Local 78 Gay Union.
Posted on 05/28/2006 5:33:55 PM PDT by madprof98
In 1964, just one congressman from the Deep South, Atlanta's Charles Weltner, voted for the Civil Rights Act. For all practical purposes, his righteous leadership on civil rights — he also supported the Voting Rights Act — cost him his congressional career.
In 1966, he resigned his seat rather than sign an act of loyalty to the segregationist Lester Maddox, as Georgia Democrats insisted. But some analysts believe he would have lost the race for re-election.
Doing the right thing is difficult because it often means losing. And the typical politician is willing to lose anything — honor, integrity, dignity — but an election.
That helps explain why, during this election season, so few politicians have stepped forward to denounce initiatives against gay marriage as the cynical and opportunistic tactics that they are. They know that playing on prejudice and fear can rally a certain constituency and provide the winning margin in tight races.
It certainly worked two years ago. Republican tacticians maneuvered to add amendments against gay marriage to the ballots in 11 states, including Georgia. The result was to lure religious conservatives to the polls in large numbers, probably giving President Bush the boost he needed in the battleground state of Ohio.
This year, conservative Republicans — struggling against voter discontent over Iraq, health care and high gas prices, among other things — are desperate to bring those religious conservatives back to the polls. So they've resurrected the same tired tactic. Next month, the Senate is expected to vote on an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex unions.
Senate leaders haven't made much of an effort to disguise the initiative as anything other than the base political ploy that it is. After a frenzy of gay-bashing during the 2004 campaign season — they thundered against gay marriage as a threat to just about every family tradition, from man-woman marriages to peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches — Republican leaders hadn't even mentioned the issue again. The threat disappeared for two years. Until now, when they're facing the prospect of losing control of Congress.
Given the stakes, prominent Republicans won't get in the way of a good wedge issue. Oh, first lady Laura Bush has pointed out the unfairness of a constitutional amendment. So has Mary Cheney, the vice president's gay daughter, who lives openly with her partner of 14 years, Heather Poe, and has recently published her memoirs. This month, Cheney told CNN that "writing discrimination into the Constitution of the United States is fundamentally wrong."
But it's unlikely you'll hear the vice president arguing against the amendment so pointedly on the campaign trial. While he has said in the past that he opposes it, he'd rather remind his right-wing supporters of his staunch support for the invasion of Iraq. President Bush, for his part, has spent his last pennies of political capital trying to pass a humane policy on immigration. He may not fight for an amendment banning gay marriage, but he's unlikely to get in the way of it, either.
In Georgia, meanwhile, even progressive politicians have been cowed by the state's overwhelming consensus against gay marriage. Though 76 percent of Georgia voters approved the ban two years ago, a Superior Court judge recently struck down the amendment on technical grounds. After the ruling, Gov. Sonny Perdue, a Republican, quickly announced plans for a special session of the Legislature to rewrite the ban and place it before voters again in November. His two Democratic opponents, Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor and Secretary of State Cathy Cox, rushed to support the move.
Cox's awkward leap onto the bandwagon was especially disappointing. While Taylor had supported the ban, Cox had pointed out two years ago that the amendment is "unnecessary." Georgia law, like federal law, already bans same-sex unions. But many analysts have noted that Cox is desperate to draw black voters away from Taylor in the Democratic primary for governor; black Georgians, like their white neighbors, gave their unabashed support to enshrining bigotry in the state Constitution.
Cox, like most other politicians, would rather pander to the prejudices of voters than stand by her principles. It's a perfectly human inclination — doing the safe thing, rather than the right thing.
There are never more than a handful like Weltner, who preferred losing a campaign to sacrificing his conscience. In his resignation speech, he declared, "I love the Congress, but I will give up my office before I give up my principles. ... I cannot compromise with hate."
His courage is as rare now as it was then.
I'm so sick of this disingenuous accusation used by the left: that conservatives are using this as a "wedge issue" to get voters to the polls. Is it beyond this mental midget's comprehension that those who put those legislators in office did so because they shared the same values as the voters and were EXPECTED to advance such legislation!?
