Posted on 03/14/2005 12:16:45 PM PST by Dont Mention the War
Breaking...
Does this same science apply to defunct the premise for all the grade school homosexual advocacy clubs? I have always assumed that a developing child does not have a 'sexual orientation' until fully developed -as such, the homosexual advocacy groups are dangerously imposing psychological harm by suggesting 'sexual orientation' is possible at a young age and that [it] should be declared immutably.
Assuming that they are "consenting adults, free to do what they want", why should we stop them? Well, we have discussed marriage (or civil union) in the view of "the interest of the state". In other words, what does the state (all of us) gain by restricting this behavior, and does doing so outweigh the rights of the individual?
In the case of incest, I would offer that the state is interested in promoting long-term stable relationships and multi-generational family lines. If a brother-sister, or father-daughter, relationship were to occur, that would defeat the purpose. In addition, how would you divorce your brother or cousin, if it were to come to that? They would still be your brother or cousin. You would still be family, and the family cohesiveness would be destroyed, exactly what the state is trying to prevent.
I readily admit that this is not a carefully reasoned argument, you caught me by surprise and I am just typing off the top of my head here, but i didn't want to just leave it unaddressed.
QUOTE:
Well, it does seem unconstitutional. I mean, isn't that why some think there would have to be a constitutional amendment against it for it to remain illegal?
The amendment is to make it clear to activist judges who tend to interpret the law according to their present mood that it is indeed unconstitutional.
ENDQUOTE
OK, I'LL BITE. EXPLAIN TO ME (AND TO A WHOLE LOTTA JUDGES IN A WHOLE LOTTA PLACES, SEEMS) HOW IT IS PRESENTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
LOL -your pro-homosexual bias bothers me!
But of course. Nobody can be surprised at this. It's the way things work. 10 million people vote one way, a single judge says something else and the judges win every time because the ten miilion people let them.
They can't, really, it's just that the general populace has not caught on yet.
These judges are suffering from delusions of omnipotence.
Huh. Civilization and preservation of society for the next generation is no longer a 'rational purpose' in Californyah.
More BS from the land of fruits and nuts...
Try again, in California minors can consent to all sorts of things. Certainly if a minor can consent to killing their unborn child, the can consent to marriage, no?
My source is reality. I don't think homosexuals deserve any special privileges -EVEN if they pretend to couple like married heterosexuals.
But a lot of states have state ERAs in their constitution, and those are being used to argue for gay marriage."
Oh, the irony gets even richer ... in Mass, and in other states, the 'anti-ERA' forces, you know the neanderthals, madethe outrageous claim that ERA would one day be used to force same-sex marriage down our throats.
The pro-ERA forces said that was utter nonsense and that there was NOTHING in the language of ERA to justify such an assertion.
And yet ... it was precisely the ERA that the Mass supreme kangaroo court used over a year ago to creat the 'right' of same-sex marriage in Masschusetts.
I beg to differ. Why was Roman Polanski not brought back to the United States when he fled to Europe? Because what he did is not a crime in Europe.
OK, I know what your agrgument is, "The little girl was a slut?" Right!!!
Well in Stockton, Ca, we also had a case of a Real Estate Developer named Ekhard Schmidt. Well he liked little boys and was caught with them several times. When he was let out of jail on appeal, he was caught again, so he fled to Europe. Same story, "not a crime, so not forced to return here."
Don't you understand this is what it is all about, we all should be free to do whatever perverted thing we like. It is OK in Europe, so it should apply here.
Marriage is an institution that doesn't discriminate. If Mr A is hetero and Mr B is homo, neither can marry Mr C, no matter his proclivities. To claim that discriminates against Mr. B is ludicrous on it's face.
What's more, any legislation limiting the newspeak meaning of marriage to homosexuals would be discriminatory.
And you conveniently over looked the point. If the legislature arbitrarily changed the age of consent to 12 then it would be legal. I.e. arbitrary law. Then you'd have to agree then, right? Go ahead and ignore it again you're too a hypocrite.
As for incest, well, a limitation on marrying relatives isn't a limitation on the form of marriage, so I'm not sure it's relevant here anyway.
Bologna, it's the states right to discriminate on the basis of who can or cannot be married, i.e. choosing one form over another.
Your correct I left off a question mark
Unfortunately their delusions of omnipotence become reality when the other branches of govt meekly accept their decisions. Or perhaps a better analogy for this would be; when they bend over and take it from the Courts on one issue after another.
It would be great if a governor, or President, would simply say, 'enough', and openly defy one of these crazy decisions. They should use their bully pulpit to declare that such decisions are clearly w/o constitutional merit, and as such he cannot in good conscience enforce such a decision. So long as the state legislature, or Congress backed him up, there would be no immediate political fall-out, and if he were articulate and forceful in his engagement with the public, then the people would side with him. This would render such court edicts void, and show everyone that the emperor has no clothes, that they are a paper tiger, w/o any ability to enforce their crazy decisions. Alexander Hamilton said as much even as he was arguing for judicial review.
If such an act led to a sort of Constitutional crisis then that would be a good thing, as it would futher focus the public on the Courts. Then they'd see how on one issue after another, the Courts have acted to impose the values of an elite leftwing on a whole host of issues like abortion, gay marriage, illegal immigration, public nativity scenes, prayer, etc. This could only be good for conservatives, as on each of those the people hold conservative views and they'd take full notice how the Courts are acting to impose by fiat what can't be won in the proper legislative and popular authorities.
Of course this is all wishful thinking. Does anyone think President Bush would defy a SCOTUS imposition of gay marriage/civil unions? Is there a governor out there who would? Even Rush Limbaugh has recently revealed that he doesn't favor such action, which surprised me seeing as how such a mindset is a defacto surrender in the culture war. He said we shouldn't meet lawlessness with lawlessness, and that translates into; 'yes, the Courts do have the right to act like kings, and we should just keep electing Republicans who will give lip service to the battle against judicial activism but once elected do very little about it.'
Its very frustrating.
Marriage is an institution designed for the preservation of our society into the next generation by legally codifying the protections of a family, including the children that issue forth from a marriage relationship.
Marriage is less of a right than a codified set of responsibilies that helps preserve the family as a secure institution in society.
Those who dont want to enter in the committed man+women relationship that we call marriage lose no rights nor privileges, no more than a non-trout fisher 'loses' the 'right to fish' because he can't get a fish license in a desert.
Marriage has been watered down enough without further destruction by folks who want to pervert it into a 'right' unrelated to the core tasks of carrying civilization forward. Gay marriage in USA will destroy traditional marriage and family just as it harmed marriage and family in Scandanavia. Such a radical derogation of marriage, simply to make a subset of Americans feel more comfortable with their own lifestyles, is not worth it. Not even to the community that is demanding it.
So gay "Mr. B" can't marry gay "Mr. C", but it is OK for him to marry gay "Ms. D"? A lot of homosexuals are in marriages of convenience. They do so to get the benefits that a heterosexual person can or to hide their proclivities from others. I find that more repugnant than two homosexuals in a committed relationship. Shouldn't society promote stable, loving families? Doesn't that benefit us all?
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.