Posted on 07/14/2006 11:33:06 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
Next week the House of Representatives will be voting on the Marriage Protection Amendment, which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.
Our opponents say there is no need for this amendment because the states will do it, and they cite last week’s New York Court of Appeals decision supporting heterosexual marriage as evidence. Well, they’re wrong.
Yes, the Court of Appeals in New York did uphold New York’s law limiting marriage to one man and one woman. But in holding that there was a “rational basis” for this, the New York court is swimming against the tide of recent Supreme Court decisions in the area of gay rights.
This “tide” makes it virtually certain that when state statutes or constitutional provisions barring gay “marriage” reach the Supreme Court, they will be struck down. Let me tell you why: In Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, Justice Kennedy affirmed the right of abortion by defining “liberty” as the right to “define one’s own concept of existence, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
As Justice Scalia noted in his dissent, such a definition could embrace anything. Scalia is right.
In Romer v. Evans a few years later, the Court struck down a democratically enacted referendum in Colorado denying special civil rights based on sexual orientation. Kennedy rejected the idea that there could be a “rational basis” for such a provision. Instead, he wrote that the vote was the product of “animus,” that is, bigotry, against homosexuals.
Then in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law banning sodomy. In his majority opinion, Justice Kennedy again, instead of making a straightforward equal protection argument, cited his opinions in Casey and Romer. He ruled that in legislating against homosexual behavior, the state was guilty of bigotry or prejudice.
Once again Justice Scalia in dissent pointed out where Kennedy’s logic would lead us: “Today’s opinion,” he said, “dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted the distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions . . . ” He argued that Lawrence effectively outlawed all legislation concerning morality.
If you take Kennedy and Scalia seriously—as we must—we have to conclude that the Supreme Court will declare any law restricting the right of homosexuals to marry unconstitutional. It can’t rule otherwise, not without disregarding its own precedents.
There’s already a Nebraska case making its way through federal courts in which a judge threw out a statute banning gay “marriage.” Within two years this will be at the Supreme Court, which has already shown that it dismisses state judgments on matters like this.
This is why this House vote is so important. Yes, we lost in the Senate, but we have to keep going to show our leaders that we are serious about protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage. We need to let them know that, like William Wilberforce in his campaign against slavery, which took twenty years, we are in this battle for the long haul. Those who thought that the Senate’s action was the last word on the subject couldn’t be more wrong.
Call your congressman today please. Tell him how strongly you feel about protecting traditional marriage—then urge him to vote for the Marriage Protection Amendment. You can find his phone number below, along with information about the amendment.
Take action:
Call your representative today and urge him or her to vote FOR the Marriage Protection Amendment. The vote is expected to take place next week. The Capitol switchboard is 202-224-3121, or learn your representative’s direct line by visiting www.house.gov.
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Good day, Mr. Silverback! Please put me ON your ping list. Thanks for the post!
the Republican controlled House and Senate should be able to pass meaningful legislation, such as a comprehensive immigration bill that puts border security first. Most Americans are not concerned with constitutional amendments that have no real purpose. They are interested in immigration, the war on terror, reducing spending, and a host of other issues.
Our opponents say there is no need for this amendment because the states will do it...
-----
No way. This amendment should pass. It will then give the federal government, and others, the right to put down law-breaking radical liberal local governments who thwart the law to suit their own queer constituencies. Ala San Fagcisco.
Learn from history. The issue of abortion was left to the states up until 1973. There is no one who has shown me what would stop the SCOTUS from doing the same thing with marriage.
***************
Scalia is brilliant.
It's a sad statement of where our culture has drifted in the last forty or fifty years that it's come to this, but I support this proposal for an amendment protecting traditional marriage.
the Republican controlled House and Senate should be able to pass meaningful legislation, such as a comprehensive immigration bill that puts border security first. Most Americans are not concerned with constitutional amendments that have no real purpose. They are interested in immigration, the war on terror, reducing spending, and a host of other issues.
You are wrong. No issue is as important as the composition of family today, as it affects all other social issues.
There were those who in 1965 predicted that the SC decision on contraception would spawn Roe v Wade, which would eventually spawn such intellectual abortions as the SC decision on Texas sodomy laws. There are those who predicted that decision would lead to the gutting of all legal restrictions on defining marriage. To this point they are correct.
Unfortunately, there are too many who can't see the implications of current actions, who must jump off the cliff before they understand they shouldn't. Those who are now screwing around with marriage see no relationship between their current actions and the social pathologies we suffer.
So, sad to say, we'll continue down this road to the point that it's destructiveness is so obvious even you can see it. I understand that's the curse of democracy, a seeking of the lowest common denominator. I'll protect me and mine as best I can.
