25 PM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head

Lets get government out of enforcing contracts, too! That will teach them!


169 posted on 07/18/2004 9:36:03 PM PDT by HitmanLV (I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #170 Removed by Moderator

To: Blzbba
1. Prohibition failed because the Mann act lacked sufficient powers to enforce the law. Enforcement was given to the Treasury Department instead of the Justice Department and FBI. So while that was a failed attempt at moral enforcement, it does not prove that morals cannot be enforced by legislature, it merely requires a well drafted statute and proper enforcement.

2. The states rights retreat will not work because of the Full Faith and Credit clause. Right now, it looks like the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) will be struck down by a federal judge in Florida and the federal rule allowing states to ignore the marriages of sister states will be voided. If that happens, Full Faith and Credit will be used to force folks to accept a Massachusetts marriage.

3. I knew plenty of folks who thought homosexuality was chic and dabbled in it during high school/college. As society's stigma against homosexuality ends, there is less pressure for people to conform to traditional norms.

4. Marriage rates have gone south farther in the Scandinavian nations than the US.

I do not deny that Robinson's marriage was in trouble. That's my point. If a marriage is on the margin, society has to do everything to support the marriage. De-stigmatizing homosexuality, as we have done with adultery, does not do that.

5. Okay, so you'll let Fluffy be tortured. Yet where do you draw the line before what you consider an unacceptable enforcement of morality? I support animal cruelty laws, not based on animals having any rights except to taste really good with barbecue sauce, but just that I find such activities repugnant.

6. To making marriages like the Spears fiasco harder, that is a hard problem.

I like the idea of covenant marriages. They do have waiting periods, both for getting in and getting out. If we could figure out a way to encourage them, that would be a good thing.

Ending no fault, divorce on demand would be another. Even if you consider marriage as just a basic contract, rather than a scared covenant, it shouldn;t be easier to break a marriage contract than a contract to pay for your Dominos Pizza. Unilateral divorce should be limited to cases of adultery, abuse or addiction. The wrong party, i.e the abusive drunk who can't keep it in his pants, should not just get half.


I do have to give major props to "Beelzebubba."

5. I believer your declaration of victory is a tad premature.
171 posted on 07/18/2004 9:58:25 PM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: stitifier
1. Animals eat their young as well. Should we follow that example?

As to its destructiveness to society, ask the Spartans and Romans how helpful it was for their civilizations.

2. Your first Amendment argument is incorrect. Read the debates from the Congressional drafting of the amendment. Madison, the drafter of the amendment, said that it would not have the effect of disestablishing churches that were official churches in their states, as a majority of states had such institutions. At the same time, he also drafted the legislation creating the office of a paid Congressional chaplain which was passed by the same Congress that passed the First Amendment. That Congress also re-authorized the Northwest ordinance which compelled federally funded religious education in the territories. Clearly the establishment clause was meant to do exactly what it said, to forbid a federally established Church, like the Church of England.

The concept of the "separation of church and state" came from Jefferson. He had nothing to do with drafting or passing the First Amendment, as he was in France at the time. Jefferson's views on the First Amendment have no relevance on its meaning. It would be akin to asking a lobbyist to provide meaning rather than the legislators who passed it.
172 posted on 07/18/2004 10:07:49 PM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: asmith92008
I make no claim to the previous poster's exact wording

Great, and I made no claim about some reference to someone other than Washington in some obscure book. So it all works out fine. The poster made an imbecilic comment and declined to back it up when called on it. Somehow you took up his cause, Oh well.

Goodbye.

173 posted on 07/19/2004 6:59:08 AM PDT by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: asmith92008

1. " it does not prove that morals cannot be enforced by legislature,"


Maybe not, but it does show the collossally negative results of such an attempt.


2. " Full Faith and Credit will be used to force folks to accept a Massachusetts marriage."

Good points here.


3. "As society's stigma against homosexuality ends, there is less pressure for people to conform to traditional norms."

Would legislation prevent this ending to the ending of society's stigma? Would legislation prevent gays from falling in love with each other? No. Gays aren't going away. As long as they are born American and pay taxes, I don't see a legal reason to prevent their civil unions.


4. "If a marriage is on the margin, society has to do everything to support the marriage. De-stigmatizing homosexuality, as we have done with adultery, does not do that."


Yeah, but 'society' can do NOTHING to bring people back together who've fallen out of love. You can be a matchmaker and encourage healthy relationships to thrive and continue, but good luck on getting bitter people who've fallen out of love back together, regardless of orientation.


