Supreme Court Won't Bar Start Of Mass. Gay Marriages

I've heard of pederasts, but I had to look up "catamite". Again, if you want to persuade people of your position, don't leave them confused with exceedingly rare words. I don't see the pro-gay-marriage side using them.

Sorry, but in discussing homosexuality it is necessary to talk about homosexuality. It's true the other side doesn't talk about these things, because it isn't in their interest to talk about the thing itself and what they mean to do with it. Instead, all you'll ever hear from them is a carefully contrived claptrap about rights and so on.

Here is a sample of the HRC spin farm, from the site of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), whose preoccupation is spinning:

GLAAD Journalism Spin Factory: What to Say, and How to Say It

That's what GLAAD wants us to talk about. But here is an example of what gay men are talking about among themselves:

Catholic Families Resource Page on Gay PedSpeak.

And in case you think I'm kidding about the extent of the problem that GLAAD deliberately glosses over, here is a look at the dimensions of the problem hinted at by the Catholic Families page cited and linked above:

FReeper Thread: "STUDY: "'GAY' SUBSET COMMITS MULTIPLE REPEATED CHILD SEX OFFENSES", LifeSite ^,Posted on 11/16/2001 3:26:59 PM CST by Notwithstanding

And here, comments of Paul Cameron on the same subject:

Paul Cameron Article at Family Researd Inst. website.

Both Cameron and Judith Reisman have been bitterly, vitriolically, and both professionally and personally attacked by the gay-rights crowd. Some of us at FR are looking into the allegations they have made, but suffice it to say that the gays aren't interested in documenting and proving their allegations beyond quoting someone (in Reisman's case, two people, one still living and one dead) and then using the quote to dismiss everything both of them have ever said, published, or done.

One of our fellow-FReepers, Bryan, has come to the conclusion that Cameron has to be used carefully because his survey articles excerpt and epitomize from different authors, and it's important to keep their statistical universes straight, which Bryan thinks is sometimes difficult with Cameron's papers. This would seem to arise from their survey nature of different papers that asked and sought to answer different questions.

Nevertheless, there is a mass of information here which can't be blinked, which points to a problem that the gays have decided to handle, or rather dissemble, by lying and denying, relying for cover on the authority of gay-dominated committees of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association.

The reflection of purely religious doctrine in law becomes the Achilles heel of said law, and leads to its downfall.

I think you still underestimate the cost to society of the loss of such laws at the hands of the secularizing expurgators and moral termites.

Further to your exception to the use of moral standards in arguments about policy, I thought you might like to read Lord Devlin's comments quoted and discussed in this new FR thread:

Lord Devlin

"...unless the People clear their throat and act to secure the situation."

And "the people" is NOT the Federal government.

"The people" is the States.

The Feds are more likely to enact an Amendment "protecting the rights" of same sex citizens to marry, than they are ratifying an Amendment securing the traditional definition of marriage.

Mark my words.

You DON'T win this with an all or nothing fight at the Federal level, but rather by ratifying an Amendment to each State Constitution defining marriage as one man, one woman.

And "the people" is NOT the Federal government. "The people" is the States.

Yes, that's quite right.

Sitting in convention, to amend the Constitution of the United States, in Article IV of which is where the problem lies.

Interesting stuff on Lord Devlin, but his comments refer to "core values". Sometimes, when values conflict under situations not imagined by even nearly infinitely wise people, we decide which of them is core, and which is peripheral. The debate has been shaping up as Western society's age-old prohibitions on homosexuality, versus fairness to people whose condition has morphed in the public eye from sin, to illness, to lifestyle choice, to nearly-immutable personality characteristic. Disagree with the transformation, if you wish, but find a way of dealing with others seeing it this way.

Yes, the gays have a political agenda. These days, who doesn't? There are only three potential alternatives: power by force, power by political process, or no power. I've heard a few on the gay marriage threads advocate some level of force to "take back the courts", but I expect that they will either not try, or not succeed. That leaves lobbying for political power, or being swept aside to powerlessness.

If those who oppose gay marriage want to avoid the latter, then they had better find an effective method of achieving the former. There may be ways of making the mushy middle see most all gay and lesbian people as promiscuous, disease-ridden, benefit-grubbing, deceiving child molesters, but you'd better hurry, and be quite effective at it, because by 2005 it will probably be way too late.

Interesting stuff on Lord Devlin, but his comments refer to "core values". Sometimes, when values conflict under situations not imagined by even nearly infinitely wise people, we decide which of them is core, and which is peripheral.

