By the Stroke of a Pen: Will the Supremes Legalize Gay ‘Marriage’?

Breakpoint with Charles Colson ^ | March 30, 2005 | Charles Colson

[ladtx]

One entry found for oligarchy. Main Entry: ol·i·gar·chy
Pronunciation: 'ä-l&-"gär-kE, 'O-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -chies
1 : government by the few
2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3 : an organization under oligarchic control

Why not just start calling it what it is.

The Oligarchy of the Nine.

[Mr. Silverback]

Call me skeptical, but I don't think they have the "courage" to do it. After how anti-gay marriage amendments fared in November, I think the Justices may realize they could lose bigtime if they invalidated all the state constitutional amendments.

If someone had told you ten years ago that the Court would have the "courage" to declare certain kinds of child porn "free speech," while deciding that political speech was not free at a certain time of the year or if paid for in a certain way, would you have believed them?

[Mr. Silverback]

its a majority of the states in any case I believe....

I'm not sure of the number, but consider this: Ban referenda passed in eleven out of eleven states in November, in margins over 60% in all cases, and two of those states (OR and MI) were states that Dubya lost by a wide margin. Even libs think this is a bad idea.

[Mr. Silverback]

I hope some good Congressmen and Senators are reading up on impeachment and trials of Justices. It's about time to put them in their place. When the First Amendment was gutted, it was a serious wake-up call. If they overturn a 70%+ opinion of the electorate, it will be time to throw a few out.

It will be hard, but it is necessary. If we fail to reign in the judiciary, the historians will point to the session where the Court placed "virtual" child porn under free speech protection and endorsed CFR, and say, "That's where they should have done something."

[Mr. Silverback]

I think Colson is correct that the Council of Grand Ayatollahs will impose gay marriage by a stroke of the pen shortly - three years at the outside. Grand Ayatollah Kennedy will likely author the decision. The amendment would be wonderful, but I think that an Article 3 law that forbids judicial review would be the best route short term.

Agreed, especially about the Article 3 method.

[Mr. Silverback]

If the Supreme Court does declare this, they will by default also be declaring that polygamous marriage is a constitutionally protected right based on the very same legal grounds.

Indeed. Right after the Court ruled in Lawrence vs. Texas, a polygamous trio (husband and wife looking to add on another wife) attempted to obtain a marriage license and are now suing Salt Lake County, citing that L v. T's reasoning concerning consenting adults and state interest clears the way for polygamous marriage. Frankly, I agree with them. If the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of moral issues that they are setting themselves up as, L v. T legalizes any marital or sexual arrangement consenting adults desire, end of story.

[Mr. Silverback]

I don't think George III had nearly as much power. He had a very contentious parliament to deal with.

Excellent point. Yes, and no. George did have a rough time with Parliament, and that's one reason he asked Lord North to be PM, because he knew he was an excellent parliamentary tactician and would be tough (ruthless, even). But George would also just do end runs around them. For example, when he and North first became aware of the aliance between the Americans and the french, they witheld that information from Parliament. George was afraid they'd insist on war with France and really ruin his day.

If we don't rein them in soon, this country will either have a Lexington and Concord/Fort Sumter moment (bad) or we will be too whipped to have a Lexington and Concord/Fort Sumter moment (horrible).

[Mr. Silverback]

A few questions:

1. What's with the "m@rri@ge" spelling?

2. You wrote this...

Fear of new and unfamiliar social change is understandable...and not only to conservatives...remember how the liberals were terrified that 'shall issue'/'right to carry' handgun carry-permit legislation if enacted widely by US states [now about 2/3 isnt it?] would lead to 'bloodbaths on the streets'.

Now let me ask this...what if the libs had been able to point to another country that had experienced a bloodbath in the streets when it adopted shall issue permits? That would bolster their argument, wouldn't it? In fact, it would be the best kind of evidence, no specualtion, no tortured conclusions, just "They did the same thing and this happened."

Well, here's the problem: In countries that have already jumped off this bridge, we've seen more kids born out of wedlock, few homosexual marriages/civil unions and plenty of suppression of free speech and religious practice. Why should any conservative favor and initiative which led to more fatherless households and tyrannical restrictions, especially if the folks it was supposed to benefit won't take advantage of it?

3. Last time I checked, the same homosexual activists who are pushing homosexual marriage had bullied your country into restricting freedom of speech and religion. If Sam and Laura want to go out on the street corner with a bullhorn or on the radio and read Romans 1, do they get to? Will the Swedish pastor sent to jail for reading Bible passages about homosexuality in a church feel his freedom is undiminished because Sam and Laura had a nice wedding? Are you really going to lecture us about "fear" of social change from a country where the government is afraid of Christians reading things out loud?

4. Have you read any of these:

Results of gay marriage in Scandinavia.

Results of gay marriage in Holland

Where it will lead sociologically.

More on Holland (and why contraception, secularization, etc. aren't the reason for the European problems)

Let's be nice, live-and-let-live libertarian types, just like in Canada.
(In Sweden and Canada gay activists got parts of the Bible made "illegal." Do we want to encourage them in the USA?)

Why libertarians should stand up against gay marriage.

Anything else is covered here.

[Mr. Silverback]

Yet I have changed my opinion on gay marriage or at least legal secular partnership with all rights of marriage. I have come to think that conservative gays (of whom I know a few) should be allowed to support and be a part of conservative family life. Monogamy is good, and I'd like to see less promiscuity among both gays and straights.