5. "Okay, so you'll let Fluffy be tortured. Yet where do you draw the line before what you consider an unacceptable enforcement of morality? I support animal cruelty laws, not based on animals having any rights except to taste really good with barbecue sauce, but just that I find such activities repugnant."


I support animal testing that benefits humans and would support legislation to make it (testing) as painless and effective (so as to not waste the animal's life) as possible. I would also support legislation that makes just-plain-cruel behavior (teenagers torching kittens,etc.) a crime. Other than that, animals should be petted, eaten, or left alone.


6. "Ending no fault, divorce on demand would be another. Even if you consider marriage as just a basic contract, rather than a scared covenant, it shouldn;t be easier to break a marriage contract than a contract to pay for your Dominos Pizza. Unilateral divorce should be limited to cases of adultery, abuse or addiction. The wrong party, i.e the abusive drunk who can't keep it in his pants, should not just get half."


We're in agreement here.


"I do have to give major props to "Beelzebubba."


[nods and tips cap]


7. "5. I believer your declaration of victory is a tad premature."

5? My declaration was only a joke to ensure a good, intelligent response. To which I say "Mission Accomplished"!




174 posted on 07/19/2004 11:27:19 AM PDT by Blzbba (Hillary Clinton - Dawn of a New Error.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
A brief response before I give a more thoughtful response.

"I would also support legislation that makes just-plain-cruel behavior (teenagers torching kittens,etc.) a crime. Other than that, animals should be petted, eaten, or left alone. "

If animals have no rights, on which I think we both agree that they do not, on what basis can you make such behavior illegal if not on the basis of your moral opposition to just plain animal cruelty? If we cannot legislate morality, one should be able to do whatever he wishes with his animal.

Hmmm. Maybe my mission is accomplished?
175 posted on 07/19/2004 2:02:45 PM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head

If we were to do away with gov't's recognition of marriage and link those now provided benefits to children's birth certificates, it might just end the Homo agenda.


176 posted on 07/19/2004 2:09:57 PM PDT by azhenfud ("He who is always looking up seldom finds others' lost change...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: asmith92008

"on what basis can you make such behavior illegal if not on the basis of your moral opposition to just plain animal cruelty? "


On the basis of the proven research that shows that people who display cruelty to animals are extremely likely to do the same to human beings. I.E., it's an early indicator of sociopathic behavior.

Mission not accomplished!


177 posted on 07/19/2004 2:40:59 PM PDT by Blzbba (Hillary Clinton - Dawn of a New Error.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
The same could be said for bed-wetters and those who suffered abuse as children. If factors as a propensity to being a sociopath are grounds for criminal behavior, those folks would have to be criminalized under your logic.

Come on, admit it. Fluffy is ap efectly wonderful animal and it is simply morally wrong to torture him. Society has the right, and I argue, the duty, to enforce its morals in such matters.

Looking more like mission accomplished.
178 posted on 07/19/2004 3:35:01 PM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
My apologies for the brevity of my past posts. I was on brief study breaks and couldn;t address all your replies

1. Prohibition showing a negative effect because of bad enforcement does not argue against morals being enforceable. Another example I can think of where there's no real reason, outside of moral repugnance, for government to regulate the issue. You heard of the German cannibal case, where a consenting adult allowed himself to be killed and eaten by another consenting adult? Three was no evidence of mental illness on the deceased's part. I don't see how anyone's rights were violated but I'm still happy the gourmet is in jail.

2. Glad we agree.

3. Legislation is a sign of society's stigma. Laws passed, or repealed by, democratic representatives reflect society's norms.

As to civil unions, it's just marriage by another name. I'm not in the argument for the word but the institution.

A better solution would be to have all the ACLU lawyers seeking to overturn democratically enacted marriage laws to turn their energy to educating their constituents. The issues brought up for the need for "gay marriage" are things like inheritance, medical issues and other legal matters. These can all be addressed with wills and powers of attorney. Just as Ian leave my estate, meager as it is, to my Mom without marrying her, a gay person can will property at will (factoring out any spousal election rules for Bishop Gene types).

The fact that this easier and less controversial solution is ignored tells me that the issue is not equal protection. It is about forcing society to not only tolerate their behavior but to give it gushing endorsement.

BTW, the equal protection argument fails. The law does not say that gays cannot marry. It simply says that a man cannot marry a man. I, as a heterosexual man, cannot marry a man. The law applies equally to all.

This is qualitatively different from anti-miscegnation laws. The laws back then said that a black man could marry a black woman but a white could not. That was an equal protection violation because not everyone was covered by the same laws.

