Posted on 06/11/2006 4:18:20 AM PDT by Oshkalaboomboom
The nation just witnessed the dreary spectacle of the most powerful deliberative body in the world weighing the most important social issue of our time - an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defending traditional marriage -in a debate dominated by hypocrisy, cynicism and a concerted effort at reality-avoidance.
Democrats and half a dozen Republicans wouldn't even allow the amendment to come up for a vote. A move to cut off a filibuster (60 votes needed) failed 49 to 48.
"A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry," slurred the senior Senator from Massachusetts. In so saying, Edward Kennedy labeled all 8 U.S. Catholic cardinals - leaders of his Church - bigots, not to mention that notorious hatemonger, Benedict XVI (who also opposes Brokeback Mountain marriages).
The party of perversion was in rare form. I mean perversion of the truth, not the other kind of perversion - which they also favor.
Howard Dean had a new scream: "Democrats are committed to fighting this hateful, divisive amendment."
What about not allowing a brother and sister to marry, or a man to marry four women, or a teacher to marry her 13-year-old student, or a man to marry a horse - is that hateful and divisive too, Governor?
The party whose last president didn't know what the meaning of "is" is, -- the party that condoned Clinton's perjury -- mobilized its full armada of deceit, deception and slander to misrepresent an amendment which is the essence of simplicity.
In pushing the amendment, the president and Republican congressmen were "playing politics" (i.e., using an issue for political advantage) they whined, something Democrats would never dream of doing - except with Social Security, gun control, abortion, hate-crimes legislation and any other issue on which they decide to pander to part of their constituency.
(Excerpt) Read more at donfeder.com ...
Ted Kennedy:Isnt he the guy that had his marriage annulled by the catholic church so he could marry someone younger and someone he handt turned into a drunk yet? Didnt that make Patches illigitimate?
Tha Catholic Church has issued some stunning annullments for the Kennedy's. First they annulled Aristotle Onassis marriage so he could buy a piece off Jackie the former first lady turned prostitute for 12 million dollars. Then they annull Ted marriage. Yes: I find fault with the fact that those with cash can buy annullments.
While I support the measure, im pissed that the GOP is trying to pander to us by bringing up this legislation at a time when they aren't doing anything that we want, at least on the Senate side. Pass the house version of the immigration bill already. This is just a waste of time. They knew it wouldn't pass, they wanted to use the vote to show the public who was with them or not on this issue. Frankly enought states, and growing oppose this, that a constitutional amendment is mitigated. Lets get to real issues please.
I agree that Feder is about the best: and this is the best overall summary of the case for the marriage amendment.
From 1668:
Part IV. Of the Kingdom of Darkness
Chap. xlvii. Of the Benefit that proceedeth from such Darkness
[21] ...For from the time that the Bishop of Rome had gotten to be acknowledged for bishop universal, by pretence of succsession to St. Peter, their whole hierarchy (or kingdom of darkness) may be compared not unfitly to the kingdom of fairies (that is, to the old wives' fables in England, concerning ghosts and spirits and the feats they play in the night). And if a man consider the original of this great ecclesiastical dominion, he will easily perceive that the papacy is no other than the ghost of the deceased Roman Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof. For so did the Papacy start upon a sudden out of the ruins of that heathen power.
[22] The language also which they use (both in the churches and in their public acts) being Latin, which is not commonly used by any nation now in the world, what is it but the ghost of the old Roman language?
[23] The fairies, in what nation soever they converse, have but one universal king, which some poets of ours call King Oberon; but the Scripture calls Beelzebub, prince of demons. The ecclesiastics likewise, in whose dominions soever they be found, acknowledge but one universal king, the Pope.
[24] The ecclesiastics are spiritual men and ghostly fathers. The fairies and ghosts inhabit darkness, solitudes, and graves. The ecclesiastics walk in obscurity of doctrine, in monasteries, churches, and church-yards.
[25] The ecclesiastics have their cathedral churches, which (in what town soever they be erected) by virtue of holy water and certain charms called exorcisms have the power to make those towns cities (that is to say, seats of empire). The fairies also have their enchanted castles, and certain gigantic ghosts that domineer over the regions round about them.
[26] The fairies are not to be seized on and brought to answer for the hurt they do. ***So also the ecclesiastics vanish away from the tribunals of civil justice.***
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan: with selected variants from the Latin edition of 1668. Ed. Edwin Curley. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994.
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html
Personally, I am not against two consenting adults from entering into a contractual relationship. To be against such a contractual partnership would be discrimination. It just cannot be called "marriage."
