Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: zarf
Religion aside, I think it takes a tortured reading of the federal constitution to permit a same sex marriage ban. I don't see any difference between this issue or the racial civil rights issue.

1. Prior to the 13th and 14th amendments, the U.S. Constitution was NOT based upon the threefold promise of the French Revolution (Liberté, Fraternité, Egalité).

2. The passage of the 13th and 14th amendments does not give the government license to "force" the various races to get along. Even now, I take issue with the notion that the federal government has the right to tell a business that it cannot discriminate against employees on the basis of race. Mind you, I would never refuse to hire a person simply because he was black, but I have a serious problem with the federal government meddling in race relations.

3. The analogy that "gay" is to "straight" as "black" is to "white" is completely flawed, because there is no evidence or historical precedent to indicate that a person is, so to speak, ever "born homosexual." Sure, there have always been people (and animals) who desired to copulate with members of the same sex, but prior to the 19th and 20th centuries, no one ever suggested that the desire to copulate anally might be written into a person's genetic code as an integral part of his being.

4. I do not believe a constitutional ban on same-sex "marriages" is the best way to stop them from happening--if for no other reason than the fact that it simply won't pass. The only viable, long-term strategy should be to end judicial activism.

5. Since I am engaging in a controversy regarding gender/sex, I feel compelled to mention that on no account will I apologize for my usage of the masculine for generic singular pronouns. That has been the accepted usage in many languages--English included--for centuries, until feminists came along and spewed forth ridiculous theories that not only degrade women (and men) but fly in the face of most genetic and historical evidence.

18 posted on 11/07/2004 12:07:55 AM PST by MegaSilver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: MegaSilver
The passage of the 13th and 14th amendments does not give the government license to "force" the various races to get along. Even now, I take issue with the notion that the federal government has the right to tell a business that it cannot discriminate against employees on the basis of race. Mind you, I would never refuse to hire a person simply because he was black, but I have a serious problem with the federal government meddling in race relations.

So you believe an individual state has a right to pass segregation laws?

22 posted on 11/07/2004 12:15:48 AM PST by zarf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: MegaSilver
3. The analogy that "gay" is to "straight" as "black" is to "white" is completely flawed, because there is no evidence or historical precedent to indicate that a person is, so to speak, ever "born homosexual." Sure, there have always been people (and animals) who desired to copulate with members of the same sex, but prior to the 19th and 20th centuries, no one ever suggested that the desire to copulate anally might be written into a person's genetic code as an integral part of his being.

PMFJI, but couldn't your argument here apply equally as well to discrimination on the basis of religion? There are ex-Christians, ex-Jews, ex-atheists, etc.

31 posted on 11/07/2004 12:51:57 AM PST by jennyp (It was a dark and stormy night and the world was in crisis. As usual.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson