Posted on 03/03/2004 11:36:22 AM PST by kattracks
Rightly so, Mike Long, chairman of the New York State Conservative Party, has called on Attorney General Elliot Spitzer to halt New Paltz, New York's mayor from issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples.
This flouting of the state law by the mayor and inaction by the attorney general, as in California, shows how liberals often disregard social and moral laws with which they disagree, arguing their loyalty is to conscience.
Contrast this with the across the board calls for Alabama's attorney general a Republican to restrain Judge Roy Moore from displaying the Ten Commandments after a panel of judges ruled it illegal. The Republican attorney general complied and followed the law.
The claim being made by advocates of gay marriage and its editorial proponents such as the New York Times (November 20, 2003) is, the ban of gay marriage is simply about prejudice. They are wrong, for discrimination means that because of prejudice we do not allow a person of a particular race, religion or sexual orientation to participate in our existing institutions or enjoy the same activities others do.
But no one in America would deny an avowed homosexual man to get married, like all other men, to a woman. Nor is the law prejudiced against any proclaimed lesbian wishing, like other women, to marry a man. Who they are does not enter the equation.
Whatever their announced orientation, homosexuals have the same right as everyone else to marriage as defined, across the board, by our laws and history: the union of one man (whatever his sexual orientation) to one woman (whatever her orientation). The existing institution of marriage is open to all.
Marriage is a contract, and as with all contracts there are elements that define it and superimpose on those committing to it. For the contract to be legal and binding, each party to it must abide by its inherent elements. In this case, the elements are one man, one woman.
The problem lies not in the "wannabes" because of whom they are, but rather because what they want to do does not exist for anybody. Green is not red; and the rules of football do not extend to baseball simply because it is also a sport.
In times past when blacks were denied the right to vote, it was discrimination since others had that right. When in certain locales in deep medieval Europe Jews were forbidden to marry it was discrimination since all others could marry. These were discriminations and exclusions born of prejudice based not on what but who.
Once given the right to marry, it would have been preposterous for a Jew to claim discrimination if the state outlawed him from marrying, for example, an aunt. Nor could a black man cry discrimination if after being given the right to vote he demanded that he be allowed to vote while underage.
The New York Times sermonizes that denying gays marriage deprives them of equal protection. That argument is erroneous, for when we allow people of differing religion, race, gender or sexual orientation to participate and share in categories defined equally for all, discrimination does not exist.
Certainly prejudice against homosexuals is not at the root of those wishing to preserve the integrity of marriage. Those opposed to gay marriage do not advocate against homosexuals the historic discriminations -- such as denial of voting, housing, employment, etc.
That the issue revolves around a definition and not the people involved is clear when considering the following scenario: what if two straight guys decided to get married for the singular purpose of bypassing all sorts of business legalities and "lawyering" in order to create community property from their combined two businesses.
Though they are not homosexual, the law would still deny them a license to marry, since the union of two men does not fall within the definition of marriage, even where homosexuality is not involved. It is not the homosexuality per se but the union of the same-gendered that is oxymoronic with marriage.
All things are not the same. However, through the unanswered assertions of moral relativism, all things are deemed the same, and thus meaningless.
The problem bedeviling society over the last forty years is more than having been asked to tolerate and accept modes of conduct heretofore outside the respectable pale. It is that those engaged in those activities demand that society redefine its institutions and overturn cherished and wise traditions in order not only to accommodate but also affirm as equally legitimate and desirable such activities. Most often, they are accorded special privileges, with the government zealously targeting employers to meet quotas and, first, prove their innocence in hiring and rental practices if they are to be free from penalization.
What begins as a person's or group's desire for private, individual expression always ends up with that activity being given public sanctification, with regular citizens bearing the financial costs.
These redefinitions result in the banalization and degradation of the previously accepted standards and practices. Worse, language is reconfigured so that, for example, husbands are simply partners, wives are simply spouses. Sex education will be forced to teach about the alternatively valid homosexual marriage, and woe to those parents and students who balk: the power of the government will come down upon them harshly.
Will churches and synagogues that cite Scripture forbidding such marriage be indicted for hate speech? They will be! We hear about homosexual rights, never first realizing that what ultimately will be taken from most everyone else will be freedom of speech and religion; our privacy itself. Our tolerance for the unconventional will result in federal intolerance for the conventional, the necessary.
