Posted on 05/20/2008 9:12:13 AM PDT by porgygirl
Read the constitution, hold it up to the light, squeeze lemon juice on it--you won't see a right to gay marriage in there. It is simply not an enumerated right, nor is it a right that can be clearly derived from other enumerated rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Homosexuals need to keep in mind, however, that the good news of the gospel is not about how God despises same-sex sexual relationships. In fact, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 indicates that certain members of that church had been slaves to such relationships but had been cleansed in Jesus' name. So these former homosexuals had evidently repented and accepted God's grace to straighten their lives out.
John 3:16
Revelation 3:20
Judges: “Constitution, we don’t need no stinking Constitution.”
That, and the 5th Commandment reads:
“Honor thy Father and thy Mother.”
Not “thy Father and thy other Father.” Nor “thy Mother and thy other Mother.”
Judges: The U.S. Constitution is a living document, and we can kill it.
You know there is a reason the state is involved in marriage (licenses, divorce courts etc.). None of those reasons apply in even the smallest way to any sort of relationship between two men.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE
It is the essence of democracy that people should be able to decide the moral rules that govern the nature of a community. If people don't have that power, then they are living under an autocracy.No, Mr. D'Souza. If the people don't have the power to legislate other people's morality, that is called "liberty."
Dinesh D'Souza wrote a book in which he claimed that the Islamists would stop attacking us if we would just put our women in burkas and stop drinking alcohol. This article is a continuation of that argument.
California is an evolving Marxist, statist regime in our midst, and this ruling only solidifies the trend.
Haven’t they been around all through history and in all societies?
Somebody paid Dinesh D'Appeaser to write this tripe? With actual money?
It is plain to see that there is nothing in the law or the constitution that would lead the judges to conclude that homosexual marriage must be the public policy of the state of Calif. They made up a new right to same sex marriage.
And it’s plain to see that whether to have homosexual marriage is a POLICY judgement, not a CIVIL RIGHTS judgement.
Decisions like this can, over time, erode public confidence in law and order and the judicial system, because the decision is so obviously not based on interpreting the existing law and constitution.
Then you could argue, why even have a legislature, why have the provision for public votes through initiatives, and why have a governor? Since judges are just going to make decisions anyway, all we need are judges.
And this case and similar cases show that all you have to do to side step the legislative process is make something a civil right, gets judges to agree, and your policy becomes the law of the land.
We’re having an ongoing debate in the pres. campaign about universal health insurance. Can you imagine somebody will be inspired to file a lawsuit, and get a judge to declare that healthcare is a civil right? Suppose somebody gets inspired to file lawsuits about the environment and global warming, and get a judge to find a civil rights violation somewhere? Then the matter is under the jurisdiction of courts, not the legislative process.
This case has ramifications beyond homosexual marriage and homosexual civil rights, because of the absurd legal reasoning used to reach the conclusion.
Dinesh, you miserable little jackass, rights don't COME FROM the Constitution, they are GUARANTEED BY the Constitution. Rights COME FROM the simple fact of existence. They're inherent, inalienable.
“The Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to 'create' rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be preexisting.”
- US Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.
Free people have the fundamental right to whatever familial and financial arrangements best suit their desires and happiness.
What they don't have a right to is the legal recognition and acceptance of such arrangements and the accrual of legal benefits as a result of that recognition. What they don't have a right to is changing the law by changing the meaning of a word, rather than changing it through the legislative process.
Yep, you’re right.
That is such a great line, and such a great summary. You are awarded the "best line of the day" award so far as I'm concerned.
Excellent. Thanks.
Our Constitution never refers to the Bible.
Read the constitution, hold it up to the light, squeeze lemon juice on it—you won’t see a right to gay marriage in there. It is simply not an enumerated right, nor is it a right that can be clearly derived from other enumerated rights
So what?