Don't insult my intelligence, however, by trying to convince me it's otherwise.
The opponents say that, because they understand the difference between preserving the status quo, and trying to take away so-called "rights" once judicially conferred. It's much harder to take rights away than restate the current law.
I don't see any comparison either with the issue or with the makeup of the Court. And if by chance it happened, the Congress would meet and approve an amendment in days if not hours. It would be overwhelmingly ratified. This is not a right to privacy issue as was Roe, and almost every district court, and every appeals court has upheld both the state amendments and the DOMA. This has everything to do with the upcoming election and little to do with the protection of marriage.
Nice reply.
Well, I don't argue that the family is important, but if so, I wonder why the 11 million people living out of wedlock, or the 50% divorce rate which affects millions of children are not being discussed. There are 2.5 million divorces each year involving 1 million children. Currently there are over 20 million children living with one parent, 7.5 million single mothers maintaining a household, and half a million single mothers with 4 or more children. Never mind the ex-husband stalkers, or the drug and alcohol problems in the homes that dramatically impact the family.
Those statistics have an infinitely greater impact on the American family than does same sex marriages in Massachusetts.
There were those who in 1965 predicted that the SC decision on contraception would spawn Roe v Wade, which would eventually spawn such intellectual abortions as the SC decision on Texas sodomy laws. There are those who predicted that decision would lead to the gutting of all legal restrictions on defining marriage. To this point they are correct.
All of those issues had to do with privacy which is the right of all Americans. Granted, the Roe decision was a hell of a reach, but I hope and suspect will likely be overturned by this court within a couple of years. But there is no privacy issue with same sex marriage, as decision after decision has shown.
Unfortunately, there are too many who can't see the implications of current actions, who must jump off the cliff before they understand they shouldn't.
I think that's my line.
Those who are now screwing around with marriage see no relationship between their current actions and the social pathologies we suffer.
While I don't approve of same sex marriage, I don't feel I have a right to tell another state how to handle their family law issues. As for the other social pathologies, I'm not sure which ones you are holding out as a result of the same sex marriage issue. I might agree with you if I knew.
So, sad to say, we'll continue down this road to the point that it's destructiveness is so obvious even you can see it.
It could happen. I can't predict the future, but I'm not ready for an amendment to the Constitution yet.
I understand that's the curse of democracy, a seeking of the lowest common denominator.
This issue is one of a republic, not a democracy. As such, I have to believe in the concept of federalism, or chuck it out altogether. I'm far from that point yet.
Don't insult my intelligence, however, by trying to convince me it's otherwise.
I'm not trying to convince you any more than you are trying to convince me. I respect your points and your passion, even if I disagree.
Those statistics have an infinitely greater impact on the American family than does same sex marriages in Massachusetts.
So...if we can't do everything, we won't do anything?
I'd love to have the luxury of debating how we can make it better, instead of whether we can keep it from getting worse.
I don't know where you live, but there's a lot of discussion about those very issues where I live and talk and post. There's concensus among the experts about the effects of divorce and so-called non-traditional families. There's no political will for changes yet, but that day is much closer than it was five years ago.
The reason why I pointed to those statistics is simply that I don't really think this amendment is about the protection of marriage. At the risk of a straw man comparison, I would suggest it's like spending your efforts attacking a cockroach in the corner of the living room while ignoring the 800 pound gorilla tearing up the room.
In fact, I'm not sure how many traditional marriages would be harmed by what has happened in Massachusetts. I doubt that anyone contemplating marriage would decline because of the same sex marriage situation there. So if this is not to protect marriage, what is the exact purpose? After all, a constitutional amendment should be reserved for the most important issues in our Republic.
I'd love to have the luxury of debating how we can make it better, instead of whether we can keep it from getting worse.
But if our object is to protect marriage, then shouldn't we be using our time and efforts at addressing those issues that in fact do endanger marriage?
There's concensus among the experts about the effects of divorce and so-called non-traditional families.
And let's face it, they are devastating to the family, the children, and the taxpayers who assume much of the assistance.
again you dissemble.
A Marriage Amendment affects all the issues you cited.
From spousal visas to inheritance to income tax, all are affected by federal recognition of marriage.
In an era when state courts are forum shopped to find favorable judges, (see the recent GA ID voting decision), federal protection is required.
It is a very clear simple fact of life. In this case a constitutional amendment codifies the common law standard of marriage. It prevents the meddling fromthe ABA with their model domestic relations cord or any judge who magially finds such a right.
A consitutional amendment ENDS the debate. It shuts out the judges with a crystal clear bright line. It avoids all the preposterous hoop jumping you have advocated on countless other threads.
I probably wouldn't if I had your gift of foresight.
From spousal visas to inheritance to income tax, all are affected by federal recognition of marriage.
All protected by the Defense of Marriage Act. Not one federal court decision has gone against DOMA including the infamous 9th Circuit. Dissembling?
In an era when state courts are forum shopped to find favorable judges, (see the recent GA ID voting decision), federal protection is required.
They can forum shop all they want. Every decision (3 in 3 days)have gone against the forum shoppers. They cannot win this, and you know it.
In this case a constitutional amendment codifies the common law standard of marriage.
That's not the intent of the FMA. It was to prevent courts from forcing it on a state. But since the states all have cures for such decisions there is no need for an amendment. And as can be seen, no federal court decision will make it past an appeals court.
Why not have an amendment to codify all laws to ensure that all states do as the radical right wants them to do? Make it a lot easier. I'm amazed at how supposed conservatives who believe in the Tenth Amendment and taking power from the federal government suddenly shifts to ensure the states have no power, where religious principles are concerned.
It avoids all the preposterous hoop jumping you have advocated on countless other threads.
Unfortunately, in a republic with a federal syle of constitution, those hoop jumps are necessary. Otherwise chuck it all and lets just have one constitution applicable to all issues. The way you do that is to get rid of the Tenth Amendment.
Since the states vote to ratify any proposed amendment... your argument is completely baseless...
Next week the House of Representatives will be voting on the Marriage Protection Amendment, which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.
Our opponents say there is no need for this amendment because the states will do it, and they cite last week’s New York Court of Appeals decision supporting heterosexual marriage as evidence. Well, they’re wrong.
YES -they are VERY wrong -this is not a States' Rights issue THIS is all about activist judges and courts construing reality. As it stands right now States' Rights are being attacked by homosexual agenda activists shopping for activist courts:
- Washington: The state Supreme Court heard arguments in March 2005 in a case in which 19 couples seek to overturn the state's Defense of Marriage Act. It's unclear when the court might rule.
- Massachusetts: On on November 18th, 2003, in a 4/3 decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court imposed homosexual "marriage" upon the citizens of Massachusetts. Conservative citizens have responded to the activist judiciary with a Constitutional Amendment referendum effort now at the stage of requiring approval by 25% of the legislature, or 50 members, in two successive sessions before it goes to the ballot in 2008. A simple majority of citizens voting in support of the referendum will make it an amendment to the state constitution and end the imposed homosexual "marriage" social experiment into the realm of delusion.
- New Jersey: The state Supreme Court heard arguments in a case Feb. 15; it's unclear when the court might rule.
- New York: On July 6, 2006 the state Court of Appeals, held the New York Constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex," the appeals court said in its 70-page ruling. "Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the Legislature."
- Georgia: The Georgia Supreme Court, reversing a lower court judge's ruling, decided unanimously on July 6, 2006 that the ban did not violate the state's single-subject rule for ballot measures.
- California: A state court last year ruled that barring same-sex marriage is against the state Constitution. An appeals court heard the case on July 10, 2006. The three-judge panel has 90 days to rule. Any decision is expected to be appealed to the state Supreme Court.
- Nebraska: The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on July 14, 2006 reversed an U.S. District ruling by Judge Bataillon, who ruled last year that a marriage amendment was too broad and deprived homosexuals of participation in the political process. In ruling, The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the amendment "and other laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests and therefore do not violate the Constitution of the United States."
- Maryland: A judge on January 20 struck down a 1973 state ban on same-sex marriages. The state has appealed the ruling.
- Connecticut: On July 12, 2006, Superior Court Judge Patty Jenkins ruled against eight same-sex couples who filed suit against the state in August 2004 after being denied marriage licenses. The eight Connecticut couples have said they intend to appeal the Superior Court ruling.
- Iowa: A trial in a gay marriage lawsuit is scheduled before a state judge for Oct. 23, 2006.
Please ping me with any updates and or corrections to this.
Well If that is how you feel then stop repeatedly harping on about this issue you do not feel you are capable of politically taking action upon...
You wish to do nothing and concede defeat -go do it somewhere else...
Those statistics have an infinitely greater impact on the American family than does same sex marriages in Massachusetts.
I will tell you right now that homosexual anything will never be accorded merit or accommodation no matter how often attempted with such comparative merit arguments like you attempt OR any other "cute" method one may come up with... That dog won't hunt -give it a rest already!
You claim it is not your right to decide for others all while you argue the comparative merits of homosexual marriage?
Well -how about these impacts on society -impacts on families that you missed:
Homosexual Behavior Fuels AIDS and STD Epidemic (Adobe Acrobat PDF).Homosexual Behavior Fuels
AIDS and STD EpidemicDecember, 2003 — The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) announced on November 26, 2003, that AIDS infections increased in 29 states in 2002 among Blacks, Latinos, and Homosexual and Bisexual men. The overall rate of increase was 5.1% over a four-year period between 1999-2002. Fifty-five percent of these infections are among Blacks; there was a 26% increase among Latinos; and a 17% increase among homosexuals and bisexuals. There was a 7% increase in AIDS infections among non-homosexuals. These CDC statistics are published in the November 28 issue of Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).
Dr. John Diggs, Jr., has recently published statistics on the serious health consequences of engaging on homosexual sodomy. His report, “The Health Risks of Gay Sex,” was published by the Corporate Resource Council. This report is downloadable at: http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf.
Dr. Diggs notes that homosexual sodomy is an efficient transmitter of a whole range of STD’s including AIDS. He also points out that human physiology makes it clear that anal intercourse itself is an unhealthy practice that damages the body and can lead to serious health consequences—including anal cancer. “Unhealthy sexual behaviors occur among both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Yet the medical and social science evidence indicate that homosexual behavior is uniformly unhealthy,” observes Diggs.
The sexual activities engaged in by homosexuals inevitably lead to a whole range of viral and bacterial infections that can result in sterility, cancer, and death.
Sex among homosexual males typically includes: oral and anal sex; rimming (mouth-to-anus contact); fisting (insertion of the hand and arm into the rectum); golden showers (urination); insertion of objects such as bottles, flashlights, and even gerbils into the rectum; sadomasochism (beatings with whips, chains, etc.); and other practices. These various behaviors cause trauma to the rectum, contribute to the spread of AIDS; increase incidences of oral and anal cancer; and result in serious infections due to the ingestion of fecal matter.
One of the largest surveys ever conducted of homosexual sex practices was published by two homosexual researchers in 1979. In The Gay Report by Jay and Young, 37% of homosexuals interviewed indicated they had engaged in sadomasochistic activities; 23% had been involved in “water sports,” (urinating on the sex partner); 4% had been involved in defecation; 11% had been involved in giving enemas to their sex partners.
Dr. Gisela L.P. Macphail, a physician at the University of Calgary in Canada, described the serious health risks of homosexual behavior in a letter to the Calgary Board of Education in September, 1996. She is an epidemiologist and regularly treats AIDS patients. According to Dr. Macphail, “Any practice which facilitates direct or indirect oral-rectal contact will enable the spread of fecal and rectal microorganisms to the sexual partner. Thus anilingus (rimming), a common practice among homosexual men, allows direct spread of pathogens such as Giardia, Entamoeba histolytica, and Hepatitis A and of the typical STD organisms such as herpes simplex and gonorrhea.”
She warned the Calgary school district against promoting homosexual behavior among school children because of the serious health risks.
In August, 1984, just three years after AIDS was diagnosed as a public health threat to homosexuals, columnist Patrick Buchanan and researcher Dr. J. Gordon Muir published an in-depth look at the “Gay” lifestyle and the diseases associated with it in The American Spectator. Writing in “Gay Times and Gay Diseases,” the authors described a series of serious diseases comprising the “Gay Bowel Syndrome.”
Those viruses, parasites, and bacteria resulting from homosexual sexual practices include: Amebiasis, a parasitic colon disease which causes dysentery and liver abscesses; Giardiasis, a parasite that causes diarrhea; Shigellosis, another bowel disease causing dysentery, Hepatitis A, a viral liver disease spread by fecal contamination.
According to Buchanan and Muir, San Francisco saw a four-to-ten-fold increase in gay bowel diseases beginning in 1977. As long ago as 1988, San Francisco had a venereal disease infection rate 22 times the national average.
Anal Cancer — Dr. Stephen E. Goldstone, the medical director of GayHealth.com says he has found that 68% of HIV-positive and 45% of HIV-negative homosexual males have abnormal or precancerous anal cells. A 1987 study, “Sexual Practices, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and the Incidences of Anal Cancer” in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that “homosexual behavior in men increases the risk of anal cancer: 21 of the 57 men with anal cancer (37%) reported that they were homosexual or bisexual, in contrast to only 1 in 64 controls.”
HIV from Oral Sex — In August, 2001, researchers at the University of California released the results of a preliminary study of the risk of getting HIV from oral sex. They claimed that homosexuals are at a zero to 2% risk of getting HIV from oral sex. But a study released earlier in 2001 indicated that oral sex is implicated in at least 8% of HIV infections. This earlier study was published in February by the CDC and the University of California at San Francisco.
