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

...our democracy will be shattered if judges, our black-robed masters, are allowed to continue using the pretense of constitutional construction to impose their personal social agendas,...

Amen.

1 posted on 02/17/2004 5:48:59 AM PST by JesseHousman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last
To: JesseHousman
God help us.
2 posted on 02/17/2004 5:58:53 AM PST by beckysueb (Lady Liberty is in danger! Bush/Cheney 04.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JesseHousman
Good article as there are two major issues with gay marriage:

1. The destruction of the traditional family (and with it the basis of society for the last 4000 years).

2. The undemocratic way in which unelected judges make up laws. Liberals love it today because the judges are "making" laws in their favor but one day it will be used against them.
3 posted on 02/17/2004 5:59:22 AM PST by 2banana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JesseHousman
our democracy will be shattered if judges, our black-robed masters, are allowed to continue using the pretense of constitutional construction to impose their personal social agendas


Amen, Amen.
4 posted on 02/17/2004 6:01:21 AM PST by garylmoore (It is as it was)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JesseHousman
They're already doing it. If they can get away with legislating same-sex marriage, before you know it, they'll decide Marxism has a constitutional basis.
5 posted on 02/17/2004 6:03:20 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JesseHousman; 2sheep
Legalization of same-sex marriage would be a seismic event across this culture.

That pretty much sums it up. 10,000 Bams.

6 posted on 02/17/2004 6:06:50 AM PST by Thinkin' Gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JesseHousman
If homosexuality is really a genetic thing, then wouldn't they eventually become extinct? They wouldn't be able to reproduce and the gene would fade away. Since I don't really see that happening, I can't buy the I-was-born-this-way argument.
7 posted on 02/17/2004 6:07:32 AM PST by jtminton (2Timothy 4:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JesseHousman
The hotel industry is going to have to tweak it's traditional Honeymoon Package....and the new breed of divorce lawyers will probably be able to get away with having just a 'minor' in custody issues.

Speaking of attorneys, bidniss is bidniss...hey, that extra one percent of marital spats coming their way will be quite welcome.

9 posted on 02/17/2004 6:10:39 AM PST by ErnBatavia (Some days you're the windshield; some days you're the bug)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JesseHousman
If the answer becomes "yes" there will doubtless be a dramatic increase in the incidence of homosexuality. Sexual arousal is a mystical thing, subject to conditioning. How else can one explain bisexuality, transsexuality, or those who migrate from one orientation to another? We should not underestimate the power of continued Hollywood marketing of homosexuality, the human drive for pleasure and official government approval to mold behavior in this area.

Very true and very well said.

10 posted on 02/17/2004 6:11:42 AM PST by biblewonk (I must try to answer all bible questions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JesseHousman
With the legalization of sodomy by means of a vast zone of privacy that precludes the electorate from ever passing judgment on sex between adults, there remains no impediment to polygamy.

The leftists may say that polygamy is bad policy because it is disgusting or unnatural or oppressive to women or whatever, but our own Guardian Council in black robes have now established that what anyone else thinks of sexual matters among consenting adults means nothing. There is the zone of privacy, and any policy discussion about the social desirablity or undesirability of any sexual relationship or act among adults is now moot.

11 posted on 02/17/2004 6:12:16 AM PST by Montfort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JesseHousman
San Francisco homosexuals can't wait for government registration.

They should be very careful with their privacy.

12 posted on 02/17/2004 6:14:30 AM PST by CROSSHIGHWAYMAN (I don't believe anything a Democrat says. Bill Clinton set the standard!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JesseHousman
Look at what's being required in Boulder public schools. Can you imagine having school officials threaten to deny you a high school diploma if you don't go along with this?

http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/02-14-04/opening_5.asp

Are people going to put up with this, or will they pull their kids out of the public schools that foist this on their children and either homeschool or start their own private schools?
13 posted on 02/17/2004 6:20:21 AM PST by ladylib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JesseHousman; Dataman; JohnHuang2
Our (Sacramento's) excellent morning talk-show host Eric Hogue (1380, KTKZ -- and a FReeper) painted out more nightmares this morning.

He envisions Mr/Mrs(?) Bob and Ted now calling up ABC Insurance and getting the married-couple rate. Then they get into an accident. The company, investigating, says, "Wait, you're not married. Fraudulent document, invalid claim."

Then Bob and Ted sue San Francisco. And WIN. And a couple of other thousand do the same. And WIN.

And who pays? This tyrant/mayor? I don't think so.

Liberalism is expensive, and on so many levels.

Dan
21 posted on 02/17/2004 6:39:13 AM PST by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JesseHousman
George M. Weaver is an Atlanta attorney.

I hope Mr. Weaver's legal writings are more effective than this article is.

He makes a lot of important points, but they're written so obscurely that only the already-converted will be convinced.

25 posted on 02/17/2004 6:48:00 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JesseHousman
Arguably, allowing homosexual marriage would result in the divorce rate skyrocketing even higher than it currently is at.

Is it not true that the infidelity rate among homosexual partners is higher than among married couples?

I'm basing this point on an article from the Weekly Standard a few issues ago that examined gay marriage laws in Europe and their after effects.

It seems to me that the only people who would really want homosexual marriage to exist would be divorce lawyers. In theory, it would expand their potential client pool and bring in more cash.
31 posted on 02/17/2004 7:06:33 AM PST by BaBaStooey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JesseHousman
Where has the author been? "This equivalence would be taught in schools, observed in the workplace and eventually imposed even on churches. ". It *IS* taught in schools today.