You can do all those things and not find the section that claims seperation of Church and State either yet our Politicians and Media hold that as a sacred truth
You will not find the right to kill your unborn baby, but our Politicians and Media hold that out as a Constitutional right
You will not find the section that denies your right a firearm if you ive in Washington DC as compared to Sweetwater Texas either. Yet our Polticians and Media seem to see that.....
As long as cizens allow these epopel to see the Constitution in whatever political agenda tyhey need to see it to cow tow to some political group then we will continue to see our Constitution eroded.
From what I have read, yes, most all societies.
They have also been treated as the deviates they are, hence they stayed in the "closet".
Is it normal for you to tell perfect strangers that you are heterosexual? (providing you are) Or, are your sexual preferences something that is no ones business but yours?
I don't give a damned if you (anyone) is queer. Once I know, I will avoid that person, as I would any leaper.
You’re exactly right. “The right to universal health care”. Liberals talk about it long enough and people start to think that right actually exists. And sooner or later some power hungry judge will decide to make a name for himself (the Linda Greenhouse effect) by declaring free health care a fundamental right. You know, it’s right there in a penumbra emanating from a combination of the liberty clause and the equal protection clause.
I don’t really think we’ll actually need for a judge to impose socialized medicine on us, because as fast as our country is tracking leftward our sheeple voters will vote it in without the “necessity” of a judicial fiat. The people still retain a little bit of common sense on something like simple biology (i.e., a man cannot mate with another man) so it takes raw government power to deliver same-sex “marriage”.
And for those people who think the court legalized same-sex “marriage” to expand freedom, I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for any of those four judges to come to the defense of anyone charged with hate speech for criticizing homosexuality. Or of a private group such as the Boy Scouts when they’re pressured by government to give up their freedom of association. Or of a Christian restaurant owner who refuses to seat two gay guys who come in wearing dresses and kissing one another. Or of a Christian photographer who won’t agree to film a same-sex “wedding”.
The court didn’t legalize same-sex “marriage” to advance freedom, but to use it as a battering ram against freedom.
My response had to do with your saying homosexuality is a sign of a diseased society, and that you must believe that most societies are/were diseased.
powerful and so true
Read the constitution, hold it up to the light, squeeze lemon juice on it--you won't see a right to gay marriage in there. It is simply not an enumerated right, nor is it a right that can be clearly derived from other enumerated rights.
Please. I know that he's read the Constitution, yet he perpetuates the myth that enumerated rights are somehow the only rights we have.
The Founders couldn't have been clearer about it:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Not a whole lotta gray area there, Dinesh.
I'll forgive him for not knowing or understanding the historical context of the Bill of Rights, that so many Founders were opposed to it for this very reason: that it would be misunderstood as an exhaustive list. But it's hard to forgive him for not knowing or understanding the very clear language of the Constitution itself.
This site is awful; massive browser slowdown. And I’m using Firefox on Linux.
This is not a democracy. It's a republic, with checks and balances from courts to make sure the majority doesn't oppress the rights of the minority.
If you find you're opposing any body's rights, gay or otherwise, maybe you need to re-examine your position.
God never gave anybody the right to marry someone of the same sex.
Sodomites make God sick.
Anyone, who is honest with themselves, knows homosexuality is abnormal, deviant behavior, and without even being told, I may add.
After all, do moral people (adults, as children must be taught) need to be told that robbery is wrong? Arson? Murder? Rape? Abortion?
And if we, as a society, are not moral, what are we?
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE
You're not thinking.
The Constitution also never refers to marriage. And it's no surprise that the Constitution never refers to the Bible or marriage. This is because the mostly Christian Founding Fathers (<-click) wrote the 10th A. so that government powers not enumerated in the federal Constitution are automatically reserved for the states.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.So the states have the power to not only outlaw gay marriage according to the will of a state's majority voters, but also to teach the Holy Bible in public schools. This regardless of the USSC's perversion of Jefferson's "wall of separation," but provided that people's 14th A. protections are respected.
“It is simply not an enumerated right, nor is it a right that can be clearly derived from other enumerated rights.”