The upshot, as we have seen with other causes, is the diminution, marginalization and even disempowerment of those too mainstream to be counted among the exotic or preferrentialed minorities. Quite often that is precisely the underlying, ulterior motive of the iconoclast and gatecrasher.
(Rabbi Aryeh Spero is President of Caucus for America. )
Look for this as the next step, which will then allow marriages of convenience to erupt amongst entire co-ops, designed to be medical insurance/government benefit combines, contractual relationships that will allow those without to 'marry in' to the benefits they wish to obtain. Add to that the fact that marrying an American citizen extends rights to persons from outside the country and you have a legal and social problem eclipsing any that American society has yet seen.
| What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda |
|
|
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) |
|
|
| The Stamp of Normality |
They were married in 1985 and lived together in San Francisco until he died of AIDS two years later. And guess what? No one told them they couldn't get married because they were gay or lesbian.
The law does not say that homosexuals can't get married. It only says they can't marry someone of the same gender. And guess what -- heterosexuals can't marry someone of the same gender either! No discrimination there!
Multnomah County will be in violation of the Oregon Constitution if same-sex marriages are not allowed, commissioners said Wednesday morning.
Basic Rights Oregon asked the county about one month ago for a legal opinion on the topic.
After receiving a second opinion, county attorney Agnes Sowle released a written legal opinion that it would be discrimination to deny marriage to same-sex couples.
"Refusal to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples violates Article 1, Section 20, of the Oregon Constitution ... Multnomah County is required to act in accordance with the Constitution," Sowle said.
"Equality of privileges and immunities of citizens. No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens," the Oregon Constitution states.
"Same sex couples want their relationships to have the same legal weight as heterosexual relationships -- the right to inherit assets, own their homes jointly, and cover their families with health insurance," Commissioner Lisa Naito said in a written statement.
Some concerns were raised about commissioners skirting public meeting laws. However, Chairwoman Diane Linn said that those laws were followed "to the letter."
Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers and Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski planned to meet to discuss the state's response.
" Four of the five county commissioners said at a news conference Wednesday they decided to allow gay marriage after a legal review indicated it would be unconstitutional to deny them. "We will not allow discrimination to continue when the Constitution of the state of Oregon grants privileges equally to all citizens," proclaimed commissioner Lisa Naito, at the news conference with other county officials. "Our actions today are required... It is my duty to support and embrace them." Agnes Sowle, the county attorney, said a review of state law led her to "conclude that the Oregon Constitution prohibits the county from discriminating" against same-sex couples for the purpose of marriage. Sowle said she also obtained a concurring opinion from an outside legal counsel hired by the county to review the law.
Both legal opinions were delivered to county commision chairwoman Diane Linn Tuesday afternoon, who directed county officials to begin issuing gay marriage licenses on Wednesday. At least two commisioners said they requested the legal opinion about a month ago after being approached by gay rights groups."
" Chairwoman Linn's decision came without an official vote from the four other county commissioners — but with the explicit support of all but one of the other elected officials.
"This is about a legal opinion," she told reporters. "I recognize that this is a complex and controversial issue that can split our community... but the county will comply with the constitution."
Naito said careful legal research showed the county must grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples or risk violating the Oregon Constitution.
"As a state legislator in 1991 I took an oath that directed me to uphold the Oregon Constitution. As a Multnomah County Commissioner, I again swore to uphold the Constitution of our State," Naito said Wednesday.
Naito said that granting the marriage licenses does not interfere with any religious group or church, but does ensure that couples have the same rights, no matter whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.
"Same sex couples want their relationships to have the same legal weight as heterosexual relationships the right to inherit assets, own their homes jointly, and cover their families with health insurance," Naito said.
Kevin Neely, spokesman for Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers, told KGW that their office was in consultation with Gov. Ted Kulongoski and would probably react to Multnomah County's decision later Wednesday. Neely said the state had received no advance warning or consultation from county leaders.
Multnomah County officials brushed aside questions from a kgw.com reporter at Wednesday's news conference about why they failed to consult Myers before deciding that gay marriage was legal under state law."
Indeed he was. That's my commissioner, Lonnie Roberts. He represents the eastern part of Multnomah County.
He is the only man on the county commission.
He is also the only non-lunatic on the county commission.
He's a Democrat, but he is a regular guy.
BTW, the "independent attorney" they consulted just happens to be a nationally-prominent homosexual rights attorney.
Stay tuned.
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.