Posted on 11/17/2008 8:52:31 AM PST by NormsRevenge
“To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself”
I don’t see anything particularly wrong with this line of reasoning. For instance, imagine a man who claimed that human sacrifice is an indespinsible part of his religion. The court would then have to balance the legitimacy of murder statutes against the First Amendment’s guarantee of the free exercise of religion.
That’s not a very murky choice. Plural marriage is less clear an issue, since marrying more than one person does not necessarily cause any harm to the persons involved. It does, however, violate most of the country’s sense of decency. The court here decided that the people’s decorum could overule a practice some considered central to the practice of their religion, if the people so chose.
Since plural marriage lost out, I don’t see much of a hope for gay marriage in this case, unless their argument lies elsewhere. That being said, it is absolutely beyond me how gay marriage could make as strong a case plural marriage, since at least plural marriage has religious doctrine to back it up. There is no First Amendment guarantee to the free exercise of sexual orientation, or some such nonsense.
“The Republican governor reiterated on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” that, “for me, marriage is between a man and a woman. But I don’t want to ever force my will on anyone.””
The mind reels at such illogic. There is no ‘will’ there is a legal definition. Arnie is for forcing the legal definition to change. Even though the people said otherwise. Pathetic.
Never heard of that case, not being a lawyer, but that makes total sense to me.
The average 6th-grader could do better.
“he should advocate the abolition of separate men’s and women’s rest rooms, locker rooms, etc., since racial segregation was also illegal.”
I think they have already done that.
What was that rule that allowed them to redefine ‘gender’. You ‘gender’ is now what you say it is. So a ‘woman’ is a ‘man’ and a ‘man’ is a ‘woman’.
Sick country. Very sick state.
I thought the Austiran fag was against gay marriage. Against it but against banning it. Queer position.
Arnold, you will never be my President, ever. With one stupid utterance, you ended any mathematical possibility that I will ever support you towards any position of leadership.
Your error is a simple one, with grave consequences.
I don’t care who marries who, like you.
Unlike you, I am NOT willing to extend my tax, and necessity market support (insurance and others) to any other than male female couples.
Msales and females raise viable offspring, from which I derive multiple benefits, even though they are obscure.
I’ll pay for that.
I’m NOT paying for gays, I derive zero benefit from that, and I’m NOT electing you just so you can FORCE me to pay gay benefits.
Game over, vote cast, go back to Hollywood, you’re finished in politics.
Unless you want to run Liberal, they will love you.
Goodbye.
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.