Rose Bird. This judge deserves the same treatment.
When does he come up for re-approval before the people again?
Posted on 03/14/2005 12:16:45 PM PST by Dont Mention the War
Breaking...
There is no "love test" for marriage. In the entire 200 year history of the USA there has been no love test.
No fault divorce does not have a love test.
The homosexuals' demand are ONLY based on popping an orgasm via a fetish. It is not based on contributing to society but on converting an institution based on non-individualistic selflessness into a government santion if individualistic recreational sex.
Rose Bird. This judge deserves the same treatment.
When does he come up for re-approval before the people again?
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
That may well be, but it misses the point.
The point is that it is simply not possible for our government, as currently constructed, to limit the definition of marriage to a man and a woman. Folks could pass marriage protection amendments to every constitution they could find, and the courts will still rule restrictions unconstitutional. The will of the people is already clear in this matter, but the will of the people don't mean a thing.
Since it is not possible to make the government and courts do what we want them to do, it is necessary to limit the amount of damage they can do. In the past 70 years, government interference in the laws of marriage and divorce has eroded the institution in every way. In our grandparent's day, marriage was presumed to be a lifelong commitment, and people only got divorced under the most serious circumstances. Today, people go to a wedding and openly speculate on how long it will last. The state has decided that people can dissolve their marriages at the drop of a hat, so it is now assumed by society that this is the only standard. The government standard has supplanted the traditional standard.
Government involvement in marriage was a mistake. Fighting battles about who can and cannot be married will only compound that mistake. It is time to get the state as as far away from possible from the things we treasure, because the state can only destroy them.
If you had a neighbor who routinely let her children play on a busy highway, would you let that neighbor care for your children? The state is ten times worse than the irresponsible neighbor, because the state will destroy what you love as a matter of course.
Yow!
The gays nearly hijacked this thread. 8-)
Re Judge Kramer:
Confucius say: Gay judge make gay rulings.
Remember this one?: Did you hear about the two queer judges? They tried each other! :-0
To the gay posters: Despite all your careful and self-serving reasonings, you cannot get past the word "marriage".
As has been mentioned often in this thread, marriage is an instutition, developed for good reasons over thousands of years all over the world. It is a respected institution by the entire world, except for homosexual activists.
Thus, you will never get support for your cause by those who believe in, and have lived their lives by, the institution of marriage.
Gay rights is not an institution. Its political history basically goes back to the Mattachine Society and later to Act Up. The rest of the gays stayed in the closet, because they felt despised by straight society. They were right to feel that. Public knowledge of gay activity came from police department arrests made in public restrooms, and observing the glory holes and the disgusting loiterers on occasion.
The reality is that your "institution" and the institution of marriage are mutually exclusive. What you want, you can't have, because you don't qualify.
Try as you might, you cannot separate your homosexuality from you being a "gay" human being who just wants to be equal. We both know that the majority of gays believe the "marriage" issue should not be a part of the "equality" argument.
Many do, as do I, agree that a civil union type of arrangement would work best. Two people in love should be able to have an official, sanctioned relationship, with full (AFAP) rights and privileges. But not, IMO and that of more than just a few others, if you insist on calling it "marriage".
Fighting for marriage rights wrecked the gay movement in this last election. Judge Kramer's decision has about the same effect as the SF mayor's did. Kramer's decision was a no-risk popularity grab to enhance his support with SF's large gay community.
Yes, absolutely. The polygamists actually have a stronger leg to stand on than the gay people.
The will of the people doesn't matter, unless of course it benefits the homosexual agenda.
"lifestyle choice that leads to a life expectancy of fourty with a prolonged and horribly slooooooow death"
Source(s)? You may need several to support the numerous questionable assertions.
(But aside from that reasonable expectation in such a discussion, I am inclined to agree with you on principle about business owners having the right to make any rule they want.)
They are for some people and not for others, that is the point.
Exactly!!
Judges do not make the law!
It was a state court, in San Francisco. Nope, no pro-sodomy bias there!
I think the argument lies in the pursuit of happiness and anyone being allowed to marry anyone they want (i.e., equal rights) so long as the other person is deemed to be able to consent. (THus leaving out age, animals, etc. There are some other stipulations as to number of people involved and familial relations. They're interesting and I'll go into them at some point if you care to find out from me.)
Ha ha, so sorry! I did read your sentence exactly WRONG! As you point out. So, no need to argue back against me. I do apologize for being so annoying.
As for your later point about mom and dad, that is an assertion that would make a good working hypothesis, but it is not clear that any two parents won't be able to reach the same measurable objectives.
Now I hope I read that right! :)
I see that now. (You may wish to see how others addressed it and my response.) Thanks to you, too.
Life experience tells me that the brains of people of all ages are still developing.
There is nothing in the universe which makes human beings preordained for marriage. It is a contract, a covenant if you will, which is by tradition and intent reserved as an agreement between and man and a woman.
Personally, I don't care who you live with. And any person in this country has the same rights to property, personal safety and liberty as any other.
I don't see that altering the meaning and purpose of marriage serves a greater good.
It is only an assertion that it is better to have a mom and dad? Sorry, you are what is wrong with America, my friend. That ideas is so foolish as to almost appear to be a Saturday Night Live skit. Why not a mom and a dog who really loves and protects the child? Men and women bring different things to a child that two people of the same sex can never bring.
I am a scientist. We are talking on two different planes. Opinion vs. Fact. I can value both, though.
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.