Posted on 08/05/2010 8:05:44 AM PDT by SmithL
It's never been about them getting married, it's about getting the State to sanction their behavior as being on equal terms as heterosexuality.
I do see your point, but gays want to have their you-know-what and eat it too.
In the report I heard ABC News neglected to mention the judge was a open homosexual.
They did find time to mention he was Reagan appointed, though.
what is with all the pro-homosexual trolls reappearing?
In the eyes of this administration; only two things are criminal anymore: being a Christian or a Republican.
So then maybe you should push for a anti-children amendment to the Constitution that prohibits people to have representation to make laws that benefit children.
Consent of the governed ? Or, not.
The promotion of a marriage between a man and woman though does help protect children.
Because someone has to protect the unalienable rights of children, and if this is not done by the two people who produced it, then it becomes the responsibility of the tax payer. Since making children the responsibility of the tax payers deprives those tax payers of the unalienable right to own property, civil marriage was created to jointly FORCE those two (exactly one male and one female) who created the child to care for it.
A child has a right to have a mother and a father.
Because someone has to protect the unalienable rights of children, and if this is not done by the two people who produced it, then it becomes the responsibility of the tax payer. Since making children the responsibility of the tax payers deprives those tax payers of the unalienable right to own property, civil marriage was created to jointly FORCE those two (exactly one male and one female) who created the child to care for it.
A child has a right to have a mother and a father.
Unfortunately, our alternative life style friends, who are always whining about "equal treatment", don't want to go this equal (legally correct) route. In most cases, they want ONE judge to overrule the laws made by representatives directly elected by the citizens, or, in even worse cases like California, overrule a direct referendum of millions of citizens.
Libertarian freepers coming out of the closet.
Ransomed actually answered this better than I did -- this very event, the judge's ruling, is an obvious answer to your question. If the state didn't have its evil tendrils in marriage in the first place, then these lawsuits could not exist. Because the government DOES regulate marriage, it gives the homos all the legal excuse they need to seek government endorsement of their insanity.
Huh. Too bad the Founding Fathers didn't have your wisdom.
/s
The state is founded on the Natural Law, as clearly laid out in the Declaration and by our Founders. The Constitution’s—and really every government’s—purpose is to preserve and defend the Natural Law—which is based on the authority of God and how He made us. I don’t give a hoot whether some people think that’s too theological a tack. That’s the Law. That’s the way this nation was set up.
Marriage MUST and SHOULD be protected by the government because it is a fundamental right of humankind and a part of the Natural Law. If government cannot protect and defend the *natural* right for two people to marry, it has no business existing. Note I did not say government creates or defines marriage. Government grants no rights. It only protects rights that have already been given “by Nature and Nature’s God.”
This is why gay “marriage” is so heinous. It is a right that people have invented, not that they have inherited, and as such has absolutely no binding authority whatsoever.
By saying government has no business in marriage, you are, in my opinion, already admitting a key tenet of progressive liberalism—which is to deny the fact that our Constitution is based on the Natural Law. Once you do that, as this judge seems to have done, the state no longer becomes a guardian of inherited liberties but a dispenser of invented ones. And that is tyranny.
You are trying to blame a horribly un-Constitutional decision of a judge on good and Constitutional law created before it? That don’t fly.
Being brought up in a religious faith is good for children. Should we have laws requiring/subsidizing church attendance? If so, which churches qualify? Being brought up by financially responsible parents is good for children. Should parents have to submit their household budgets to a state agency for approval? Your reasoning (if you can call it that) leads to slavery.
Then where does the state get the authority to grant or deny a "license" to do something that God already granted a right to do? God granted us a natural right to worship him, too. Should we pay a fee and get a "license" for that?
Trying to use extremes as some sort of way to throw out all law that can promote the benefit of children is faulty logic. A mother and father are considered central elements to the benefit of children and is not at all extreme as you want to paint it as being.
It's the nature of government. If you grant it power to do something you want now, that power will later be abused to do evil.
And in the state of CA no judge who is a member of the Boy Scouts of America can sit on a case involving homosexuals or the homosexual agenda. Nope.
Yet a disgusting sexual pervert can sit on such a case.
I don’t see any easy cure for this.
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.