You've obviously decided that even "core values" are "peripheral", as long as your checks keep rolling in.

The debate has been shaping up as Western society's age-old prohibitions on homosexuality, versus fairness to people whose condition has morphed in the public eye from sin, to illness, to lifestyle choice, to nearly-immutable personality characteristic. Disagree with the transformation, if you wish, but find a way of dealing with others seeing it this way.

Is that how you see a dishonest contest, waged by secret polemicists in "journalism", by closet fifth-columnists and cabalists, and by gutless, self-hating Western liberals traduced in darkness of mind? Are you really -- can anyone really be -- that incredibly complacent? That wilfully phlegmatic? You're unbelievable. Do you care about anything?

"Yes, the gays have a political agenda. These days, who doesn't?" Translation: So what? That's what the French said to one another, during the "Phony War", the "Sitzkrieg", of 1940. Blow the wax out of your ears and listen to yourself, and while you're at it, blow your nose so you can smell the moral rot in your position.

There may be ways of making the mushy middle see most all gay and lesbian people as promiscuous, disease-ridden, benefit-grubbing, deceiving child molesters, but you'd better hurry, and be quite effective at it, because by 2005 it will probably be way too late.

I think we both know whose side you're on now. You're telling me that there is absolutely no way you're going to change your mind -- hell, you sound like a Loggie. "Mushy middle"? You're it. See you around, liberal.

As a last comment, something that occurred to me later, you might, if your deracinated sense of urgency will permit it, spend some time thinking about what the progress so far of this tiny cabal of the Two Per Cent and its great success implies for the idea of majority rule. The implications for the idea of democracy are catastrophic, to say the least, but I know you'll want to save up your energy and what's left of your indignation for the eventual denouement -- not of this issue, but of the contest between arrogant tyranny and democracy.

When those times arrive, inevitably, think back to today, when your sense of right and wrong in public mores had already departed, exposing the majority to the drivenness of a very wicked few.

"Sitting in convention, to amend the Constitution of the United States, in Article IV of which is where the problem lies."

There is no "problem" with Article IV.

Article IV Section 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State; And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

I've provided ample case law to prove that the Full Faith and Credit Clause is not absolute in the case of marriages, hell, it isn't absolute in the case of gun permits, the ability to practice law, medicine, etc.

You have yet to provide with any proof that Congress would in fact enact the actual Amendment that you believe should be enacted, or that Congress can in fact "fix" this problem any better than they've handled any of the other myriad issues they've attempted to "solve".

If the people of the State of Massachusetts decide that they don't have a problem with same sex marriages, that's THEIR decision, let them make that decision at the polls next election.

Your solution actually comes down to using the force of the Federal government to remove the ability of the States to make that choice.

The Constitution says that each individual State gets to decide, I stand with the Constitution, and I want Florida to decide what Florida should do, not for this issue to be decided by the Feds and special interest lobbyists.

"I think we both know whose side you're on now. You're telling me that there is absolutely no way you're going to change your mind -- hell, you sound like a Loggie. "Mushy middle"? You're it. See you around, liberal."

And you sound like a grade-school kid...lacking the ability to articulate, you insult and demean.

What's the difference between your demeanor, and that of a liberal pray tell?

Last things first.

We've discussed the issues, and my interlocutor has given ample notice that he's not about to change his mind.

So at some point you sum up when there's nothing left to say. You called me a schoolkid -- hey, I thought you were against namecalling, as a sign of something or other?

I reject your post.

You posted it yourself at #216 above:

The Constitution does not delegate to the United States the power to create a categorical exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, thereby inviting states to disregard the official acts of other states. Rather, the Full Faith and Credit Clause empowers Congress to enact general laws and to prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. Simply stated then, the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not allow Congress to decree that a state action which is disfavored by Congress on substantive grounds may be disregarded by states that share the congressional viewpoint. Taken to its logical extreme, were Congress to have the power it deems it has by proposing the Defense of Marriage Act, Congress could next declare that one state need not recognize a no-fault divorce of a sister state, or need not recognize a punitive damages award in excess of $100,000. Obviously, Congress could not enact such legislation. See Williams v. North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226 (1945); Cook v. Cook, 342 U.S. 126 (1951) (divorces in one state must be honored in another state). The "unifying" aspect of the Full Faith and Credit Clause would forever be undermined, and a state's authority to make a final, respected judgment would be forever extinguished. [Emphasis added.]