OTOH, you are simply an ignorant, pathetic fool filled with rage and hate, yet unable to articlulate a single credible response to any argument. Your only answer is a series of ad hominem attacks which tell much more about you than it does me.
But then, lets talk about you for a bit. Your hero Sir Francis Dashwood speaks volumes about you and your values. Would you like to discuss the Hell Fire Club? Would you like to discuss their symbol of a phallus? Would you like to discuss his hatred for Christianity and his adoration of Satan? How about his hero, Bacchus, the Roman god of wine and intoxication, in whose name the most notorious sexual perversions were performed, so outrageous that even the liberal Roman Senate outlawed them?
Yes, I've seen you attempt to explain away the real Dashwood, but it won't fly. Dashwood was a sexual and religious deviant, a student of every cult that denied Christianity, virtue, ethics or moral behavior. Your hero embraced that which you try so hard to decry on these threads. You are a fraud!
You are correct that the USSC has the last say in constitutional issues. And you are also correct that few saw this coming. Yet I have explained in detail why it is far too early to engage in the lengthy process of a constitutional amendment. There will be many warning signs that the courts have found a weakness in the DOMA. If a district court tosses out DOMA, I believe there is little chance any but the 9th Circuit would concur. Nor do I believe the current USSC would concur.
A great British parliamentarian once noted that the greatest acts of statesmanship involve forseeing preventable evils, and preventing them before they become reality. Unfortunately, such statesmanship is a rarity. That's how we got into this current immigration mess. It's how we ended up with Roe vs. Wade, affirmative action, and McCain-Feingold.
If I read you correctly, you feel that a number of constitutional amendments are necessary? Not sure where you are going with affirmative action though. Nor should either the left or right look to every conceivable issue that may come to light at some future date and begin a series of constitutional amendments.
And it's how we'll end up, within the next decade, with a Supreme Court fiat ordering nationwide gay "marriage", and all that accompanies it (gay adoption, gay curricula in the public schools, etc.), followed a few years afterward by a court ruling stripping churches that don't perform gay "marriages" of their tax exempt status (based on the Bob Jones ruling).
As far as I know, the only issue here is whether the DOMA protects states from having to recognize gay marriages from another state pursuant to Article IV. No constitutional amendment should prohibit any nontraditional marriages legalized within a state. A recent 11th Circuit opinion stated most categorically that it will not substitute its values over those of the state except where the BOR or the 14th Amendment are violated. I am comfortable with that.
Not so. The decision merely reflected that religious practice is no defense to actions which contravene the law. As Utah was a territory at the time, the federal courts were involved. As a state, Utah can legalize nontraditional marriages if it so chooses. If anything, the decision upholds those states that prohibit nontraditional marriages.Reynolds has nothing to do with this issue at hand.
As for the other decision, again I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with it.
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.
Marriage may be a religious rite, but it must also be legitimized by the state, to have any effect of legality. Most states do not legitimize homosexual marriage.
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.
Not so. As I have previously explained to you, monogamy connotes several things. This from the American Heritage Dictionary:
1. The practice or condition of having a single sexual partner during a period of time. 2a. The practice or condition of being married to only one person at a time. b. The practice of marrying only once in a lifetime. 3. Zoology The condition of having only one mate during a breeding season or during the breeding life of a pair.
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 such "practice" according to the Reynolds decision.
We are in complete agreement. Any state that does not legalize homosexual marriages is safe. Any state that does is safe. Thank you for clarifying that.
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.
Once again, you have completely made my case for me. Thank you.
Pay attention to the words in red:
Article. IV.
Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
And that is exactly what the the Congress has done with DOMA. DOMA addresses Article IV specifically. Why do you not understand that?
It needs to be resolved immediately by a total refutation with logic that homosexual monogamy is not possible. It needs to be banned totally and put to rest through an Amendment so that liars like you cannot foist it upon us.
Your silly agenda belies you. You are not attempting to protect states. You are attempting to foist a restriction on the states. Let them decide what they want to do, and protect the states that do not want such marriages. Oh, wait. DOMA already does that.
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.
That's completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Should a state be bound by your determination, or be permitted under the Tenth Amendment to decide for itself?
