Posted on 03/14/2005 12:16:45 PM PST by Dont Mention the War
Breaking...
Ah! Finally the weather is getting back to normal slowly but it's coming! The weekend was nice saw the group Chicago in Temecula this weekend "AWESOME" and the weather was great out there! Rancho Bernardo is nice, I think there are many Freepers out in SD county, only have met one who I helped with the last Presidential election.
Looking forward to Spring/Summer although I read on another thread Art Bell is predicting a 6.0 earthquake..LOL...
Their consent to sex is irrevelent, but somehow they are capable of giving consent to an abortion without parental notification and their consent suddenly is relevant. Selective justice?
Let people get married by their churches or however they want, then register a domestic partnership with the state, if they choose to. Domestic partnership would come along with a whole raft of rights and responsibilities, but would have nothing to do with marriage. The state would then dissolve the domestic partnership in divorce, but the marriage would be the business of whatever entity did it in the first place.
Well put. This has been my own view for years.
I'm sure I'm in a very small minority on FR, but for the record I agree with the logic of the rulings in all of these recent cases. Religious marriages recognized by private organizations are the business of those private organizations, but state-registered civil marriages -- whether called 'marriages' or 'domestic partnerships' or 'civil unions' or whatever -- should be available to same-sex couples for as long as they're available at all. The various courts that have addressed this issue in the famous cases of the past few years have gotten the Constitutional part right. (I only wish they were as zealous in protecting Second Amendment rights.)
The power of the government is not a legitimate weapon in a 'culture war' -- on either side. The government simply has no legitimate role in the marriage-definition game (other than restricting unions to parties legally competent to give consent).
cool....I actually saw Chicago when I was living down in Long Beach in the late 80s.....think near Anaheim, and obviously had only two orig members or something like that.....they were kind of flat, like the Beach Boys have been in their advanced age......LOL>..maybe it is our advanced age.........haha.......
So all gays are really concerned about with this marriage smoke and mirrors action is to enable more people to suck on the government teat?
Oh well than, he will be overturned I hope!
Perhaps, but laws/norms on marriage between men and women predated the Constitution. They are not unconstitutional.
State.
I can't speak for them. I was just responding to your assertion that all the benefits of marriage can be obtained through a private contract.
This is not Sweden or Holland (yet).
If we can't limit marriage to men and women in the U.S., I don't want to stay here.
Follow the money!
LOl..Actually I think there were about 3 or original band members along with a couple new guys but they played some of there best 25 6 to 4 Saturday in the Park. Freedom and the song I'm a Man was excellent a Great Drum Solo very impressive!
Hey!
Us Baby Boomers look darn good IMO especially from a gneration that partied like no other has...Haha
What about interspecies? A guy who wants to marry his horse or a gal who wants to marry he dog?
Instead of asking these questions, the one we should be asking is why the legislature doesn't just limit the jurisdiction of this court, impeach them or consign their territory to the Island of Alcatraz?
I think it was Phyllis Schlafly way back in the 1970s who predicted much of this. The slippery slope argument pertains to this just as things way back then led us to this point.
But it was the Lawrence ruling helped weaken everything in a hurry. That was supposedly just about privacy, or so said the advocates. It had NOTHING to do with marriage. Hmmm....funny that is seems it had EVERYTHING to do with marriage. It will be no more right, in this way of thinking, to exclude gays from parenting than it is from marriage. The philosophy of the one argument kills any attempt to rationally argue any way but pro-gay on the other.
The gay lobby has always used phony arguments in an incremental way. They don't even hide that fact. What all of this will lead to is the treating of homosexuals as a special protected class just like blacks. They will get preferences etc. They will probably get reparations easier than blacks because their so-called mistreatment under the law is more recent. All references to husbands and wives will be scrubbed from society. Any attempt to say that heterosexuality is the norm will be called bigotry. Homosexuality and every other perverse sexual orientation will have to get equal time and treatment. Weird things like public restrooms will even be affected. Men and Women restrooms will offend the transgendered and make them feel left out. So just like we must have ramps for the disabled, we will have to have a transgendered restroom for that protected class. America -- heck, the world -- has lost all sanity.
BTTT!!!!!!
You are very wrong... IMHO.
Government DOES have a key role in determing what is right or wrong in our society. The "legalizing" or public recognition of "gay mariage" would mean that "We the People" have sanctioned this "union" by allowing it to take place.
David
You are quite correct...
Not trying to bring a fight over from another thread (feel free to respond to me back on the original), but I wanted your reaction to this article. Seems to me this is exactly what we were debating...
LOL -apparently you are not advocating homosexual agenda again?
Government DOES have a key role in determing what is right or wrong in our society. The "legalizing" or public recognition of "gay mariage" would mean that "We the People" have sanctioned this "union" by allowing it to take place.
Only for as long as 'We the People' persist in thinking that registration somehow also confers everyone's moral or religious approval. I suspect that most of the same-sex couples out there would simply point out that they didn't ask your opinion in the first place.
At any rate, my own view is that you and every other private party, whether individual or organzational, should be free (as for the most part you are now) to refuse to recognize any such union for your own purposes.
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.