It’s a disfunction in nature that has no rights to anything. Only our sick whack left “friends” find it necessary to give them validation. The only thing I keep in mind about gays is their beyond believe stupid parades....
Being married to someone doesn’t automatically mean that you have to have sex with them. Just ask any married man.
OK
Tell you what, since this is a free country you have the right to have whatever imaginary fantasy marriage you want. Just have your own little marriage ceremony. Just don’t ask the government to officially sanction and endorse your deviant lifestyle. Demanding government approval of same-sex “marriages” goes beyond demanding tolerance for your “rights.”
I think you have the Declaration of Independence confused with the Constitution. Not, I suppose, that it makes much difference since same sex "marriage" is recognized by neither document.
Where does it say that all rights have to be in the constitution. Don't I have the right to go outside? Where is that stated?
They don't all have to be in the Constitution but they have to have some historical basis in reality. This is why there is no right to inject heroin or to engage in prostitution. These are things that have no historical basis as rights under the common law or in any historically developed constitutional system. Ditto for polygamy, perverted "marriage", and so forth. Ditto for abortion.
Wouldn't the right to chose whom you would marry be part of liberty and such a pursuit.?
Since marriage is the bonding of people of the opposite sex, two people of the same sex can't "marry". Marriage is a gender-based institution.
This is not a democracy. It's a republic, with checks and balances from courts to make sure the majority doesn't oppress the rights of the minority.
Unelected branches of government do not legislate in a Republic. It takes an especially brazen and power mad government to take it upon itself to overturn the entire constitutional history of the nation with the stroke of a pen, not to mention 1,000 years of Anglo-Saxon common law, 5,000 years or more of tradition, as well as biology, common sense, and the English language.
If you find you're opposing any body's rights, gay or otherwise, maybe you need to re-examine your position.
Name any time in the history of America, or in the common law of the colonies, when two people of the same sex ever had the "right to marry". This so-called right doesn't exist, and no one even thought it did until the madness of left-wing judicial aggression began to sweep through our courts.
What it really comes down to is that you want to use raw government power to jackboot a deviant sex practice down the throats of the American people, and if you have to steamroll the rights of the people in the process, you're perfectly willing to do it.
"Where does it say that all rights have to be in the constitution. Don't I have the right to go outside? Where is that stated?"
They don't all have to be in the Constitution but they have to have some historical basis in reality.
No, they don't.
There is no requirement in the Constitution that all rights had to be recognized at the time, or at any time in history.
Our nation, after all, was founded on the radical notion that a people could rise up and cast off their king solely because he infringed upon their liberty. That no previous society had been truly free, and that we would be the beacon of liberty for the world from here on out.
This is why there is no right to inject heroin or to engage in prostitution.
Well, we can argue about whether drug laws are Constitutional (though I hate drugs, it's pretty clear that they aren't, or we wouldn't have needed to amend the Constitution to regulate booze).
Prostitution, however, is commerce. The state has a certain authority to regulate commerce. Personally, I'd like to limit that authority as much as possible, even when it comes to commerce of which I do not personally approve.
None of which changes the very clear language given us by the Founders in the Ninth Amendment, the one amendment so many who call themselves "conservatives" (including D'Souza) are eager to ignore.
Anyone is free anytime they wish to hold a ceremony and make so-called marriage vows to another person of the same sex, to multiple people, or to a lampshade. But there is no obligation on the part of any state to recognize that. That is a public policy decision and the people ought to have some say in the matter.
Let's compare polygamy and same-sex “marriage”, for example. Of the two, polygamy has more historical basis. Many societies throughout history have sanctioned polygamy. That's not true of same-sex “marriage”. No one even dreamed of such nonsense until we recently began losing our minds.