Little Johnny's public high-school has a whole gay indoctrination thing going on. Teachers mark their rooms as "gay-bi-lesbian-transgender safe" by putting rainbows and pink triangles in them. The emphasis in on "tolerance" of people different then you, including most importantly GLBT people. (Sometimes "questioning" is added to this laundry list)

At work, for a mega-corp, Jonny's dad is bombarded with diversity training that again emphasizes the rights of homosexuals. His company has gone beyond this to have special gay forums and actively promote "open houses" and talks by "the companies highest ranking gay and lesbian managers".

I've experienced all this first hand. The gay marraige is not the start of a revolution, it's the final proof of victory.

32 posted on 02/17/2004 7:10:12 AM PST by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JesseHousman
'Lonesome cowboy' tried to marry his horse


Boulder has long been known as a haven for animal lovers, but in 1975 one local man lent a whole new meaning to the term "animal husbandry."

The late Roswell "Ros" Howard made national news when he applied for a marriage license to wed his horse. According to Howard's own account, in an unpublished manuscript titled "Dolly and Me," the license was refused because the bride was only 8 years old and couldn't provide consent in writing from her parents.

Howard made it clear that his intent was to interject "a mark of sanity in a world where apparently madness was viewed as rational behavior." He was referring to the actions of then-Boulder County Clerk, Clela Rorex, who, for a brief period of time, issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

In order to make his point, the 63-year-old Howard obtained a parade permit from the city so that he could (in Boulder's pre-pedestrian mall days) park Dolly and his horse trailer on Pearl Street directly in front of the courthouse. The Boulder Police Department promised to provide traffic control.

With Bob Palmer, television reporter for CBS news, standing by, Howard entered the courthouse on April 15, 1975. He was quoted as asking, "If a boy can marry a boy and a girl can marry a girl, why can't a lonesome old cowboy get hitched to his favorite saddle mare?"

After his application was turned down, Howard was greeted by a crowd of people on the courthouse lawn. The Camera's headline on the attempt read, "Rorex says 'neigh' to galloping couple." Howard's efforts made it into newspapers coast-to-coast and overseas. His attempt also elicited a comment by Johnny Carson during his national television program, the "Tonight Show."

Although Howard gained notoriety with his horse, he earned a living with his dogs. In the 1940s and 1950s, he and his wife Mary lived north of Boulder and bred pointers and setters. The couple wrote a book about their kennel experiences entitled "Going to the Dogs." From 1967 through 1970, Howard was a regular contributor to the Camera's Sunday Focus Magazine. He continued his "Going to the Dogs" column which he later renamed, "Dog Tales."

Howard died in Boulder in December 1980.

Rorex issued her first same-sex marriage license in March 1975, one month before Howard came to the courthouse with Dolly. At the time, state law did not specify that marriage had to be between a man and a woman. When asked about the legality of a license between two people of the same sex, Rorex told the Camera "My feeling was that, if it wasn't clear, I should decide every case on the side of the people."

Of Howard's attempt to wed Dolly, the Clerk explained that the law specifically referred to "persons."

Today, state law does not recognize same-sex marriage. Boulder does have a registry where domestic partners can officially document that they are a couple.

In the end, the fact that Howard's proposed "bride" was underage wasn't an issue after all. What was important to Howard was that he had bucked the system and had made people laugh. Within a few months, a smiling Rorex was photographed on Dolly's back at Hidden Valley Ranch where the horse was boarded.

Howard didn't have a leg to stand on, but he did inject some humor into an otherwise controversial situation.

Silvia Pettem writes on history for the Daily Camera. Write her at the Daily Camera, P. O. Box 591, Boulder 80306, or e-mail pettem@earthlink.net.



April 25, 2002

35 posted on 02/17/2004 7:18:20 AM PST by BaBaStooey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JesseHousman
AMEN and AMEN!
39 posted on 02/17/2004 7:45:01 AM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JesseHousman
"As Georgia law presently stands, pedophilic homosexual marriages would immediately be legal if same-sex marriage were instituted today. A 50-year-old man or woman could marry a 16-year-old (and in some cases younger) boy or girl."
42 posted on 02/17/2004 7:51:10 AM PST by KantianBurke (Principles, not blind loyalty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JesseHousman
It really has nothing to do with judges v the Constitution.

It has everything to do with secularism and humanism. In a society which increasingly relies on secular and humanist thinking to define its laws, why should there be a problem with conferring legal recognition on a "union" of two people of the same sex?

Only the belief that marriage is a Divinely instituted sacrament for the procreation of new life stands in the way of the present trend. In other words, marriage is made in heaven and God is its author. "Male and female He created them......", ".....shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together....." Now, for a society which is increasingly declaring its intention of removing God from all public dealings and affairs, the obvious progression is to arrive at a definition of marriage which is different from the Christian one. And it is in the process of doing precisely ths.

This folks, is the result of the "keep religion out of government" trend. The other side of the coin which sees Ten Commandments ripped out of court houses, school prayer banned etc etc. No, it is not a startling and frightening new development. It is simply a continuation of something that has been developing for half a century or more, mostly while America slept.

65 posted on 02/17/2004 8:58:39 AM PST by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JesseHousman
The tone and tendency of liberalism...is to attack the institutions of the country under the name of reform and to make war on the manners and customs of the people under the pretext of progress(as progressives). - Benjamin Disraeli
71 posted on 02/17/2004 9:10:07 AM PST by hosepipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

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