Posted on 05/12/2005 5:13:09 PM PDT by drt1
It's called 'Right of Contract'
Oh what nonsense.
It bans civil unions/partnerships and gay marriages.
It doesn't stop other forms of contracts.
BUNK
Well that was the concern I was raising. What would distinguish a 'civil union' (between anyone not just gays) from some sort of contractual bond for fiduciary reasons.
Ok I'm confused here. I posted on the other thread about this and now this one. Does anyone know the makeup of the Court of Appeals it will go to?
hmmm...well, that is a good question.
He can write a will and leave it to anyone he wants without any change to the law. I'm just saying that the right of contract is not a talisman that makes anything OK. Otherwise, laws against prostitution, pornography, murder for hire, whatever would be unconstitutional since they can all be viewed as contractual.
The bottom line is this: The Constitution does not require that gay people be permitted to marry, or otherwise enjoy a legally protected marriage like relationship. We've got judges making up the law as they go along.
Now, I am not a lawyer, but couldn't the gay guy delineate who gets his stuff after his death with a simple will? And as far as medical decision making, I would think an advance directive or medical power of attorney would do just fine.
This judge needs to be impeached, removed from office, and subjected to public shame and ridicule for the rest of his natural life.
No one cares who they leave their property to. The issues are whether they qualify for tax benefits, health care benefits, etc.--whether they enjoy the same legal benefits that are conferred on marriages.
Makes perfect sense. I just worry that a ban on civil unions would interfere with basic rights like the ones you mentioned.
If they want to declare that they are in a civil union, I have no problem with that. The problem is that we are now being asked to recognize it, and give them the same benefits as married couples.
Because straight couples will rightfully be entitled to civil unions too, and then marriage will end as the preferred institution of family.
You are absolutely correct. The judge is absolutely wrong.
That's a good point.
An amendment won't work the judges no longer follow the constitution. We only have three options;
Change the character of the courts by replacing judges with individuals that respect the constitution and limited government.
Strip the authority for judical review from the courts under article III of the constitution.
Remove activist judges from the bench by consolidating or eliminating the courts.
I used to think ignoring their rulings would work but down that road lies anarchy. Of the three choices I think stripping judical review authority is best because it restores the origional arrangement under the constitution.
Next.
Read carefully...
It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made "separation of church and state" a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices. Congress, state legislatures and public referenda have statutorily determined polygamous, pederast, homosexual, and incestuous marriages are unlawful. No Constitutional Amendment restricting marriage is required to regulate "practice" according to the Reynolds decision.
Marriage is a religious "rite," not a civil "right;" a secular standard of human reproductive biology united with the Judaic Adam and Eve model of monogamy in creationist belief. Two homosexuals cannot be "monogamous" because the word denotes a biological procreation they are not capable of together; human reproductive biology is an obvious secular standard.
All adults have privilege to marry one consenting adult of opposite gender; therefore, Fourteenth Amendment "equal protection" argument about "privileges and immunities" for homosexual marriage is invalid. Driving, marriage, legal and medical practices are not enumerated rights; they are privileged practices that require statutory license. Nothing that requires a license is a right.
Homosexual monogamy advocates are a cult of perversion seeking ceremonious sanctification for voluntary deviancy with anatomical function and desperately pursuing esoteric absolution to justify their guilt-ridden egos. This has no secular standard; it is an idolatrous fetish. Why not properly apply the adjudicated Reynolds 'separation of church and state' here?
No person can logically say that carnal practices engaged by homosexuals are consistent with human anatomical function. It is obvious, and an impervious secular argument to say that biology is a standard by which we can measure. The hormonal drive to mate is biologically heterosexual. Either homosexuality is a choice, a birth defect, or it is a mental illness. Take your pick.
Morality and all of its associated concepts are from the belief some higher power defines what is correct in human behavior. Today, "morals" are a religious pagan philosophy of esoteric hobgoblins. Transfiguration is a pantheon of fantasies as the medium of infinitization. Others get derision for having an unwavering Judaic belief in Yahweh or Yeshua, although their critics and enemies will evangelize insertion of phantasmagoric fetishisms into secular law.
Was Freudian psychoanalytic theory of sexual stages in psychological development more accurate than accredited? The Michael Jackson Complex is fixation on mutilation of and deviance with human anatomy in the media. It is a social psychosis catering to the lowest common denominator and generated with Pavlovian behavioral conditioning in popular culture.
Should we really be canonizing special societal privileges in the law based on idolatrous fetishes? Perhaps civil union and homosexual monogamy advocates in politics and the media could conclave to enshrine their own phantasmal state religion and consecrate Michael Jackson as its first ecumenical Pope!
The greater question is if the Congress can pass a law defining what lawful marriage is without a Constitutional Amendment and the Supreme Court has said yes, upholding that power. Congress can pass a marriage definition and enforcement law under the powers conferred to it by Reynolds v. United States...
"…In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control... Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices... So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed..."[Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).]
The important aspect is the power of Congress and the state legislatures (not local municipalities or the courts) to legislate, by statute alone, restrictions on marriage. The Congress can either make lawful polygamy and homosexual marriage, or make both illegal based on what the Congress thinks will be beneficial. The Defense of Marriage Act by Congress and constitutional prohibitions by most of the states is consistent with these ends: Reynolds v. United States is legal precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Activist elements of the judiciary have ignored the case law precedent set by the Supreme Court concerning statutory law regulating marriage practices and corrupted the Constitutional 'separation of powers' by legislating from the bench. It is time legislative and executive bodies of government do their sworn duty to defend the Constitution. Leg-islators need to impeach and remove judges from the courts (and other officials from public office) who break the law by acting beyond their legal jurisdiction. This is not exclusive to an issue of "states' rights" at all…
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).
See Also: Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478 (1890). Revised as 140 U.S. 665, 11 S.Ct. 884, 35 L. Ed. 592 (1891).
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.