It is glaringly obvious from your linked source that you share the opinion of the writer that the United States Government has no power to alter Article IV by statute. I agree. The article also asserts that the States, under Article IV, have no power to reject the "marriages" being confected in Massachusetts. Under Article IV, those people, in the teeth of the will of all the Peoples of all the States of the Union, are married whether nobody wants their travesties to be recognized as marriage or not. Furthermore, and most to the point, the article you posted directly contradicts your statement,

I've provided ample case law to prove that the Full Faith and Credit Clause is not absolute in the case of marriages.....

Case law, shmase law. Article IV is, in the language of the full article you cited, "absolute on its face". There is no getting around it, no way to weasel-word the outcome of an Article IV attack on the constitutions of the other 49 States. The States will lose, and the catamites will win. The Supreme Court has already clearly signalled its (grossly political) intentions in the grotesquely reasoned Lawrence, in which they blithely overturned precedent set less than 30 years ago.

Article IV as written is the Ace of Trumps. The only way to cure the situation is to amend Article IV to provide that judges' cabals in Massachusetts shall not rewrite the law of the land in 50 States of the Union.

The other cure, the intrastate constitutional cure, the judges took care to vitiate by setting timetables that they fully and dishonestly intended should preclude the People of Massachusetts' expressing their will before the judges imposed their own. The Massachusetts justices should be impeached, tried, and shot for lese majeste' against the People of Massachusetts, for laying hands on the People's majesty and making new law ultra vires the Supreme Judicial Court, but that's a matter for Massachusetts.

I think we both know whose side you're on now. You're telling me that there is absolutely no way you're going to change your mind -- hell, you sound like a Loggie. "Mushy middle"? You're it. See you around, liberal.

Not quite sure what a "Loggie" is, that one wouldn't Google up properly. Again, the use of completely obscure words and references to make a point.

Any homosexuals happening to read this thread would probably hope that all who are against gay marriage are just like you - full of intolerance for anyone who questions your assumptions, brandishing eloquent-sounding words and little known philosophers in order to make an attempt at dazzling the other party with your intimidating brilliance. If you treat a fellow poster on a conservative forum like this, you have very little chance of winning over someone who is currently on the fence about gay marriage.

Not quite sure what a "Loggie" is, that one wouldn't Google up properly. Again, the use of completely obscure words and references to make a point.

"Loggie" = Log Cabin Republican, the gay lobby of the GOP that sat outside the tent until the recapture of the Party by the Bush family, whereupon they were ushered into the tent even as the Christian Coalition types were sidelined.

Documentation of my last statement, that homosexuals have replaced the Christian Coalition within the Republican "big tent":

Archived Contemporary Article on GOP Outreach to Gay NGO's During GOP 2000 Convention; Role of Mary Matalin.

Further Substantiation of a Powerful Gay Entree into the GOP's Highest Reaches; GOP Leadership Turns Hard Left on Homosexuality (When Nobody's Looking)

Gay-Triumphalist TIME Article from Oct. 2003 on Gay Overhaul of GOP: "The New Face of Gay Power"

Not even Kansas is Kansas any more.

As for "obscure philosophers", I've mentioned Maimonides, the Jewish Aquinas and principal founding figure in the intellectual tradition of Judaism, and Strauss, who is (was) a political intellectual rather than a philosopher who influenced numbers of conservatives like Harry Jaffa and (among Jaffa's other disciples) Alan Keyes. Straussians sort into East Coast and West Coast schools; Keyes is an exemplar of the latter, but don't get me to try to explain the differences between them. Generally, Straussians are secular conservatives but admit the social utility of moral and traditional, religiously-based values, customs, and institutions for fostering social stability and the general welfare.

I'm sorry if you find the reference to Strauss objectionable, but it's a fair reference, and I think it's properly used and salient to the point we were discussing, which was my assertion of the societally damaging nature of your take on traditional morals, which as I understood it was that you have no particular use for them any more and generally wish well to anyone who challenges religiously-based values.

....full of intolerance for anyone who questions your assumptions....

Intolerance? For arguing my POV? You seem to be sidling over toward the big, red "BIGOT" button......

If you think I'm intolerant, go over on Buzzflash, find a gay thread, and tell them over there you think essentialism sucks rocks, and that most of them are psychological cases who'd revert to heterosexual behavior if they had a decent course of psychotherapy. See what happens.

Substantiation and Documentation of My Last Statement.

Substantiation of How Much Fun It Is to Disagree w/ Gays about SSM. Start Here and Scroll Down for 4000 Posts.