Posted on 04/12/2015 3:53:21 PM PDT by Oliviaforever
WASHINGTON — The stacks of Supreme Court briefs filed on both sides of the same-sex marriage cases to be heard this month are roughly the same height. But they are nonetheless lopsided: There are no major law firms urging the justices to rule against gay marriage.
Leading law firms are willing to represent tobacco companies accused of lying about their deadly products, factories that spew pollution, and corporations said to be complicit in torture and murder abroad. But standing up for traditional marriage has turned out to be too much for the elite bar. The arguments have been left to members of lower-profile firms.
(Excerpt) Read more at mobile.nytimes.com ...
As propaganda goes, this article plumbs new depths.
They don't have to and in fact, they shouldn't. There are plenty of secular arguments to be made.
I think you’re on to something there.
They told us in law school you are not to shy away from unpopular causes.
Expostulate the best five secular arguments.
You betcha. I've long thought the push for gay marriage is backed substantially by divorce lawyers looking for another very lucrative income stream.
>>Its weird, but I think I’ve lost faith in this entire system. We’d have been better off under a Christian monarch. Sorry, George, you got a bad rap.
The problem is that we’ve replaced one set of royalty with another. Today’s “royalty” are the 0vomits, Clintons, Kennedys, Bushes. Their courtiers are lawyers and big business. And Biden is the court jester.
>>NEVER trust a lawyer.
Agree.
Most politicians are lawyers. Letting lawyers make laws is like letting doctors make diseases.
We had the Souther Slave states using the federal to push their agenda. Would the federal go to war for a State seceding because it does not want to pay the gay welfare bills and protection mandates of DC?
It takes money to protect gay marriage.
It should be a State issue, as Lincoln aptly agreed, but he did see they were going to go too far, and this is it.
As for businesses, they want people to buy stuff on a sexual like whim, ie. they want to orient the sexual desire as a support for reproduction and family raising, into a corporate welfare, using that desire for raising their own pocket books and philantropies.
Hell has no fury.
>>There are no checks and balances today. We are living under a homofascist regime.
I suspect that they will turn on the homosexuals once they have achieved their goals. The homosexuals are primarily “useful idiots” to those pulling the strings. And I believe the #1 useful idiot is 0vomit.
Irony that idiot liberals Occutards happen to promote the way businesses get their welfare through “sex sells”.
Funny we do not hear the feminists on that issue... or is it they keep quiet for now? Or that feminism helps keep businesses’ labor divided amongst sexes and sexual preferences?
Indeed, once enlisted, the homophobic powers that be encouraging people into this death will promote their euthanasia when they will get the gay cancer.
You’d think that all homosexual divorces would be simple open and shut cases. Grounds: Irreconcilable Similarities.
Nowadays it would be impossible to establish a workable concept of, say, eminent domain, to flesh out its details, and to put it to practice. Thank goodness it's fortuitously there.
how many of their executive’s marriages are just “beards” as cover to not offend clients?
Can't boil it down to 5, since a lot depends on how the case is going in front of which judges, so take your pick.
(Note: The term "gay" below is used as shorthand to indicate the entire non-hetero spectrum of candidates for marriage inclusion.)
1. Children of married biological parents do better on almost every marker of development than children of gay or lesbian parents. The state has a compelling interest in the welfare of children.
2. Changes in the APA manual of psychological illnesses to reflect that being gay is not a disorder were made as a result of political pressure, not as a result of scientific studies. In attempting to "normalize" disordered behavior without scientific backing, the state is in effect denying a basis for treatment and recovery.
3. The will of the people with regard to whether their society wants to legalize gay marriage has been overturned in many states by judicial activism, which erodes the federal system. Similar actions by the SCOTUS, notably Roe v. Wade, have resulted in decades of civil unrest and lack of resolution.
4. Gay parenting always involves a third or a fourth party to the marriage. Children of adoption suffer higher rates of attachment disorder. While adoption is a social good, the manufacture of children for the purpose of adoption violates the rights of children and reduces them to chattel, purposefully denying them a relationship with extended family, medical history, etc.
5. Becoming parents as gay parters can be scheduled and planned for in a way that natural conception cannot, especially among large traditional populations such as Catholics that discourage the use of birth control. The net social effect will be a reformulation of "norms" regarding planned pregnancy, childbirth, family leave and pregnancy leave that skews statistics and attitudes away from the best interests of the vast majority of (heterosexual) women.
6. There are no reliable longitudinal studies of the results of gay marriage, 30 years being the accepted sociological benchmark. Further, those who have been participants in gay marriage up until the first gay marriage legalization in Massachusetts in Goodridge (2003) have been continuously aware that they are "exemplars" or "poster children" for a movement, which would tend to raise the stakes so that only very confident persons would volunteer for sociological studies. This self-awareness would also tend to force more exemplary behavior than when gay marriage is taken as a full-fledged right and entitlement, at which point a relaxation of vigilantly positive behaviors would natually occur.
7. Some adult children of gay-parent living arrangements that began to occur starting in the 1970s are now beginning to break the peer pressure of political correctness to give testimonies about negative effects they experienced. Others are waiting for their gay parents to die before they speak openly, out of concern either for their parent's feelings or concern for their inheritance. At least four such persons have written briefs to the current case under review at SCOTUS, and they made reference to around 100 others like themselves whom they interviewed as research.
8. Many awards of children for adoption to gay couples have been politicized in much the same way that abortion has been politicized. In the matter of abortion, the criminally abusive Gosnell clinic was not subject to routine health department inspections for decades due to fierce protection by politically correct administrative processes. Likewise with adoption, some state adoption facilitators or social workers eager to promote a politcally correct placement of children with gay parents have been shown to discriminate against heterosexuals wanting to adopt or religious birth parents wanting to prevent their child from being adopted by a gay couple, even in states where gay marriage is not legal.
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.