Either homosexuality is a choice, a birth defect, or it is a mental illness. Take your pick. It is a filthy disease generating behavior and is a risk to the public health.
All unprotected sex is a risk to public health. If you feel that way, then I would think you would clearly approve of those who establish a monogamous relationship, regardless of gender. You seem to want to deny the very thing that will prevent such risks to public health.
MACVSOG68, you are not a skillful liar...
You do not appear to be very skillful at anything, let alone lying.
Local 78 Gay Union.
Wrong again. Read it in red:
Article. V.The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,...
Not lying very skillfully today, are you?
3. Zoology The condition of having only one mate during a breeding season or during the breeding life of a pair.It is only applicable to my discussion of scientific fact, not religion, and does denote biological procreation...
Confounding language... You are a cultural Marxist and the enemy...
Didn't the Supreme Court in Loving vs. Virginia strike down laws banning interracial marriage as violating the 14th Amendment? Granted, there was no DOMA at the time protecting the states, but I fail to see how that would have stopped the court from doing what it did. Would a judge such as Margaret Marshall (Massachusetts judge who ordered gay "marriage" within her state) be stopped by anything short of an explicit constitutional amendment? A judge willing to override the traditional right of states to determine their marriage laws would simply toss DOMA aside with impunity.
Then, in the early 80s, the Supreme Court held that churches that refused to sanction interracial marriages were not entitled to tax exempt status. The court flat-out asserted that since "public policy" supports interracial marriage, it overrides any 1st Amendment right to religious liberty the offending church may possess.
Anyone can see we're heading for a train wreck on this. Unless we pass the Federal Marriage Amendment, there will eventually be three or four states joining Massachusetts to sanction gay "marriage". Not by popular vote, but by judicial fiat by state courts. This may include populous states such as California or New York, both of which have leftist state Supreme Courts.
This will lead to a ton of sob stories in the media and in the law journals about "apartheid" forming within our nation, as gay "married" couples are forced to live in the few states that sanction their perversion, since they can't move without losing their "marital" status. We'll hear about John & Brucie, the loving "married" couple from Massachusetts who wanted to move to Kentucky to accept a lucrative job offered to John, but couldn't go because their "marriage" would have been voided. We'll hear about Susan & Hillary, a loving couple who wanted to move to Utah because of the excellent marketing program at one of the colleges there, but they couldn't take advantage of this educational opportunity without losing their "marital" status.
Wanna place any bets on the Supreme Court being able to resist getting involved in this one, on the side of the gay activists? If President Bush gets another appointment, and he appoints someone good, we MIGHT survive it for a while. But the current court with Anthony Kennedy and four lefties is high risk, as is a future court with new liberal appointees.
Then, throw in what I call the NAFTA factor, the legalization of gay "marriages" in Canada and some European nations. We'll be told that we're losing out on importing gay computer programmers, gay investors, gay this and gay that in violation of assorted free trade principles by not recognizing Dutch or Canadian gay unions. I can even see our next Democrat president working with the UN to void DOMA.
This is a real threat and we need to recognize it before it's too late.
I have confronted you directly...
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
...you are simply an ignorant, pathetic fool filled with rage and hate
Your disparagement of the religious folks opposing this perversity here on FR is certainly worse...
You consider it a “sin” to hate something deviant and filthy?
That helps explain why, during this election season, so few politicians have stepped forward to denounce initiatives against gay marriage as the cynical and opportunistic tactics that they are. They know that playing on prejudice and fear can rally a certain constituency and provide the winning margin in tight races.
Oh the horror of the politically irrelevant and morally delusional touting the unprecedented while being subjected to the overwhelmingly precedented historical whims of the politically relevant and morally upright.
It all seems quite normal politics to me despite the indignant enraged screams and persistent whining from the left. It is clear they scream for societal acceptance and support of homosexual sex and as such they scream for the bizarre, the unhealthy, the procreatively devoid...
In this culture war issue it is evident that the homosexual activists will not stop until stopped -the delusional goal of homosexual marriage must be quickly, soundly, and uncompromisingly defeated asap -no quarter must be given.
