Posted on 12/09/2004 7:43:17 PM PST by RWR8189
The federalist claims went it comes to gay marriage is indeed disingenuous. I have said that from the beginning, and I support gay marriage, and calling it marriage, not domestic partnerships. But it should be a national decision, nationally made, at the ballot box. It is an impeachment of the sense of fair play and respect for democracy, for those who argue for end runs via the courts and federalism, aka states rights.
I wonder if a Canadian paper would print an ad of this type bought by Americans.
I oppose gay marriage, but if validly voted on at the ballot box, then I would accept it. I will not however, accept gay marriage imposed on the people via a court order or a court ordering a legislature to make a law (a la Massachussetts). So actually we are on the same side even though we are not.
It seems so simple to me as to how the process should work. It clearly escapes the likes of folks like Andrew Sullivan. Sad.
Sure. I don't quite understand the motive though. With marriage comes not only legal benefits, but legal duties.
I guess the point I was making was a bit too subtle for you. Read my last post again and really concentrate this time.
You asked a question, and I answered it. Fair enough?
That about sums up the American way, and what it means to be a good citizen, even if while "accepting it," you advocate repeal, as is you right.
And the Left knows it cannot now, or in any foreseeable future, win a fair democratic fight on this matter, just as they can't for abortion on demand. And that is exactly why they won't rest until they have a federal court imposition of it on the entire nation, just as they have on abortion with Roe.
But I agree, that if it were implemented democratically, w/o any judicial involvement, then it would be easier to accept.
Perhaps the Pro-Marriage forces should consider calling the bluff of all of those congressmen who said they oppose an Amendment on the grounds of states rights, and offer up an alternative that explicity bars the Courts at any level from having any say on the matter, be it marriage or the legal incidents thereof. That way, at least, we could be sure that the matter will now and always be settled democratically.
You answered it alright. Now lets debate the pros and cons of giving sharp knives to toddlers.
The homosexuals are liars in the marriage debate. Here in California during the campaign for Proposition 22, which defined marriage as a man and a woman, the homosexuals lied and said that they weren't interested in gay marriage. They urged a "no" vote because it was mean spirited, the law had always been interpreted to be that marriage was 1 man and 1 woman, and that the whole thing was unnecessary. Fast forward 4 years, and homosexuals are getting "married" by the mayor of San Francisco. So it turns out that homosexuals were interested in marriage. They lied about their true intentions then, and it makes it hard to believe what their true intentions are now. I think that their true intentions don't stop with 2 person homosexual marriage. I think they will want to re-define marriage again after they succeed, if they succeed, in forcing homosexual marriage on America.
Where do I sign up?
Frankly I am not sure you are worth engaging in a discussion. Convince me I am wrong.
I am not sure what you mean here. Please elaborate. Thanks.
The libs advocate state's rights only when it suits their purposes. It's a short-term tactic and would quickly be forgotten in favor of national recognition of gay-marriage.
Take your posts elsewhere. You are spoiling for some kind of flame thing, and I just don't do that. We are done.
"I oppose gay marriage, but if validly voted on at the ballot box, then I would accept it."
Under all conditions?
If you were a minister with religious scruples against gay marriage would you perform a marriage ceremony for a gay couple because the law says they are marriageable and the law (as it will sooner or later) says you have to?
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.