Posted on 05/18/2008 10:40:24 AM PDT by neverdem
In the old story, a preacher gives an inspiring sermon, which he concludes by asking his congregants to stand up if they want to go to heaven. Everyone rises except one nervous-looking fellow. "Brother," asks the incredulous pastor, "don't you want to ascend to paradise when you die?" Says the holdout: "When I die? Sure! I thought you were getting up a group to go right now."
That's pretty much how I feel about the California Supreme Court's decision granting the right of same-sex couples to marry. The destination is a good one. I just wish the court weren't in such a hurry to get there.
In recent years, the country has been moving at a steady pace to affirm a once-unthinkable concept -- namely that as a matter of both individual rights and social good, gays should be free to make the same commitments as heterosexuals. According to a 2007 CBS News/New York Times poll, 60 percent of Americans now support allowing same-sex couples to enter into civil unions or marriage.
Radical changes don't happen overnight. But the speed of this one has been impressive. It's been only 22 years since the U.S. Supreme Court said states may criminalize homosexual conduct. It's been only 15 years since the Supreme Court of Hawaii shocked the country by ruling that gays might have a constitutional right to marry.
It's been only eight years since Vermont became the first state to admit same-sex couples to the rights and responsibilities of matrimony through civil unions. It's been only three years since California followed suit by letting gays enter into domestic partnerships.
But all of a sudden, the justices have discovered that their state constitution not only allows but requires that marriage include homosexual couples...
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
“I hope they are not too surprised if they discover an enormous backlash.”
I’ve lost faith in the backlash. Been waitin’, and hopin’, and waitin’, and hopin’ far too long. So many times I’ve thought, in the immortal words of Bullwinkle, “This time for sure.” But the capacity of the American people to allow evil to be called good seems bottomless.
“The destination is a good one.”?
Well, Christians know this had to happen some day. But we don’t have to like it or stop trying to oppose it (not saying that you are stopping :) )
I think that the politics of same-sex marriage would be completely different if the concept had strong public support. There’s no question that our society has changed in its view of homosexuality in general. But society is certainly not at that point on the subject of marriage rights for homosexuals.
Granted California is a liberal state, and the chances of passing the amendment on marriage is iffy. But 27 other states, a majority of states, have passed these amendments, often by huge majorities. There is a concept in the law regarding public policies, which some legal people say would prevent same-sex marriage being forced on all these states which have amendments, in the event of a federal court ruling on same-sex marriage.
Then again, as we saw with the California court, the judges were making it up as they went along. They invented a protection from discrimination on the basis of gender identity which doesn’t even exist in California or federal law to help justify the decision. So it all comes back to the quality of the judges who make these decisions.
Do we want judges who will interpret the law and apply the law, or do we want judges who are hell bent on issuing landmark decisions and getting resulting fawning attention from the liberal media for their alleged courage and determination in fighting alleged discrimination?
That's the author's words, not mine. I posted the article for the sense of overreaching by the gay rights movement that the author seems to recognize. He doesn't say so, but the idea of a right to gay marriage leads to all sorts of weird nonsense that no one wants to talk about, e.g. polygamy, pederasty, beastiality, etc.
I understand (and I would distance myself from this remark too) - I was pointing the fact that the author apparently thinks "the destination is a good one."
Personally, I would tend to disagree...
They are coming for the children. Gays refuse to admit that the ideal for the child and society is a man and woman raising children. Once marriage for gays is state sanctioned, they will demand equal right to adopt and perhaps affirmative action for past discrimination.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Is there a "wise" haste?
If sixty percent of the American people favored homosexual and lesbian marriage, the pollster would not have had to resort to this slight of hand. Pray tell, Mr. Pollster, what was the "favorable" percentage when you asked if people support homosexual marriage on its merits? Did you neglect to ask that question, or did you simply bury the response in your polls "internals"? If the percentage is indeed that high, could that be attributed to the fact that many people believe that the courts are going to create homosexual marriage law from whole cloth, as the Cali court did, and would therefore opt for civil unions as an "acceptable" alternative?
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.