Stopping this madness is not a wedge issue -it is the madness itself that is the wedge issue and it would appear it is a wedge issue that will not go away until soundly dealt with. As such IT is time for this wedge issue to become a grave marker issue. The homosexual activists have been via coercion, intimidation and judicial activist rulings wedging their way into society by substituting their leftist village concept of reality for that which society chooses to and has always observed...
It is way past time to bury the delusional platitue of homosexual marriage once and for all!
Those that cry, "Protect States Rights", when it is clear that no such platitude is possible on this issue advocate a position of compromise with the morally compromised and politically irrelevant...
The distinction here is that the 14th Amendment was clearly ratified for one purpose, to protect those of other races from being prevented from engaging in activities otherwise legal to those of the white race. The DOMA is very narrow in scope, in that it protects states from having to recognize nontraditional marriages from other states. It says nothing about homosexual marriage per se, other than as it concerns the federal government. Can I tell you that homosexual marriage proponents will not test the waters with a 14th Amendment challenge. No. But the 11th circuit decision I mentioned is a clue that it will be an uphill climb. And in any case, a constitutional amendment that did in fact have the effect of negating the BOR or the 14th Amendment for a class of individuals would no doubt be struck down itself by the USSC.
Would a judge such as Margaret Marshall (Massachusetts judge who ordered gay "marriage" within her state) be stopped by anything short of an explicit constitutional amendment? A judge willing to override the traditional right of states to determine their marriage laws would simply toss DOMA aside with impunity.
Two points. In the Massachusetts case, the ruling used the Massachusetts constitution as the baseline. This summer, the good people of Massachusetts are going to amend their constitution to meet the challenge of the judge. Second, I never said there would not be a challenge to DOMA. I expect it. What I said is that it is my opinion that no circuit court outside of the 9th would uphold a challenge to DOMA, and if so, even less chance that the current USSC would uphold it.
Then, in the early 80s, the Supreme Court held that churches that refused to sanction interracial marriages were not entitled to tax exempt status. The court flat-out asserted that since "public policy" supports interracial marriage, it overrides any 1st Amendment right to religious liberty the offending church may possess.
Again, there is no comparison to interracial marriage and homosexual marriage, in that any homosexual can legally marry a member of the opposite sex. I don't see a natural comparison to the two. And again, the 14th Amendment protects against racial discrimination, but not necessarily against all discrimination.
Anyone can see we're heading for a train wreck on this. Unless we pass the Federal Marriage Amendment, there will eventually be three or four states joining Massachusetts to sanction gay "marriage". Not by popular vote, but by judicial fiat by state courts. This may include populous states such as California or New York, both of which have leftist state Supreme Courts.
But each of those states have that right. I really don't care if they do. I only care if my state considers it. And regardless of what a state judge does, a state constitution can be amended to cure the issue, just as Massachusetts is set to do.
Wanna place any bets on the Supreme Court being able to resist getting involved in this one, on the side of the gay activists?
Sure. Since the USSC essentially upheld the Florida 11th Circuit decision on appeal, by refusing to review it, it speaks volumes about how they would rule in these cases. How about a beer?
I can even see our next Democrat president working with the UN to void DOMA.
A good reason to vote Republican. But remember, it was a Democrat who signed DOMA into law. Any attempt to dismantle it would require both houses of Congress and a willing president. We are still a long way from that.
But if the amendment is designed to usurp state powers, then I would completely oppose it. If it is to protect states and constitutionalize DOMA, then while I don't see the necessity, I would support it.
What again are you arguing?
It is self evident that on ALL the homosexual agenda topics I ping -where I notice your postings, you are the PONG...
It is self evident that on ALL the homosexual agenda topics I have been lucky enough to view your articulate free thinking and conservatively incredible support of the homosexualization of society that YOU but advocate the leftist position on this issue and as such are but a troll in need of zotting...
As such, I will hit the abuse button on your postings AGAIN to add to what I am sure is a documented trend precipitated by other legitimate conservative posters on FR -a trend that the moderators will not soon be able to help but notice and deal with...
Excellent analysis, and I challenge anyone to dismantle it.
