Homosexual right to marry? not in our democracy

townhall.com ^ | 2/24/04 | Armstrong Williams

[kattracks]

Ever since the Massachusetts State Supreme Court's Nov. 19 decision to legalize same-sex unions, the nightly news has been saturated with images of gay couples rushing to the altar. This sickens me.

I am not alone. A recent Zogby poll indicated that 70 percent of Massachusetts's citizens do not favor the decision allowing homosexual couples to marry. And it's not just Massachusetts. Recent polls by "The New York Times" and CBS News and one by "USA Today" and CNN, all found that more than 60 percent of Americans oppose the legalization of homosexual unions.

Not surprisingly, respondents were uncomfortable with the Supreme Court redefining one of the fundamental building blocks of our culture - marriage. And rightly so. Appointed judges effectively short-circuit the democratic process when they assert their will on the culture. That's plainly the case here, as the judiciary used grand ideological sweeps to invent a new constitutional right.

This, the U.S. Constitution has never allowed. Thankfully, there remains room for the democratic process to play out. According to the Zogby poll, 69 percent of Massachusetts's voters favor an amendment to keep Massachusetts a traditional marriage state.

[bobo1]

"a lynch mob is a democracy."

And that would be preferable in some instances, for the sake of expedience.

blessings, bobo

[jonno]

bump

[Kryptonite]

Democracy v. Republic aside, Armstrong is correct on everything else in the article - worth digesting. Here is an excerpt:

[Just one thing - there is also a long tradition in this country of using moral codes to prohibit conduct deemed immoral by the majority of the citizens, as evidenced by restrictions against prostitution, bestiality, pedophilia, etc. As Justice Scalia tersely noted in his dissent, Texas's anti-sodomy laws is "well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new 'constitutional right' by a court that is impatient of democratic change." In other words, the matter of homosexual rights should not simply be dictated by the whims of appointed judges.

The judiciary should always be sensitive to leaving room for democratic debate on issues that are bound up in complex notions of morality, religious belief and personal autonomy. This is when the court is at its best - when its decisions spill out of the courtroom and stimulate earnest and important debate and legislative decision making. This is the democratic process. And it is ripped to shreds when the judiciary uses fiat to impose their own views about what our law should be, as the Massachusetts Supreme Court did when they legalized homosexual unions.]

[CSM]

I asked the question as to what rights were not extended to homosexuals that they would receive with legalizing marriage for gay couples. The only non private-sector benefit that would be provided is the inheritance of SS benefits. This could be solved by allowing for private investment of SS money.

The homosexual community should stand up in support of privatization of SS. This is the only Federal benefit they may not have the same beneficial results from civil unions. If we allowed privatization, then all of the supposed benefits of marriage could be provided to them in the private sector, just like they are for a married couple today!

[LandofLincoln]

I'm with you on this one, sand rat

[SevenDaysInMay]

Both executives and legislators are continuing to forfeit their own lawful powers AND duties. Usurpation gives them more credit than they deserve.

Blackrobes with company are conspiring to undermine our RATIFIED Constitutional Republic with the great-full help of both of those same executives and legislators.

Fascism is entrenched on both the Left and Yankee coasts with a few Gay '90's sapphic salt lick towns along the way.

Congress is stinking full of slithering forked tongued wimps who are afraid to admit that they hate the very binding social contract from which they derive any and all of their temporary and bastardized lawful and grasped unlawful powers.

Citizens must be further disarmed for the elites' safety. They shall violate their oaths of office and violate our Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment's "equal rights" clause with more unConstitutional legislation and regulation supported by equally violating presidents and outlaw blackrobes.

Only our rightful distraction by the murderous muslims postpones these fascists' reckoning with We the People and life under our RATIFIED Constitution. All of our FLEOs must take a moment and now decide whehter they are going to honor their own oaths of office to defend our RATIFIED Constitution or take unlawful orders from those who would be king, or at least commissars.

No elected or appointed official, aka citizens' temporary employee, has any lawful power beyond those provided in our RATIFIED Constitution while the several states and We the People reserve all rights and powers not specifically consented to in our one written, binding social contract.

It will take at least one more Mt. Carmel like slaughter by FBI-HRT JBTs with other alphabet agents to make the next impatiently paranoid president's point, that power is now lorded over We the People, for the children.

Lincoln's War of Aggression criminality must never be forgotten. Any next exercise in Constitutional self-rule would never be so defensive.

Islamists are waiting for DNC-Politburo fascists to make their power play to take advantage of "emergency powers declaration" totalitarian government's high risk confrontations with lawful Citizens of this once Constitutional Republic.

Neo-Bolsheviks are at work.

[VRW Conspirator]

...Neo-Bolsheviks are at work.

Wow. Somebody gets it. But, I do not think I would go that far. These activists judges are simply defeated if the legislatures and executives would exercise their a little guts. Anyhow, to label them as Neo-Bolsheviks is close to the mark but gives them to much credit.

I read a book several yeas ago called The Ruling Class: Inside the Imperial Congress by Eric Felton of the Heritage Foundation. It outlined the many exact and real abuses of Congress. It was written before the so-called Republican Revolution. Some things were revised when the 'Pubs took over yet the "Incumbent Machine" is alive and well. The Republican leadership have been assimilated by the machine; they are one with the DC-borg.

It seems to me that a domino effect could happen if there were a drastic change to the method of collecting the loot/taxes from We-the-People. For instance, if the 16th amendment were found to be not truly ratified. Or, if the loving and benevolent Congress decided to go with the Fair Tax Bill.

