Posted on 09/15/2010 6:30:55 AM PDT by Michael van der Galien
When U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker struck down California’s Proposition 8, the subsequent hubbub centered primarily around whether the decision was an example of judicial activism. Whether Walker, or any federal judge, is within their jurisdiction to rule on a state’s constitution is an entirely separate argument from whether the institution of marriage ought to be redefined.
No matter which side of the latter issue you support, it is of greater importance to the integrity of our republican jurisprudence that we all embrace the correct answer to the former. It is the purview of the states to craft family law, not federal judges.
To that end, a curious development has manifested in the state of New York, an effort to sway public opinion and affect a plurality in favor of gay marriage.
Advocates for same-sex marriage in New York, in a major departure from their strategy of lobbying political insiders, will begin making a direct appeal to ordinary voters in a series of commercials featuring Hollywood actors, fashion designers and civic leaders.
The videos, to be released starting this week, are the most vivid attempt yet to persuade the state’s lawmakers to legalize gay marriage, which the Legislature voted down last year, despite polling that showed a slight majority of New York voters supported it.
In the aftermath of that defeat, many grumbled that the backers of same-sex marriage had failed to rally ordinary residents behind the bill or to humanize the issue outside of Albany — the explicit aim of the new ads.
In them, celebrities like Julianne Moore and Kyra Sedgwick and leaders like Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the Rev. Al Sharpton will speak in strikingly personal ways about their support for gay marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...
This aspect bothers me way more than individual states deciding to marry same sex partners. Also I don't like the states telling the federal government that they must redefine marriage (’to two human beings’) wrt federal benefits. But if a liberal state wants to create same sex marriages, especially through their elected legislature, let them.
I tend to agree but the big question becomes whether the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution would require other states to honor the gay marriages which occur in the liberal states. If so, then one state could concievably impose gay marriage on the other 49.
We must keep the debate centered on the effects of SSM... children will be denied a mother or a father if SSM is codified.
The power of celebrities in this country is the catalyst for the end of it. Hollywood culture is becoming the model for American culture. I just don’t understand the appeal for that lifestyle. Yeah, I get the fame and fortune part. But beyond that, I see only emptiness: narcisim, broken families, overemphasis of sex, booze and drugs.
When you have fame and fortune the narcissism, broken families, sex, booze and drugs is not that bad. Like the Woody Allen quote: “Sex without love is an empty experience, but, as empty experiences go, it’s one of the best.”
I love men but you won’t see me running around in the streets declaring it!! (I’m a woman for those of you who may not know).
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.