Posted on 03/14/2005 12:16:45 PM PST by Dont Mention the War
Breaking...
Don't know why we Californians even bother with elections anymore. Just let the dictators in black robes decide our laws for us.
This is great news for the republicans. The anti-gay marriage backlash will continue to push more and more of them into office just as it did in the last election. I also can't think of a better issue for getting minorities to vote for republicans.
That's because you can't, given your convoluted logic. Pedophilia has also existed since the beginning of time and only arbitrary law makes it illegal.
How about two consenting adult siblings, shouldn't they be permitted to marry too? That's been around since the beginning of time too. And save the lame genetic defect argument , they can always have an abortion. Either admit incestuals should be allowed to marry too or at least admit you're a hypocrite.
As I recall,(going by memory only) the SCOTUS refused to hear the case - so they did not affirm, but in effect allowed the lower court ruling to stand.
Of importance here is a state judge sworn to uphold the State Constitution ruled against the state Constitution. O'conner has ruled against the Federal Constitution, which she swore to uphold, and instead ruled according to "state interest".
The rule of law no longer applies - we are under the rule of the courts and no one is safe from this horrible plague that will destroy this land.
Gays are not the cause of the problem, they are the curse promised when we forsake the ways of righteousness.
here in massachusetts, the gays circumvented the electoral process by equating their plite with the civil rights amendment of 1964. The obvious choice was to use the court system because the people shouldn't be allowed to vote on "human rights issues"
here in massachusetts, the gays circumvented the electoral process by equating their plite with the civil rights amendment of 1964. The obvious choice was to use the court system because the people shouldn't be allowed to vote on "human rights issues"
Spousal rights regarding testimony in a trial?
I'm glad you've brought this up, because it's a huge issue -- one that pretty clearly implicates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
There are two distinct marital rights as regards testimony; one is the privilege protecting private spousal communications, the other is the right to refuse to testify against one's spouse. Right now, so far as I know, same-sex couples do not enjoy either of these protections anywhere in the U.S. except (I assume) Massachusetts and (now, I further assume) California.
I don't really think those need addressing, they are flame bait,That's because you can't, given your convoluted logic. Pedophilia has also existed since the beginning of time and only arbitrary law makes it illegal.
Actually at least two other posts in this thread have addressed this (one of them is mine), and it doesn't seem hard to deal with at all. If the parties to a proposed marriage aren't legally able to give consent, there's no marriage.
As for incest, well, a limitation on marrying relatives isn't a limitation on the form of marriage, so I'm not sure it's relevant here anyway.
This is just part of the leftist degeneration of American culture!
If you are bothered by the gay bias you are free to leave!
My bad! I meant to ping someone else with my last post to you! Sorry!
Multiple marriage partners was not before the court, but I don't see how he would decide differently.
No different than the queer judicature, who is benefiting from all of these personal decisions?
You obviously are siding with the wrong Judges because that USSC ruling was cherry picking scientific studies to back up their leftist agenda. You should read Scalia dissent unless you dont like Scalia which says alot!
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. Traditional marriage has served many purposes, some beyond the ken of the "rational" mind. Here we have the rational overthrowing the traditional (the tyranny of the "mind" you dismissed) and an event that a conservative would definately agree is immoral...
I think if two people of the same-sex want to be together, and they agree to do so, I don't plan to stop them. However don't ask us to change the definition of mariage so they call their "relationship" something that it is not.
More importantly, don't ask us to make their "union" equivilent to mariage.
Damn straight Travis. It took generations, but this is the reward of the 17th.
There's a big assed fan out there.
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.