Scary, but true.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
No one can reasonably argue the 14th Amendment was passed to mandate gay “marriage” for the States, but the left doesn’t care. It’s not like we haven’t been down this path many times before. The left uses the courts as a supreme legislature.
Keep in mind we are talking about essentially evil people for which winning is all that matters. If they have to rend our republic to do so, so what? That is exactly what they will do and laugh in our faces as they do it.
Leftists are only nice when they get their way.
By the way, even traditional marriage is not a right provided by the contract, as it is granted by a license provided by the state to parties which meed certain conditions. Licenses are, by definition, NOT rights granted by any constitution. One must agree to certain conditions specified by the state to, say, hunt, fish, cut hair, practice psychiatry, perform brain surgery, drive 18 wheelers, and so on.
On the other hand, contract-making by two or more individuals IS a right provided by the U.S. Constitution, by virtue of the Constitution’s fundamental premise that humans should have liberty. Homosexuals enjoy this basic right in every U.S. state. Twenty-seven homosexuals of various genders can freely contract amongst themselves to love, cherish, share wealth, share property, hold hands, cook dinner, run the vacuum, and save old photographs together in contractual unison.
What these 27 homosexuals cannot do is obligate third parities to act and behave in certain ways specified by the contract which they do not join. THIS IS THE DISTINCTION OF CIVIL / STATE MARRIAGE: IT IS A CONTRACT WHICH, UNIQUELY, OBLIGATES THIRD PARTIES TO BEHAVE IN CERTAIN WAYS.
Taking a step back and viewing the situation, one notes that ALL forms of state licensing violate equal protection principles, as ALL forms of licensing deny some while allowing others to do a thing. Is the state therefore obliged to engage in no licensing? If you believe absolutely in equal protection, you must also hold that the state can perform no licensing. (I don’t know how to unwrap this, btw.)
By the way... no U.S. state law banning same-sex marriage discriminates against homosexuals. Homosexuals have EXACTLY the same right to marriage as heterosexuals, red-heads, the left-handed, classical music enthusiasts, and persons who prefer driving on the left and hunting ducks during rabbit season. Homosexuals are banned from driving on sidewalks in the same manners as those who “prefer” to drive on sidewalks are banned from driving on sidewalks.
So what? We don't have courts that protect this nation or her constitution any more. We have courts for the leftwing ruling class protecting the leftwing ruling class. It is irrelevant what they decide and on what basis.
Further, a five-year old can understand that either gay, straight, or what have you has an equal right to marry the person of the opposite sex if he and that person wishes to and is free to marry. Once they are married they are protected in their marital status whether they are gay, straight or what have you. The traditional marriage laws do not discriminate against gays.
Nature is the ~Supreme Court - not the “Created Thing” perched atop the state-established temple steps in Wathington D.C.
How’d that work out in the context of Romans 1:25+?
Fwee Woderick!
{ centurions snickering }
The Constitution never mentions marriage at all.
Just pointing that out.
L
If they were not going to legalize homo marriage why would they let this decision lay fallow for so long knowing that lessor courts are beating them to the punch? Like ObamaCare they have no intention of preventing homo marriage.