So why are some leftist judges so aggressive in pushing same-sex “marriage”, rather than polygamy. I know that courts can't make their own cases, but why haven't polygamists even bothered pushing court cases, while homosexuals have? The reason is that these activist rulings are not based on any legitimate concept of liberty, but on the prevailing leftist political agenda. Homosexuality is more fashionable than polygamy (which many people associate with fundamentalist sects rather than chic secularism), so leftist judges are jumping on the “gay” bandwagon. There's no comparable incentive to push for polygamy. If polygamy were all the rage among the elite “beautiful people” crowd, instead of homosexuality, courts would be pushing for polygamy rather than same-sex “marriage”.
This is why we now live under arbitrary government.
And state sanctioned same-sex “marriage” is not an expansion of liberty. It's the forced alteration of a societal institution for ideological reasons desired by the state, over the objections of the people. The supposedly self-governing people. Yes, I know we don't have majority rule on everything, but there are no constitutional provisions recognizing same-sex “marriage” and there is no historical basis for such recognition. If a constitutional amendment to guarantee a right to same-sex “marriage” had been proposed at any time in American history, would even so much as a single state have ratified it, let alone three-fourths of them? Would it have been approved by the Constitutional Convention? Has there been any point in American history where two-thirds of both houses of Congress would have approved it?
The answer to those questions is obviously “no”. So, in the absence of that, what justification does any court have for forcing a state to sanction such “marriages”? Is it a right so obvious (like leaving your house) that the Founders didn't even bother to mention it? Hardly. It's an ideologically driven assault on our culture, pushed by leftists who desire to nullify the traditional basis of our society.
It isn't an expansion of freedom. It's an assertion of power by the state. It's their way of telling us that they'll decide what our institutions and traditions will be, rather than us telling them. If the American Revolution was an epiphany, this is an anti-epiphany, and assertion that the state is under no obligation whatsoever to seek the consent of the governed.
TYPO: In my first paragraph, “to do is” should be “to do it”. Reads a little better! :-)
But my point was that the court in California can't make a ruling based upon the Bible. Given that homosexuality is no longer regarded as a character disorder, sexual perversion or mental illness by the major scientific and medical organizations, it's not very surprising that the court would rule in favor of same-sex marriage.
Rights are not based upon their historical reality. Slavery for instance. You have a problem of very selective memory.
Abortion is the taking of an innocent life and not analogous to selecting whom you will marry.
Your third paragraph merely repeats the fallacy of the historical argument.
-----an especially brazen and power mad government to take it upon itself to overturn the entire constitutional history of the nation---- Hyperbolic description of a court ensuring that rights are not being restricted.
Your last paragraph reveals an extreme paranoia. No one is forcing you to marry someone of your gender. You are in the dissonant position of describing rights as being enforced by jackbooted fascists. If it takes that to enforce rights, then so be it.
One comment. The federal government can regulate INTERSTATE commerce, that’s not the same as prohibiting it.
Excellent! Then you should have no problem finding examples of the "right" to same-sex "marriage" being taken as a given throughout our history as a nation, as well as in our historical predecessor nation, Britain.
The freedom to go outside, to select dinner, and to chose your direction to walk etc. are also not in the constitution so what?
I didn't know the state was being asked to provide licensing for those things, along with government benefits for those activities. Not to mention that, as already stated, such actions have been the norm throughout our national and ancestral history. Not so, obviously, for same-sex "marriage".
Rights are not based upon their historical reality. Slavery for instance. You have a problem of very selective memory.
That's pretty funny coming from someone who apparently is unaware of the ratification of the 13th Amendment, banning slavery. You seem unaware that it A) took a constitutional amendment to ban slavery and B) that such an amendment was actually ratified. Not only that, but prior to ratification of the 13th Amendment, individual state laws determined whether slavery was permitted or not.
Unless and until a constitutional amendment to guarantee a right to same-sex "marriage" is ratified via the proper channels, there is no such right.
Abortion is the taking of an innocent life and not analogous to selecting whom you will marry.
The judicial misconduct in both cases is comparable.
