Posted on 01/21/2006 8:23:11 PM PST by MediaAnalyst
The fact of the matter is that the American people, by an overwhelming margin, wish to retain the traditional definition of marriage. When unelected tyrants in black robes insist that marriage be instead defined in ways it has never in all of human history been, and which offends almost every single American citizen, THAT is how gay "marriage" is forced on the people.
Any questions?
Any time this is put to an actual vote of the people, the people decide to keep the definition of marriage what it is, as opposed to allowing men to marry men, women to marry donkeys, etc.
You're absolutely right. The ban on homosexual "marriage" passed overwhelmingly here in Oklahoma, but it was immediately challenged in court. These perverts don't care about the will of the people.
How can marriage between a man and a woman have value when Reality TV shows determine who someone will marry if the price is right?
Why have someone explain this to you? Your question is not a valid question as it is premised in moral relative construct that denies "we the people" control the government. The actual question is how can a judge legitimately go against the will of the people evidenced by history, common law and enacted law through elected representatives and decide by personal judicial fiat supplemented by the proverbial "much consideration" or even foriegn legal precedent to decide what constitutes a legitimate moral position and or societal interest.
The judge should be booted from the bench.
It's about a court imposing its own distorted view of what the law says onto an unwilling citizenry.
It's about the usurpation of our democratic rights, and the negation of participatory democracy.
What exactly is the point of going out and casting a ballot for a legistlator-at either the state or federal level-if that person has absolutely no power to enact his/her agenda?
How is it that you are still on this board, Paul? Do you even realize that this is a message board for conservatives? There is another board, slightly less popular, of course, that caters to the pro-homosexual agenda.
Good for you and your moral relative opinion. Holding a homosexual 'relationship' together means nothing 'good' to me regardless the 'bad' you seem to justify it with.
Look, even if same-sex marriage were to be enacted by plebiscite, or through the actions of state legislatures I would oppose it.
But at the very least I could take comfort in the fact that the decision was being made with the public's consent.
The reason that there has never been a referendum or initiative seeking to legalize same-sex marriage is because such a measure would inevitably fail...in all fifty states.
Realizing that no state or city would be willing to enact their agenda, radical activists are using their friends on the federal bench as a means of enforce an agenda that would never come to pass through genuinely democratic means.
I don't care if you disagree or agree with the wisdom of extending the institution of matrimony to same-sex couples, if you have even a modicum of respect for our system of government you should loathe extra-constitutional decisions such as this and Lawrence.
Instead my point is that the culture has through No Fault Divorce and the trivialization of marriage via the mass media has established a institution of marriage that has little resemblance of its original intention.
What value does traditional marriage have when marriages are brokered on Reality TV programs?
If two people of the same sex want to live together and define their existence by the fact that their reproductive equipment is a pleasure toy for them and nothing else, that is nobody's business but their own.
But to elevate that relationship the the importance of one that is vital to the well being and health of our society, is wrong and dangerous.
If you think a family with a mother and a father is not important to bringing up children correctly, that is your right to think so, but you are mistaken, the science is not on your side.
Our society has given special rights and privileges for the institution of marriage and the act of rearing children, in recognition that is is the single most important thing to carry on our line.
These rights are paid for all of us by our taxes and legal strucured. We willigly pay, the same way we would pay for our childeren to go to the best school.
Those of us who do not have children, for various reasons....we willingly pay the penalties with no children, because thousands of years have shown us the right and normal way. Two mommies and two daddies may produce an occasoniall wonderful off spring, but it isnt the norm.
The same value it does no matter what moral relative comparison you make.
Arguments premised in situational ethics or moral relative constructs are tools of the left and or morally liberal --I do not entertain such arguments.
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.