I concur. It was a well written analysis. But it was effectively responded to.
You're correct that the 14th Amendment was ratified to prevent racial discrimination, but the Supreme Court long ago expanded it far beyond that. And in Romer vs. Evans, they expanded it to "protect" homosexuals, with Anthony Kennedy writing that bigotry was the only possible reason voters might have for treating homosexuals differently from heterosexuals. Read Scalia's stinging dissent on that 6-3 ruling.
You're also correct that there's a huge difference between prohibiting interracial marriage and prohibiting gay "marriage". The problem is, liberals don't see it that way. They see the Boy Scouts as the equivalent of the KKK because they won't send little boys camping with gay scoutmasters. BTW, the scouts won at the Supreme Court by the breathtaking margin of 5-4. I'm glad they won, but it's pretty apparent that there are already four votes on the court to expand the gay agenda exponentially. Combine that with Kennedy, or the appointees of a future Democrat president, and were hanging by a thread.
You seem to be using the same argument that moderate Republicans always use. Why, there's no need to pass a law banning "X"! It's unthinkable that anyone would ever try to legalize something as unpopular and untraditional as "X"! Let's concentrate on more important things like the budget deficit or our trade imbalances, rather than stirring up turmoil by talking about "X"!
It's a sure recipe for disaster.
Thanks! I miss out on a lot of these threads, but I really appreciate the job that you, DeBeers, and others do in exposing the gay agenda.
I lived in Colorado then and voted for Amendment 2. The courts found that Amendment 2 singled out homosexual and bisexual persons, imposing on them a broad disability by denying them the right to seek and receive specific legal protection from discrimination. In other words when we voted for Amendment 2, we said that no jurisdiction could create specific laws protecting homosexuals.
Justice Kennedy said however, that oftentimes a law will be sustained under the equal protection clause, even if it seems to disadvantage a specific group, so long as it can be shown to "advance a legitimate government interest." Amendment 2, by depriving persons of equal protection under the law due to their sexual orientation failed to advance such a legitimate interest. Had Colorado specified for example that no homosexual adoptions could take place, nor any nontraditional marriage, I see no reason why it would be overturned as Amendment 2 was. The Florida decision seemed to confirm that.
They see the Boy Scouts as the equivalent of the KKK because they won't send little boys camping with gay scoutmasters.
Yes, liberals see it that way. Not sure the KKK comparison is valid, but in any case, the USSC supported the Boy Scouts in this issue, as you pointed out.
but it's pretty apparent that there are already four votes on the court to expand the gay agenda exponentially.
The USSC refusal to accept the 11th Circuit appeal seems to indicate that it will be a long time before that happens.
Combine that with Kennedy, or the appointees of a future Democrat president, and were hanging by a thread.
Kennedy voted with the majority on the Boy Scout case. The only four possible replacements for the years to come are liberals. I see no danger of this relatively conservative court suddenly shifting its moral compass.
You seem to be using the same argument that moderate Republicans always use. Why, there's no need to pass a law banning "X"! It's unthinkable that anyone would ever try to legalize something as unpopular and untraditional as "X"! Let's concentrate on more important things like the budget deficit or our trade imbalances, rather than stirring up turmoil by talking about "X"!
I'm not questioning your motives in the slightest. So would appreciate the same in return. Nevertheless, in this particular case, there are far more important issues to deal with including immigration reform, the war on terror, including those you listed above.
But once again, I do think we are not addressing the same issue. I am discussing only a challenge to DOMA. Others here are discussing an amendment to prevent a state from exercising powers granted to it in the Constitution. This I can never agree to.
it is not a waste of time because it forces the kenedys, kerrys and the bill nelsons and McCain Rinos to go ON THE RECORD.
This is good.
It prevents cover for the cockroaches in an election year.
She is a homoappologist or a homosexual herself who push the LIE that homosexual behavior is equal to skin color.
The homoadvocats know this is a death blow for their nomalizing movement. It puts into black letter constitutional law that marriage is not about recreational sex. Homosexuality is only about recreational sex and thus would never fit into any marriage or marriage lite relationship.
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.