HIV from Anal Intercourse — In the U.S., anal intercourse continues to be the primary transmission route of HIV infection for homosexuals. The CDC says there are 40,000 new infections each year and the rate of infection is climbing because many younger homosexuals are engaging in risky behaviors. Many have become complacent about the epidemic because of new drugs that control the progression of the disease. As a result, homosexuals are staying alive longer and infecting more individuals. As of 1998, 54% of all HIV infections were homosexuals. An estimated 1 million Americans have been infected with HIV since it was first discovered in the early 1980s. Worldwide, 21 million people have died; 450,000 Americans have died so far from HIV-related diseases.
Sexually Transmitted Diseases — A 1999 study published in the American Journal of Public Health indicated that homosexuals are five times as likely to have Hepatitis B as their heterosexual counterparts. A 1999 study in Sexually Transmitted Diseases indicated that 25% of homosexuals have rectal Gonorrhea and Gonorrhea of the throat is prevalent because of oral sex practices. The book, The Ins and Outs of Gay Sex: A Medical Handbook for Men states that more than 50% of homosexual males have the Human Papilloma Virus. Homosexuals are acquiring Syphilis in record numbers. The CDC released two reports on Syphilis in February, 2001. One report said that Syphilis rates had declined by 22% in the U.S. since 1997. The second indicated that Syphilis rates among homosexuals in Southern California had risen from 26% to 51% in one year. The report also noted that in Southern California alone, 60% of Syphilis-infected homosexuals were also HIV positive.
Tuberculosis — Homosexuals are at high risk for spreading Tuberculosis. In June-August 1998, the Baltimore Health Department tracked the spread of TB by four black transgendered homosexual prostitutes. They had infected 22 others with TB through their sexual activities. TB infection was also spread from Baltimore to New York City.
HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR IS UNSAFE AND SHOULD NOT BE PROMOTED AS A HEALTHFUL OR HARMLESS LIFESTYLE!
Dr. Diggs notes, “A compassionate response to requests for social approval and recognition of GLB [gay, lesbian, bisexual] relationships is not to assure gays and lesbians that homosexual relationships are just like heterosexual ones, but to point out the health risks of gay sex and promiscuity. Approving same-sex relationships is detrimental to employers, employees, and society in general.”
Homosexual sex leads to serious venereal diseases, anal and oral cancer, and death from HIV infection. This behavior must be discouraged—not promoted as an alternative lifestyle. HOMOSEXUAL SEX KILLS.
A conservative does not argue the merits of homosexual anything...
Stop advocating for homosexually premised anything on FR.
Congress, state legislatures and public referenda have statutorily determined polygamous, pederast, homosexual, and incestuous marriages are unlawful. No Constitutional Amendment restricting marriage is required to regulate "practice" according to the Reynolds decision.
“Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices...”Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).
- - See also:
Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478 (1890). Revised as 140 U.S. 665, 11 S.Ct. 884, 35 L. Ed. 592 (1891).
Marriage is a religious "rite," not a civil "right;" a secular standard of human reproductive biology united with the Judaic Adam and Eve model of monogamy in creationist belief. Two homosexuals cannot be "monogamous" because the word denotes a biological procreation they are not capable of together; human reproductive biology is an obvious secular standard.
All adults have privilege to marry one consenting adult of opposite gender; therefore, Fourteenth Amendment "equal protection" argument about "privileges and immunities" for homosexual marriage is invalid. Driving, marriage, legal and medical practices are not enumerated rights; they are privileged practices that require statutory license. Nothing that requires a license is a right.
Homosexual monogamy advocates are a cult of perversion seeking ceremonious sanctification for voluntary deviancy with anatomical function and desperately pursuing esoteric absolution to justify their guilt-ridden egos. This has no secular standard; it is an idolatrous fetish. Why not properly apply the adjudicated Reynolds 'separation of church and state' here?
Since the states must vote to ratify or reject any proposed U.S. Constitutional amendment, any argument that 'states' rights' are abrogated pursuant to the Tenth Amendment are totally baseless...
If we pass a gay "marriage" amendment, we'll need two hundred more to reverse other bizarre intrusions into the right of states to regulate morality and good order.
Better do it all at once.
That still fails to explain the turn around of conservatives. First they want "states rights", then they want to eliminate "states rights". Terri Schiavo...marriage amendments, what's next? But then many here who call themselves conservatives are anything but. That would explain it.
Since the states vote to ratify any proposed amendment... your argument is completely baseless... it is part of the federal system they all agreed to when admitted into the union...
Well If that is how you feel then stop repeatedly harping on about this issue you do not feel you are capable of politically taking action upon...
I am quite capable of attempting to stop certain political action, and this marriage amendment is one of them.
You wish to do nothing and concede defeat -go do it somewhere else...
To concede defeat would mean to permit a handful of extremists to continue their crusade without at least alerting those unaware of their intentions. So no, I concede no defeat.