Your last paragraph reveals an extreme paranoia. No one is forcing you to marry someone of your gender. You are in the dissonant position of describing rights as being enforced by jackbooted fascists. If it takes that to enforce rights, then so be it.
I rest my case. You aren't someone who supports freedom. You're someone who supports a cause, and you're perfectly willing to suppress dissent to achieve it. You don't have any respect for the rule of law or the rights of the people. You've developed an attachment to this deviant practice (though heaven only knows why) and you think self-government, popular sovereignty, the constitution, the traditions of the people, and even the freedoms of the people should be sacrificed so that this one deviancy can be elevated to a position it doesn't deserve.
Either the right to same-sex "marriage" is in the Constitution, in which case there should exist some ratification record for it, or it's a right so transcendent that the Founding Fathers never thought anyone would object to it and didn't feel it necessary to expound upon it (e.g, the right to walk out the front door of your house). If the latter is the case, then why is it that we've been able to walk out the front door of our house so easily for the entire history of our nation, while every jurisdiction limited marriage to people of the opposite sex?
I don't think you grasp what a dilemma you're in. Scylla on the one hand, Charibdes on the other.
you think spreading stv’s thru sodomy should be a right?
You have a serious logic flaw in the original post amnd now your reply. You might want to pay attention and let others carry your argument.
The purpurse of the historical comment was to show that "historical reality", your term, is not a standard for continuing the violation of human rights.
You lost that point and as in other points you refuse to acknowledge the defeat. So I'm out again. Isn't that where we left off before?
You might want to ask yourself how an American could put themselves in such an untenable positions as to be so adamant in the restriction of the rights of other taxpaying Americans.
I'm quite responsive, I just don't agree that liberty & the pursuit of happiness encompass state recognition of same-sex "marriage". You act as if it's generally understood that it does. Not only did the authors of that "pursuit of happiness" phrase universally reject your assertion, but so have all the great philosophers of liberty throughout history, and the majority even of the electorate today.
Also, you equate recognizing freedom with approving abortion. Serious logic flaw, as I said before.
You can't have misread my post that badly. I was comparing the illegitimate and unconstitutional judicial aggression involved in both Roe and the MA & CA same-sex "marriage" rulings.
The purpurse of the historical comment was to show that "historical reality", your term, is not a standard for continuing the violation of human rights.
It's certainly a constitutional standard, which is why it took a constitutional amendment to end slavery, another one to give blacks the vote, etc. Someone like you didn't just pop up and announce that her position on human rights was the one we should all follow (regardless of the law), and then proceed to use force to impose her position on the rest of the country. Even after the Civil War, it was understood that the only way to legally end slavery was with a constitutional amendment. Not a judicial fiat (as in Roe and the MA & CA same-sex "marriage" rulings) but a real, legitimately ratified amendment.
You lost that point and as in other points you refuse to acknowledge the defeat.
You quite simply don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.
You might want to ask yourself how an American could put themselves in such an untenable positions as to be so adamant in the restriction of the rights of other taxpaying Americans.
Are you serious? You act as if same-sex "marriage" was the norm throughout history and that America then came along and placed themselves in the "untenable" position of not recognizing such relationships. Such "marriages" have not been historically recognized because they are not real and legitimate marriages and no healthy society would ever dream that they are.
The traditional family is the basis of any stable and successful society.
That’s why the left seeks to destroy it. Every issue needs to be viewed through this lens.
Welfare, “Free speech” (porn), gay “marriage”, promoting teen sexuality, abortion.
All of these have an effect on the traditional family.
Depravity in and of itself is not evidence of a “sick society”.
Acceptance of that depravity as normal, nay, in need of “celebration”,
is what makes for a sick society.
All human societies have the last six commandments ingrained into them in some manner,
providing evidence of God writing right and wrong on our hearts.
The first four commandments are encompassed in what is called the “God shaped vacuum” in our being. You seek Him, and He will help you find Him, and then tell you about commandments 1-4.
“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
John Adams
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.