All of the Democrats and most of the Republicans could not get reelected if they could not spray money around like a fireman with a fire hose. Since more Libs would be affected than conservatives, the Pubs could stay in power. Over time the amount of Lib judges would decrease. So goes the theory. FWIW

[SevenDaysInMay]

IMHO, you must not underestimate the collusion of incumbents in and out of blackrobes acting under colopr of law to nullify our Ratified Constitutional restrictions on their desired power, at will. Leftists' agendas are well planned and executed, the M.O. for 70 years, since FDR's communist staffers.

The War of Northern Aggression was fought for less.

Courts are protected by Congress and legislatures which refuse to consider removing judges who are committing "bad behavior" by usurping powers, creating outlaw bench law, and nullifying our Ratified Constitution with redefinition words and concepts, too clever by far - unencumbered by our Ratified Constitution.

There is NO life term for federal judges and justices. This career gravy train is a scam, a sham.

Blackrobes act as if they are the super third of the troika. The politburo allows rogue judges to be creative. We are ruled by a mere few tyrants with assault gavels far above our Law of our Land, only because they say so?

[VRW Conspirator]

IMHO, you must not underestimate the collusion of incumbents in and out of blackrobes acting under colopr of law to nullify our Ratified Constitutional restrictions on their desired power, at will. Leftists' agendas are well planned and executed, the M.O. for 70 years, since FDR's communist staffers.

I kind of agree with you on the agenda thing. But, it seems to me that the communists in this country have fallen by the wayside and have been replaced by leftists. The leftists are much less clearer on what they want compared to the communists, but they are determined to move on what they do not want. They seem to detest the American culture and are determined to undermine it. Just speculation FWIW.

Since the Soviet Union fell, these leftists are angry that their shining example has collapse on itself, but are set on not allowing America to prevail as is.

[tertiary01]

Sounds like that Christian Science Monitor, is becoming the antithesis of of one of the choices of their own poll. They are morphing into a liberal irrelevant rag. They used to be a paper of substance.

[Protagoras]

a lynch mob is a democracy.

The correct term is ochlocracy.

[Protagoras]

If we allowed privatization, then all of the supposed benefits of marriage could be provided to them in the private sector, just like they are for a married couple today!

Wrongo, I'm not paying health insurance for some buggerer. And since I will be sued, I will withdraw all health insurance for employees. I'm not alone, you think we have uninsured people now? Just wait.

[CSM]

Have we had this conversation before?

You would be free to not offer benefits to your employees. And your employees are free to find alternative employers. Just as it is today. The federal government doesn't force you to offer the benefit today, and that should remain as it is.

[Protagoras]

Have we had this conversation before?

I guess you didn't learn anything.

You would be free to not offer benefits to your employees.

Nope, I could offer the same thing to ALL employees, not just some. If the government says these people are married, I would be sued if I didn't cover certain ones. Discrimination ya know.

[CSM]

"I guess you didn't learn anything."

And neither did you.

"Nope, I could offer the same thing to ALL employees, not just some."

I agree with you on that one. You could offer the benefit or you could not offer the benefit. Just like today. No one is forcing you to offer health coverage, let alone health coverage for spouses. You do that by choice.

What you could do is offer no benefits with the options of purchasing different benefits off of a menu. If the ins. company accepts policies for gay partners, then they are free to do just that. Of course, the pay would go up with your reduced costs.

[Protagoras]

I don't care about your "work arounds".

I pay health insurance for my employees and their spouses. If their spouses aren't really spouses, I'm not paying. Period.

If I have to cut everyone out, so be it. That would be forced upon me.

Other companies will do the same. The uninsured rate is going WAY up if this holds.

BTW, Are you a homo?

[CSM]

Why in the heck do you think I am against you on this. I am only making the point that all the screaming about benefits has already been resolved in the private sector. The only benefit that hasn't is the ability to inherit the SS benefits of a spouse. By privatizing SS we can also let the private sector resolve that issue. The gay community should therefore be spending this time and energy on privatizing SS.

How does this affect you or your company?

Do you deny that some employers offer health coverage to same sex partners? They are free to do so, you are free to not do so.

Every employee can chose where to work and they can chose that based on whatever they want. Every employer can chose what benefits to offer and what to not offer.

No I am not a "homo". I personaly think it is wrong and that it is a choice. How do my comments merit such a question?

[Protagoras]

Why in the heck do you think I am against you on this.

Hard to come to any other conclusion when you continue to attack my observation.

Do you deny that some employers offer health coverage to same sex partners? They are free to do so, you are free to not do so.

Irrelevant, as are all of your comments. The point is they are free to NOW, but will not be able to if this homosexuals are sanctioned as "married" because of the preference for sexual deviancy.

You ignore any argument you can't refute and say the same things over and over again. It's a sign of mental illness to say the same things over and over and expect a different response.

I'll say it one more time, if you don't get it this time I suggest you seek help.

Under any new definition of marriage, I will be unable to discriminate. Get it? It will be all or none. I choose none. (I'm not hopeful based on your past inability to understand simple concepts)

[CSM]

Protagoras was known as the "father of debate" because he taught that there are two sides to every issue.

Im interested in ideas and concepts, not the personalities of posters. Flame wars and personal attacks have become tedious. I have made the mistake in the past of returning fire. Therefore, once a commentary becomes personal I will cut and paste this message and exit the conversation in search of intelligent discourse.

[Protagoras]

In other words, you don't have anything to say if you are forced to address the point I made instead of ignoring it in favor of a fantasy world.