I will tell you right now that homosexual anything will never be accorded merit or accommodation no matter how often attempted with such comparative merit arguments like you attempt OR any other "cute" method one may come up with... That dog won't hunt -give it a rest already!
Where did I accord homosexual anything merit? I am merely pointing out that whatever this marriage amendment is, it has nothing to do with the protection of either marriage or the family. So why don't you give it a rest?
You claim it is not your right to decide for others all while you argue the comparative merits of homosexual marriage?
Just where did I do that? The fact is that to my knowledge no straight marriage has been harmed to date, nor has anyone changed his and her mind about marriage because of it. Do you have any information to the contrary to share?
Homosexual sex leads to serious venereal diseases, anal and oral cancer, and death from HIV infection. This behavior must be discouraged—not promoted as an alternative lifestyle. HOMOSEXUAL SEX KILLS.
Don't disagree, which is why I assume you would encourage more monogamous relationships (nothing to do with marriage)to cut down on all those diseases, since studies show that monogamy does cut down on it. Would you agree with that?
And since you brought it up, are you aware that the studies show that of 1.3 million cases last year of sexually transmitted diseases, HIV accounted for 3.1%, of which homosexual males accounted for 1.4%. So I applaud your interest in STDs, and look for more from you in solving the remaining 98.6%.
A conservative does not argue the merits of homosexual anything...
A conservative first and foremost is willing to discuss any issue, and that is what distinguishes a conservative from a leftist or from any extremist no matter how he classifies himself politically.
Stop advocating for homosexually premised anything on FR.
You can charge that all you want, but it still rings hollow. Anyway, you are hijacking this thread, which purpose is simply the wisdom of a constitutional amendment. As long as I am a member here, I will continue to speak out against it. And I will once again inform you that you are stalking me, and ask you to cease and desist.
Fortunatly for the lawyers and the law you are 100% wrong.
Marriage is a common law instutution. This has nothing to do with "religion".
It is a homosexual talking point that marriage is a "religious fact" not a legal one. The fact is the law does not care about religion, the law does not even care about love.
Marriage is a LEGAL institution which society rewards. Homosexuals seek to redefine marriage as a reward to the individual due to an orgasm from sexual attraction. The fact is crystal clear, only a constitutional amendment takes this out of the hands of the judges.
Your comments are along the same lines of the kooks who seek to get "da goveeernment" out of marrige. Marriages need to be uniform and recored and established in order to promote the future of society. Redefining marriage by the fact some homsoexual like to stick his sexual organs in another member of the same sex is NOT a benefit to society. Homosexuals do NOTHING for the future of society.
You read the law wrong. If you have a law degree of some form please seek a refund you have been cheated.
PS the immigration courts hold that marriage is a right and will give anyone a spousal visa if marriage in accordance with one man and one woman. (as far back as the initiation of immigratin law restrictions)
Even if you have an EXCLUDABLE FELONY, a US citizen can invoke their mariage right and file a "waiver of excludability" to give the person a free pass into the USA on a spousal visa.
In the handful of cases where a marriage based visa was denied, the fraud was extreme. ( a former Nazi marrying a US citizen in a desperate effort to stay in the USA)
LOL -take a hike!
"homosexual males?" You mean males that engage in male on male anal sex (the most disease prone sexual activity)? Save your pro-homosexual propaganda for DU.
Yes it is. You are underestimating the force that is the homosexual lobby.
Have you seen what happens when people band togehter to stop a development project that they don't want? They win, then the developer comes back and tries again. Perhaps they win again, but the developer comes back again. Rarely do the people win a third time, because the people are not as motivated nor as tenacious as the devloper. All it takes is ONE time for the people to be too busy to attend a public hearing and the deed is done.
The same is true of the homosexual lobby. Turn them back, they just return. Again and again they will do this until they win. Unless you make it an absolute impossibility, it's not a matter of "if" they will win, but "when."
And if a Constitutional ammendment does pass, expect them to start work on an appeal.
Unless America decides that there is such a thing as absolute right and wrong, it's only a matter of time.
Shalom.
Well, they were discussed back when the sexual revolution was just taking hold. But the people who were complaining that changing our laws about marriage, cohabitation, and divorce would lead to this kind of problem and that something needed to be done to put a stop to it were called "old fashioned" or "religious nuts" and were told it was not necessary.
So we try to draw a line in the sand now and we're asked, "why don't you talk about these other problems?"
It's an example of what I posted about earlier. Evil just keeps trying until it wins. And all it takes is for the good to let their guard down ONE TIME.
Shalom.
That your favorite saying?
You raised the issue, not me. As for pro-homosexual propaganda, haven't seen any here. Just anti-STD propaganda. Is that not allowed here? Are there some rules here that if you post BS, no one can counter it?
