Posted on 10/10/2008 8:22:08 PM PDT by Nick Thimmesch
The Connecticut Supreme Court overturned a state ban on same-sex marriage yesterday, ruling that it "discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation" in violation of the state constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
“End government involvement with all aspects of marriage and we can replace it with a civil union recognized and based system, with religion playing whatever role people want it to. “
Ahhh so 1-2% of the population wants special treatment so you support making the other 99% accommodate them.
Leni
“Ahhh so 1-2% of the population wants special treatment so you support making the other 99% accommodate them.”
No.
Well, I think lots of us want to subsidize marriage and married couples with children, because they are doing the important work of raising the next generation. And I think people raising children are deserving of societal and governmental support. I don’t think a childless homosexual couple are necessarily needing any government support for their relationship.
Married couples with children are more significant to the future and stability of society than any other family grouping or family unit, and shouldn’t have to be allegedly equal with any other unit, in my opinion.
Activist judges, making law from the bench.
"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
I’m with you. Fact is, homosexual marriages are not equal to heterosexual marriages. Heterosexual marriages with children perform a service for society by uniting two disparate “tribes” into one unit, thereby stabilizing society for the benefit of both the government and the citizens. Even if the heterosexual couple divorces, the children remain as genetic cementers of the two tribes. Homosexual couples do not perform the same service. While a same-sex couple may have children, those children are forcibly separated from at least one-half their genetic families and thus the carrydown provided by heterosexual couples is not the same. The relationship therefore most likely lasts just one generation and only so long as the relationship between the couple. While some might argue that not all heterosexual couples have children or natural children, it is not for the government to inquire into actual fertility, only the possibility of fertility. And same-sex couples cannot meet that standard of possible fertility. So while same-sex couples can claim their relationships benefit society, it is not the same benefit as that offered by heterosexual couples and the government should not equate the two.
No wonder American is going down the tubes.
Well, tribalism is definitely on the rise and Obama represents the epitome of that tribalism mentality. Divide and conquer. Children do have a stabilizing effect on parents and members of the parent’s “tribes”.
Nobody is viewing homosexuals as a sub-class of humans. What we’re saying is that traditional marriage does not discriminate against anyone, because all women and all men are treated the same under existing marriage laws. Thus there is no basis for an equal protection of the laws lawsuit, because everyone, heterosexual, homsexual, bi sexual, trans-whatever, is limited to one partner of the opposite sex. Everyone is already treated equally.
If society collectively feel that marriage or partner rights should be extended to homosexuals, that is a matter for the Congress and state legislatures, and the people, not the courts. The courts who have legalized homosexual marriage are making up the law, because homosexuality is not mentioned in family law. Men and women and monogamous marriage are the laws in question. Homosexuality isn’t part of the family law, so homosexuals by definition don’t have a legal argument based on existing family law. The judges have to twist the law to come to the conclusion that homosexual marriage must be allowed just because opposite sex marriage is allowed.
As far as marriage of people who don’t or won’t have children, it makes sense to me to give additonal benefits to those with dependent children. We all have a stake in how children are raised. In my opinion, society and government should encourage marriage and encourage people raising children to be within that framework. Perhaps a system of Class I and Class II marriage would make sense, with Class II being for those who have dependent children.
By forcing homosexual marriage through the ocurts, the gay activists are forcing society and government to accept and endorse their lifestyle. It is a positive endorsement of homosexuality, not just live and let live. If there were that much popular support for homosexual marriage, state after state would be passing laws in their legislatures allowing homosexual marriage, rather than state after state having voted to ban it in recent years.
You’re right that the courts helped lead the way in the civil rights movement. But while court cases such as Brown vs. Board of Education helped set a legal standard, it was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that broke the back of legal segregation and discrimination in this country. It was based on laws passed by the Congress that caused legal segregation to fall apart.
So based on that, I think it would take positive affirmation of same-sex marriage by state legislatures or Congress passing such laws allowing same-sex marriage, in order to gain the public support and acceptance of this. I fully agree that if public opinion on this subject shifts, there will be acceptance of same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general.
Some people have said that these gay marriage court cases are a Brown vs. Board of Education case for the gay community. They may be right. Time will tell. But if we’re seeing these as a “Brown” decision, it’s still like it’s 1955 or 1956 (Brown was issued in 1954) in the gay community. In 1956 it was far from clear that legal segregation would someday end. And when you consider that 27 out of 50 states have banned same-sex marriage via state constitutional amendment, as of now, it’s far from clear that we will see 50 state same-sex marriage in the future.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
“More government by men in black robes (reminds me of paintings of the Inquisition).”.....
Wait til you see Barry’s circus picks!......
THIMMESCH is with you wildturkey: marriage means some many differnt things to so many different people that government needs to just stay out of the matter. Like religion, it has no role in making decisions as to what religion is, just that it needs protections in order to exist. The protections for marriage by government would be the same for any contract: the ability of people who go into a civil arrangement (i.e. a “contract”) to have that arrangement recognized by others (like having a contract for work to be done or for a sale of a house) and if broken, then a vehicle for recourse.
Christopher Dodd may now kiss his bride, Barney Frank.
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.