Well, you are on the opposite side from me for good reasons, but the problem is that the things you are expecting from homosexual marriage will not materialize. We know this because they haven't materialized in other countries.

Let's say though that they would: Is less promiscuity among homosexuals worth the effect on heterosexual families (see below)? Is that (or being "part of conservative family life") worth the degradation of basic freedoms that has followed in Sweden and Canada?

Check these out. Like I said, they deal with the experience other countries have had with these policies, and they have been a disaster, and I can't think of any definition of diminishment" that wouldn't apply to what these policies have done to hetero marriage in those countries.

Results of gay marriage in Scandinavia.

Results of gay marriage in Holland

Where it will lead sociologically.

More on Holland (and why contraception, secularization, etc. aren't the reason for the European problems)

Let's be nice, live-and-let-live libertarian types, just like in Canada.
(In Sweden and Canada gay activists got parts of the Bible made "illegal." Do we want to encourage them in the USA?)

Why libertarians should stand up against gay marriage.

Anything else is covered here.

[MikefromOhio]

well I will tell you what, I have 3 uncles up in Michigan. All 3 are very catholic and all voted for Kerry. But all 3 voted for the gay marriage ban up there.....

[Mr. Silverback]

Yep. A lot of Blacks and Catholic Dems did just what they did. It should give the SCOTUS pause that 70% or so of Americans oppose homosexual marriage, and the vast majority of those oppose it without knowing how it's worked out in other countries. I expect the number to hover around 70%, with some of the 30% changing sides from learning about the Scandinavian experience, and some of the more "instinctual" 70% changing because of propaganda--the press will beat the drum on this until it either is implemented or dies an ignominious death.

[judgeandjury]

Indeed. Right after the Court ruled in Lawrence vs. Texas, a polygamous trio (husband and wife looking to add on another wife) attempted to obtain a marriage license and are now suing Salt Lake County, citing that L v. T's reasoning concerning consenting adults and state interest clears the way for polygamous marriage. Frankly, I agree with them. If the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of moral issues that they are setting themselves up as, L v. T legalizes any marital or sexual arrangement consenting adults desire, end of story.

Thanks for the info. I agree that if same-sex marriage is legalized nationwide, it will indeed be a short step to legalizing polygamous marriage, and I don't see how the Supreme Court could argue against allowing it.

[ALPAPilot]

The problem with gay marriage is two fold. It perpetuates harmful ideas of the purposes of civil marriage. and harmful ideas of limited government. I quote Blackstone:

The duty of parents to provide for the maintenance of their children is a principle of natural law; an obligation, says Puffendorf, laid on them not only by nature herself, but by their own proper act, in bringing them into the world: for they would be in the highest manner injurious to the issue, if they only gave the children life, that they might afterwords see them perish. By begetting them therefore they have entered into a voluntary obligation, to endeavour, as far as in them lies, that the life which they have bestowed shall be supported and preserved. And thus the children will have a perfect right of receiving maintenance from their parents. And the president Montisqueiu has very just observation upon this head: That the establishment of marriage in all civilized states is built on this natural obligation of the father to provide for his children; for that ascertains and makes known the person who is bound to fulfill this obligation: whereas, in promiscuous and illicit conjunctions, the father is unknown; and the mother finds a thousand obstacles in her way; - - - shame, remorse, the constraint of her sex, and the rigor of laws; --- that stifle her inclination to perform this duty: and besides, the generally wants ability.

Since California's "Family Law act of 1969" (No-fault divorce) obligations to children is no longer the principle underlying civil marriage. Romantic feelings have supplanted parental obligation. The harm this has caused is immeasurable. Millions of children without fathers. Thousands of children from broken homes committing countless crimes.

Gay marriage is also an assault on limited government. The state is involved in heterosexual marriage because governments are instituted among men to secure inalienable rights and children must be cared for. Marriage is the institution that covers this requirement. The state has no reason to be involved in the relationship between to men. They are free to enter into any contracts they wish. They cannot however beget children therefor that state should not be involve.

[pbear8]

Our black robed masters will do as they like.

Just as George III and Lord North did...

Not to mention Darth Vader.

[Mr. Silverback]

Not to mention Darth Vader.

I don't think George III ever wore a black robe...but he did have blue pee.

[Yaelle]

Fantastic collection. I am rushing through the first article and have to give it a deeper look later. This is great and my indeed shoot down my conservative argument for gay partnership. I am not sure.

I feel that the USA is more unique than the European, esp. the Scandinavian countries, with its religious freedom and thus more love for religion. I do not think we will go the way of Sweden.

Thanks.

[Mr. Silverback]

I feel that the USA is more unique than the European, esp. the Scandinavian countries, with its religious freedom and thus more love for religion. I do not think we will go the way of Sweden.

Thank you for taking a look at those. As for the Sweden thing, I agree to this point: It won't happen here, but only if we make it clear that we will fight it in the streets if necessary. And it may be close to being too late; Illinois just recently passed an anti-discrimination law and made no provision for churches. So, if my church grows some and needs a secretary, and my pastor refuses to hire a member of ACT UP, the State comes after us.

[Blind Eye Jones]

I read the articles you posted on gay marriage and I thank you for this valuable information. Great read and very revealing!

[Mr. Silverback]

You're welcome!