Believe me, I don't underestimate their activism any more than other activist groups. In fact, my concern is related mostly to what is being presented in some schools. I'm not sure if you have read The Death of Right and Wrong by Tammy Bruce, but she lays it out, and it ain't pretty. That is a real concern to me.
And if a Constitutional ammendment does pass, expect them to start work on an appeal.
If they pass one with the current wording, yes, it will be in courts for years, because it is tremendously confusing.
Unless America decides that there is such a thing as absolute right and wrong, it's only a matter of time.
But again, the question you raised was concerning the dangers to traditional marriage. How have the 6000+ same sex marriages in massachusetts posed any danger to traditional marriage? That is the issue.
The same way that the small number of people who started cohabitating openly in the early 60s set the stage for the current state of affairs.
Bestiality is the new homosexuality. Once upon a time nobody spoke of homosexuality. Then only the elite spoke of it but the rest of America still knew it was wrong. Then people started agitating for homosexuality to be normalized. Now you are stigmatized if you say that homosexuality is wrong. The progression is the same as for "living in sin." And guess where bestiality is in that progression?
The abolition of man was complete on 5/17/2005. Your marriage may not change, but marrige itself will.
Shalom.
Because it is being sold under false pretenses. We are being told it's to protect marriage from being destroyed. But there is no evidence that same sex marriages will have any impact on traditional marriages. Yet we know that the major negative impacts on marriage are the issues I laid out earlier. We are also being told that the amendment is essential to stop judicial activism. Yet every single decision favors the traditional one man one woman definition of marriage.
So if same sex marriages themselves pose no threat to traditional marriage, and if the judges are getting it right, why the amendment? There must be another reason I'm not aware of.
Those are thoughtful points you made, and I think we just disagree on our sense of their impacts.
Take care.
I'm not sure how that fits in with our discussion. Bestiality is against the law everywhere, if for no other reason than it involves sex with a non-consenting animal that cannot give consent. I know of no one, save a few perverts who would countenance bestiality. But most Americans today accept homosexuals as part of society. Even the Republican Party accepts homosexuals to be part of their big tent. The only remaining question is the extent of recognition by states.
The progression is the same as for "living in sin." And guess where bestiality is in that progression?
I don't think bestiality, or pedophilia will ever gain any public acceptance. Homosexuality has been around as long as mankind, and yes, society has now pretty much accepted them as a part of society. I would stop at same sex marriage, as I do believe it should be between one man and one woman. But that is for my state. Other states can do as they wish. That is what a republic and federalism are all about. It is not my place to interject my morals into the Constitution in such a way as to prevent a state from enjoying the just powers of the Tenth Amendment.
The abolition of man was complete on 5/17/2005. Your marriage may not change, but marrige itself will.
Why and how? Will it stop people from getting married? Will it cause divorces? Will it cause a heterosexual to decide instead to marry a homosexual? It is likely that the number of married homosexuals will be very small because even Massachusetts is moving toward a constitutional amendment in 2008. If we are to pass a constitutional amendment, then it is important to know why. Other than the ill fated 18th Amendment, this will be the first time our Constitution was used in this manner...to modify the Tenth Amendment. It is important that everyone know just why.
Take care.
Well, that's the problem with social issues. You can't do a true scientific experiment. You can't take a society and introduce homosexual marriage, measure its impact over some number of years, roll back the clock and not introduce homosexual marriage, ensure no other variables over the same number of years, and compare the results.
Try this instead. Show me one instance of a society that has changed this bedrock social institution and survived 100 years. Now, it's true that the lack of such examples doesn't prove that homosexual marriage caused the demise, but it doesn't prove that it didn't either.
Given that we CAN'T do an experiment, shouldn't we be "conservative" on the issue?
Shalom.
I'm not aware of any society that has changed marriage at all, except very recently. I'm aware of drifting values with respect to traditional marriage. But I don't have a 100 year timeline.
Given that we CAN'T do an experiment, shouldn't we be "conservative" on the issue?
I think being conservative with the issue is what is going on now. Many states have enacted bans on homosexual marriage and most will have done so in the next couple of years I predict. Others will not. But even massachusetts is slowly solving it's issue with respect to this.
What you are suggesting is that we modify the Constitution in a manner never before done, in order to prevent a possible problem that we cannot define. That would not be conservative. I have tremendous respect for the institutions that have been put in place by the founding fathers to change our basic supreme law of the land. I don't take using that lightly. Outside of the 18th Amendment, the Constitution has only been amended to recognize the rights of citizens and to alter the federal rules of the Country, generally with respect to elections. I am not ready yet to help it do what the state governments currently have the power to do, and in fact are doing it.
Take care.
I completely agree with you there...