4. As to getting bitter people back together, society did a pretty good job before no-fault divorce. That genius of an idea - originally said to help women but ending up screwing them because they were not usually the at-fault party - again eased up on social pressure to try and make a marriage work.

5. Glad we agree on covenant marriage. The South has some great legal ideas, some of the greatest historical theorists. When I was working in DC, they had this thing in Virginia called project exile where if you committed a crime with a gun, the state gave you to the feds when they were done. It brought the crime rates way down because the parole rules are so much harsher in federal prison and it showed that existing gun laws work when enforced as opposed to just writing more laws that won't be enforced. Anyway, a long way to say, Virginia and the other southern states have some great ideas.

6. So I think mission may not be accomplished but more accomplished than before.
179 posted on 07/19/2004 8:36:58 PM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: asmith92008

Prologue: "My apologies for the brevity of my past posts. I was on brief study breaks and couldn;t address all your replies"

None are necessary. What are you studying and where? I'm a degreed engineer from GaTech whose now in IT as a developer. Go figure.


1. "You heard of the German cannibal case, where a consenting adult allowed himself to be killed and eaten by another consenting adult? Three was no evidence of mental illness on the deceased's part. I don't see how anyone's rights were violated but I'm still happy the gourmet is in jail."

Yeah, but a human being was killed by another, which meets the legal definition of murder. Closer to home, there's still assisted suicide laws in Oregon and obviously, abortion - both of which are legal. I'm personally in favor of the former (assisted suicide) and against federal funding of the latter.


2. Ditto

3. "Laws passed, or repealed by, democratic representatives reflect society's norms."

Yet those 'norms' can change, and have done so throughout history.

"A better solution would be to have all the ACLU lawyers seeking to overturn democratically enacted marriage laws to turn their energy to educating their constituents."

What - and figure out that the ACLU is full of hor$e$hit 95% of the time? NEVER!


"It is about forcing society to not only tolerate their behavior but to give it gushing endorsement"

Which will never happen. Too many people like you & I have no intention of ever endorsing that lifestyle.


"The law does not say that gays cannot marry. It simply says that a man cannot marry a man. I, as a heterosexual man, cannot marry a man. The law applies equally to all."

True, but allowing them to have false hetero marriages is as big of an insult and 'threat' to traditional marriage as anything else.


Gotta run - work calls. Thanks again for the polite civil discourse. It's becoming rarer and rarer to find these days.


180 posted on 07/20/2004 7:00:11 AM PDT by Blzbba (Hillary Clinton - Dawn of a New Error.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
"It is right that the government encourage stable families and societal groups. It is not right for the government to impose a religiously held view upon its citizens without their expressed consent. And Americans, by dint of the First Amendment, have expressly denied the government that consent."

I do not think that the government is imposing any kind of religiously held view on us, by recognizing and/or giving preferential treatment to married couples. I do not see the traditional, committed, man-woman, monogamous relationship as a religious phenomenon, though it is has obviously been encouraged by Judaism and Christianity. Partaking in a religious ceremony, vowing before God commitment to one another, and then fulfilling that sacred vow throughout their life together is a religious phenomenon. If government were to require that a religious ceremony be a criterion for eligibility for recognition as a married couple, then that would be an imposition of a religious view.

It is certainly noble that government has long encouraged stable families and social groups via marriage. However, the fact that the goal was noble does not give the policy merit in regard to whether it is a proper function of the government.

181 posted on 07/20/2004 5:06:10 PM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
"It is right that the government encourage stable families and societal groups. It is not right for the government to impose a religiously held view upon its citizens without their expressed consent. And Americans, by dint of the First Amendment, have expressly denied the government that consent."

I do not think that the government is imposing any kind of religiously held view on us, by recognizing and/or giving preferential treatment to married couples. I do not see the traditional, committed, man-woman, monogamous relationship as a religious phenomenon, though it is has obviously been encouraged by Judaism and Christianity. Partaking in a religious ceremony, vowing before God commitment to one another, and then fulfilling that sacred vow throughout their life together is a religious phenomenon. If government were to require that a religious ceremony be a criterion for eligibility for recognition as a married couple, then that would be an imposition of a religious view.

It is certainly noble that government has long encouraged stable families and social groups via marriage. However, the fact that the goal was noble does not give the policy merit in regard to whether it is a proper function of the government.

182 posted on 07/20/2004 5:06:26 PM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: stitifier

Post above directed to stitifier.


