Replies

"Your attempt to equate opposition to same sex marriages with racism is just plain offensive. Hitler and Stalin imposed their beliefs on their citizens. Does that mean I can equate the Massachusetts Supreme Court with the Nazis and Communists?"

I was attempting to do nothing of the sort. I was pointing out that the definition of marriage HAS changed over the centuries. Do you deny that?

As for "liberal judges imposing beliefs," consider the following scenario. In Berkeley, California, the duly elected representatives rewrite the definition of restricted firearms to include ALL armaments, including all handguns, shotguns, and rifles(not just bazookas, mortars, grenades, etc.) This overrules some 200 years of constitutional definitions according to the second amendment. The resulting law is put to a vote of the people of Berkeley, and, "liberal" folk that they are, they approve it by a resounding majority. The law is appealed to a court, and the judges rule it to be unconstitutional. Am I correct in presuming that you would be enraged that the judges had gone in direct contradiction to the expressed wishes of the people and their duly elected representatives?

Or are you really saying that state judges should do their job evaluating laws in terms of the state's constitutions only when the result would be one that pleases you?

The day a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right of gays to marry is ratified, I'll agree with your analogy.

The provisions of the Massachusetts constitution used by the judges in the gay marriage case were never in anyone's wildest dreams intended to authorize the courts to legalize gay marriage. The judges simply decided that they personally favored gay marriage, perverted the actual meaning of the state constitution, and then imposed their belief on the people of Massachusetts for no better reason than an arrogant confidence that they could get away with it.

In contrast, the second amendment was explicitly designed to protect our rights to arm ourselves.

A better analogy to the Massachusetts gay marriage decision would be one in which the justices personally believe that handguns are dangerous, so they order the legislature to ban them despite having no constitutional authority to do so. They then announce that if the legislature fails to comply, they'll start ordering local police to confiscate people's guns without legislative authority.

Sorry, but that is a terrible analogy. Your hypothetical would be analogous to the legislature voting to recognize same sex marriage and a court holding that they could not do so.

If any two or more people want to consider themselves married, I have no problem with that. Hell, if 2 men and 3 women want to all sleep together and call themselves a group marriage, I don't care. It is none of my business what any two or more people want to do in bed together unless I am one of them.

The problem I have is with a few ultra liberal judicial activists attempting to force society to accept an alternate relationship as a legal marriage with all of the rights thereof. The only reason for governmental recognition and preferential treatment of marriage is the societal interest in promoting two parent households. As the liberals would say, it's for the children.

It is an indisputable fact that children raised in single parent households are far more likely to live in poverty and far more likely to end up in jail. Children are much better off being raised by a mother and a father (one of each, not two of one and none of the other). Society therefore has an interest in encouraging heterosexual marriage. Society has no interest in encouraging homosexual marriage.