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
It is a homosexual talking point that marriage is a "religious fact" not a legal one.
And the Mormons lost that argument in Reynolds v. United States and in Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States just like the homosexuals will...
No man can become a law unto himself under the guise of freedom in religion.
Since the states vote to ratify any proposed amendment... your argument is completely baseless... it is part of the federal system they all agreed to when admitted into the union...
Biology is a science... homosexuals do not reproduce...
You're not terribly intelligent, are you? Do you have any kind of pro or con argument on whether it should be submitted to the states? Anything of substance?
It is part of the federal system and perfectly defined by Article V...
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress...
Since the states vote to ratify any proposed amendment... your argument is completely baseless... it is part of the federal system they all agreed to when admitted into the union...
I'm sorry, are you saying you can rape an animal? Next you'll be saying you can murder them and be joining PETA in demonstrations against McDonalds hamburgers. Or do you think cattle gives its consent to become beef?
Animals don't give consent. They don't have to. Bestiality is against the law for now because for now people still recognize it as wrong. But the logic that says homosexuality is OK says there is no such thing as wrong. Therefore, acceptable bestiality is only a matter of time.
Unless the Islamification of the West comes first.
Shalom.
As had many states against the murder of infants known as abortion. Yet, since the fetal right to life was not enshrined in the Constitution they were struck down. Not defining words like marriage or humanity in the Constitution may sound conservative, but in our current legal system the only way to conserve the way of life we know is to enshrine it.
Some change is good, but some basics of our society should not be meddled with. And since we know they can and will meddle, we have to shut them down if we can.
Shalom.
Not in the classic sense of bearing children. But they do reproduce in the same fashion as a virus reproduces. They infect another organism and take it over.
Hmmm. Homosexuality is a virus. I'll have to remember that thought.
Shalom.
What would you call it? Consensual sex? I'm just not sure where you are going with this. It has virtually nothing to do with same sex marriage. Nor will bestiality ever be condoned by any state. This is just a straw man argument.
But the logic that says homosexuality is OK says there is no such thing as wrong.
We are dealing with two consenting adults. Homosexuality has been around as long as mankind has, and always will. We don't have to like it or to understand it. My state will never approve of same sex marriage. If another state wishes to, fine. It's not a matter of saying it is ok, but rather simply accepting that two consenting adults are doing it, therefore it's none of my business. Do you accept that almost all heterosexual couples engage in the very same things that homosexuals do?
Take care.
No, I would call it a person doing what he wants with an animal. Just like when we slaughter them for meat. Just like when I put my dog in her kennel when I'm leaving so she won't trash the house. Do you think I ask her permission? They're animals. The "consent" thing is just the latest fad so libertarians don't have to deal with the fact that a nation that will not enforce absolute morality is on the road to self distruction.
I'm just not sure where you are going with this. It has virtually nothing to do with same sex marriage. Nor will bestiality ever be condoned by any state. This is just a straw man argument.
Hmmm. I'm old enough to remember the same thing being said about same-sex "marriage." I think you underestimate the human capacity to rationalize sin.
If Dr. Peter Singer hasn't already said it, he will soon say that sex with your dog is theraputic and it is far better for a man to have sex with his dog than to go out and rape a woman. If not him, then someone else. It's not a matter of if, but of when.
Homosexuality has been around as long as mankind has, and always will.
Yes. We're not talking about whether men will ever completely remove depravity. We're talking about society changing its mind about whether it is depraved. What people do in the privacy of their own home digusts me, but isn't a matter of public policy. It's when they ask for a policy change, and start getting what they ask for, that REALLY bothers me.
My state will never approve of same sex marriage.
Never is a very long time.
Shalom.
And that decision which failed to address whether the fetus was a person, subject to the protections of the Constitution is what will cause its reversal.
Not defining words like marriage or humanity in the Constitution may sound conservative, but in our current legal system the only way to conserve the way of life we know is to enshrine it.
The distinction is that a life cannot be taken without due process, so in fact the fetus, if it is a person is protected by the Constitution. Marriage is not a right, but a privilege. States are empowered through the Tenth Amendment to manage among other things, family law. Courts have found that states can discriminate in marriage by requiring one man and one woman. It is not a violation of the 14th Amendment because the state can articulate a legitimate reason for discriminating.
Some change is good, but some basics of our society should not be meddled with. And since we know they can and will meddle, we have to shut them down if we can
It is elitist to suggest that I know better than the people of Massachusetts or Connecticut how they should handle family law issues. I cannot accept that.
Take care.
So you concede my point. There is no protection against a bad ruling from the court. This makes all your subsequent post about the difference between a right and a privelege, and what the Constitution allows the states to keep to themselves, moot.
Shalom.
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.