183 posted on 07/20/2004 5:10:03 PM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
I'm actually just graduated from law school, the University of San Diego School of Law. I'm sitting for the California Bar next week. I'm working on getting into the Navy JAG Corps, though for some reason I don't think I'll ever get in a dogfight or foil an international assassin.

1. How can you favor assisted suicide but condemn the German case? If a human being killing another is the legal definition of murder, then so is assisted suicide.

3. I agree that norms change. The fact that no democratic action has ever allowed gay marriage in America is proof to me that times haven;t changed much on that issue.

As to endorsing the gay lifestyle, if we recognize "gay families" we will have to change our language. The words mother and father will vanish. "Heather Has Two Mommies" will become a standard textbook. If the state recognizes "gay marriage" its organs will have to promote that lifestyle as acceptable.

Finally, I'm not arguing that they be forced into false heterosexual marriages. Rather, they are simply bound by the same law as everyone else. There are lots of relationships society refuses to recognize. This is simply one of them.
184 posted on 07/20/2004 8:12:31 PM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: asmith92008

"1. How can you favor assisted suicide but condemn the German case? If a human being killing another is the legal definition of murder, then so is assisted suicide."

I'm in favor of sane people being allowed to choose the method of their passing, given that they have some uncurable, life-ending affliction; whereas the Kraut in question was simply a nutcase into S&M&C(cannibalism). Honestly, the world's probably a better place without a guy who expressed a desire to be eaten. Oregonians seem pretty happy with their current asst'd suicide laws.


3. "3. I agree that norms change. The fact that no democratic action has ever allowed gay marriage in America is proof to me that times haven;t changed much on that issue."

Although this doesn't constitute the actions necessary for an Amendment, I'd have no problems with this issue going on the ballots in November and letting the people decide. I'd go along with whatever 'our' decision would be.


185 posted on 07/21/2004 6:52:50 AM PDT by Blzbba (Hillary Clinton - Dawn of a New Error.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: asmith92008

"I'm sitting for the California Bar next week. I'm working on getting into the Navy JAG Corps, though for some reason I don't think I'll ever get in a dogfight or foil an international assassin."


Good luck to you, btw!!


186 posted on 07/21/2004 6:53:21 AM PDT by Blzbba (Hillary Clinton - Dawn of a New Error.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
Thanks.
187 posted on 07/21/2004 9:04:55 PM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
1. Just 'cause you don't agree with nutcase Krauts who are into S&M&C, doesn't make them crazy. Do I detect enforcement of morals here?

As to the assisted suicide laws, there are plenty of issues that we as a society have felt important enough not to leave to the states. Voting and not owning slaves come to mind. Those are things that society feels are so important to a functioning society that we don;t let states experiment with them. I think sanctity of innocent life (assisted suicide) and the definition of marriage are issues of similar importance.
188 posted on 07/22/2004 8:22:51 PM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: asmith92008

" Just 'cause you don't agree with nutcase Krauts who are into S&M&C, doesn't make them crazy. Do I detect enforcement of morals here?"


Actually, I think cannibalism does (or should) qualify as some sort of mental illness. What you detect here is an enforcement of societal norms, as legalized cannibalism has no place in a civilized society. Simply put, you can't allow people to go around eating each other without ramifications other than a stomach ache.

"It must have been someone's something I ate" can never be used to describe one's stomach pains.


189 posted on 07/23/2004 6:27:07 AM PDT by Blzbba (Hillary Clinton - Dawn of a New Error.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
While I quite agree that one's food should only disagree with him after the meal and not before, this comes from a moral judgment that human life is precious. Therefore, the law can stop consenting adults who had no history of mental illness, i.e. they can distinguish reality from fantasy, event though they are not infringing on other's rights.

I believe the fact that we don;t see more incidents like this, even though there appears to be quite a subculture on the net from the news reports about this case, is attributable to the effectiveness of legislating morals. Folks might want to eat each other but realize they'll get sent to a place where their potential meals are certainly not free range.
190 posted on 07/24/2004 9:34:55 PM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: asmith92008

Thanks for typing these comments - I've had a good laugh already and it's Monday AM...

"While I quite agree that one's food should only disagree with him after the meal and not before, "

LMFAO!


"where their potential meals are certainly not free range."

Brilliant!


I also think that the subculture you refer to has a bunch of phony pretender types who, if they had the chance, wouldn't go thru with the deed.


191 posted on 07/26/2004 6:50:31 AM PDT by Blzbba (Hillary Clinton - Dawn of a New Error.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-191 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