Posted on 07/18/2004 5:57:50 AM PDT by RogerFGay
ping
If we could end this blackmail, we could have state and local rights once again. With this blackmail however, everything is at the federal level. A city can't even build a *&^% sidewalk without haveing to comply with state regulations which have to comply with federal regulations.
Think a state or local hac will give up fed money?.
On the larger issue of gay marriage, however, I have to regretfully concede that free adults do, in my opinion, have the right to contract with each other. Whether that is called marriage or civil union is debatable but I cannot see any defense of a position that would deny free adults the right to contract with each other in such a manner as to duplicate the tenets and covenants of marriage. I don't like this much but consistency in terms of my views of individual rights, which I hold dear, makes it inescapable.
You missed my point, Vaduz. I'm saying the feds should not be allowed to withold money as a means to force the states and locals to comply with their desires. Currently, only the feds have realistic power and, as you alluded to, the states and locals can't afford to turn down the money.
Probably only the Supreme Court can change this and it probably means a reversal of a previous decision-so I'm not holding my breath.
The problem with gay "marriage" is that it's based on homosexuality, which is not normal.
One way to know that homosexuality is not normal is to consider what would happen if the only sex was homosexual sex-the entire human species would die out! No matter what you or anybody else says, it is not normal for a species to act in such a way.
Another way to know that homosexuality is not normal applies only to males. Ask yourself if you would advise two (or more) males to have sex without a condom. Is that safe? Not even close. You'd be totally irresponsible to advise that a man put his...into another man's... without some protection from dreaded diseases.
I will not pretend that homosexuality is normal. Societies get into deep do-do when they start pretending. The U.S. got into deep do-do when it pretended that Blacks are not people. The Germans liked to pretend that Jews were less than human. Most of the world is currently pretending when they pretend a preborn baby is not a human being.
Homosexuality is not normal and we don't need our laws to pretend otherwise.
"Whether that is called marriage or civil union is debatable but I cannot see any defense of a position that would deny free adults the right to contract with each other in such a manner as to duplicate the tenets and covenants of marriage."
No one is denied the ability to enter into contracts with each other for this purpose now. What same-sex 'marriage' proponents want is public approval of a lifestyle.
I see the situation as more of states willing to prostitute themselves for the federal money. When money is more important to you than princples, you are a whore.
What do you think the effects on this 'blackmailing' would be if just a couple of Governors publically said, "Sorry, but we aren't you whores" to Congress?
We must repeal section 5 of the 14th Amendmnent.
Same-Sex Marriage "Positions" Untenable! --- The "missionary" position?
I had to read headline twice, I thought it said "Same Sex Position Marriages Untenable" and was going to be a sex ed piece.
OMG, you beat me to it.
I don't care if it's normal or not. Organ Transplant isn't "normal" but people should be free to contract for donor organs if they choose. "Normal" doesn't describe most contracts and, quite honestly, I don't want the government desciding what is "Normal" nor do I think I should have that responsibility, nor, with respect, should you.
So, you will be happy to give them the right to marry so long as you can withhold public approval?
An organ transplant isn't law. Gay "marriage" law affects the entire society; it cracks the very foundation of civilization itself.
"So, you will be happy to give them the right to marry so long as you can withhold public approval?"
It's not an issue of 'giving' anyone a right. It's a matter of whether they have this right ( as defined by proponents of same-sex marriage) or not.
As far as public approval, ceremonies do exactly this, put the stamp of approval on an action or behavior. Government ceremonies imply government (and public) approval. However, this in and of itself is not sufficient to deny a right. What is sufficient is the fact that this 'right' (to same-sex marriage) never existed in the first place. If we are going to invent a new right, we have a procedure in the Constitution for doing this. That procedure does not involve the judiciary unilaterally making this decision.
Homosexuals do already have the right to 'marry'. Just not by a civil ceremony. Two people (of any sex) currently can have contracts drawn up to replicate most of the obligations and responsibilities of marriage. These contracts are recognized by government as are any other contracts. The only real *financial* issues are those involving government benefits base on married status.
Why is it better if gay people live together without benefit of marriage? Why not let free people contract with each other in the manner they choose? How much control do you think you deserve to have over other free people? Why do you care if people you don't know contract with each other as they choose?
Good post Roger!
Best Regards,
Nancy
If I'm not on your ping list, do add me. Thanks.
Because it would equate an abnormal situation with marriage, which is the foundation of civilization. It would give legal status to a perversion, much the way legal slavery did and I don't want to go there again. If gays are granted legal status they could hardly be barred from adopting children and we should do what we can to prevent children from being raised in harmful situations. We have enough problems with child abuse already; we don't need any more.
When gays engage in abnormal sexual activities and spread horrible diseases I shouldn't have to help pay for it, but I do. Pretending that it's normal and giving it legal status will surely make me pay even more, compounding the wrong. (Admittedly, there are numerous other things I have to pay for because of people trying for a Darwin award.)
Here's how I see things going down: Next April 15th gays from Massachusetts will file their federal income taxes and claim to be married. The feds will say they are not in the eyes of the federal government. The gays will file suit and the decision will come down to 1 person on the entire planet, Sandra Day O'Connor. Don't worry, you'll win since O'Connor is the champion of fuzzy think.
I guess we can just agree to disagree, muir_redwoods, and wait for O'Connor's decision. So long.
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.