>>slurred the senior Senator from Massachusetts.
Yes, as Howie Carr would say, "He'd take a drink under
extreme social pressure." Or get a "bad ice cube"
Perhaps it's those conservatives who actually see this as the debacle it really is who should worry you. It has been labeled as an amendment to protect the institution of marriage. What a hoot. Funny how those who want to protect marriage ignore the 10 million living together outside of marriage, or the 2 million people a year who divorce, or the more than 1 million children caught up in divorce every year, or the more than 3 million divorced single parents, or the more than 4 million never married single parents. Forget the drugs, alchohol and abusive marriages, lets amend our Constitution to stop the gays from marrying.
So far about 6000 same sex marriages have been performed in Massachusetts. So far I can't think of a single threat they have been to traditional marriage, none! So if you want to protect marriage, look at the 800 pound gorilla in the living room instead of the cockroach.
Of course you're right. I'm old enough to remember when girls who got pregnant went off to live with relatives so their families could avoid the shame it brought on them. A friend of my father had to withdraw his sponsorship of a Little League team because he got divorced and they didn't want the kids to be associated with it. But these institutions have been slowly breaking down until there is little, if anything, left to be ashamed of. So are you upset that people are making any stand at all or just this particular stand?
So if you want to protect marriage, look at the 800 pound gorilla in the living room instead of the cockroach.
The gorilla grew to be 800 pounds by feeding on all of those cockroaches. Your point about the harmless marriages in Massachusetts does sound reasonable. Let me remind you that what happened to people practicing another perfectly legal pastime (that would be smokers, a group of which I don't personally belong) all started with a perfectly reasonable and harmless request asking that smoking be limited to the last 4 or 5 rows of an airplane.
A sure sign of the end of the west. The family is the most basic tenet of civil society. Leaders of the world know that socialism is about to implode on itself.
My point is that this amendment has nothing to do with the protection of marriage. It has everything to do with other concerns people have and has no business being sold as the protection of marriage.
Let me remind you that what happened to people practicing another perfectly legal pastime (that would be smokers, a group of which I don't personally belong) all started with a perfectly reasonable and harmless request asking that smoking be limited to the last 4 or 5 rows of an airplane.
Here is the comparison. Most states have outlawed homosexual marriage, which is fine, since family law is clearly within their authority. Conversely, if such bans are legitimate (which they are), then a state also has the right to permit homosexual marriage, or the bans would be meaningless.
States also have the obligation to protect the health and welfare of its citizens. If a state believes smoking to negatively affect others in addition to the smoker, it has the power to regulate its use in public. If the voters of that state believe such regualation is wrong, then of course they can bring enough pressure to have the law or laws repealed.
This is, almost verbatim, the most common response by the homoadvocates pushing for same-sex marriage across the board. The experiment in America is in its infancy. We have other examples to which to refer when assessing the ultimate effects upon a society of such a policy: The Netherlands and Holland.
Whatever you may think of Judge Robert Bork, he has advanced some of the most cogent arguments available on this subject:
The moral line between heterosexuality and homosexuality has been drawn for good reason. For thousands of years civilizations have drawn that line, and it has all the legitimacy that tradition, religion, and concern for the persons directly involved and for the rearing of children can confer. There is no other line regarding sexuality as firmly rooted as this one. But once that line is breached, there is no other line, no fallback position, of any remotely comparable strength. William Bennett was entirely correct: "Say what they will, there are no principled grounds on which advocates of same-sex marriage can oppose the marriage of two consenting brothers. Nor can they (persuasively) explain why we ought to deny a marriage license to three men who want to marry. Or to a man who wants a consensual polygamous arrangement. Or to a father and his adult daughter.1"2
1. William Bennett, The Broken Hearth: Reversing the Moral Collapse of the American Family (New York: Doubleday, 2001), p. 113.
2. Robert H. Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline(New York: ReganBooks/HarperCollins, 2003), p. 370.
I wouldn't know, for I am not a homoadvocate, nor am I pushing for same sex marriages anywhere. In fact it would seem that most states forbid same sex marriages which is fine. But those states that approve of them have that power to do so. But so far, it appears to be a response which lacks any cogent counter.
The experiment in America is in its infancy. We have other examples to which to refer when assessing the ultimate effects upon a society of such a policy: The Netherlands and Holland.
And your conclusions?
I am a Robert Bork fan and sorry he was borked out of the USSC. Having said that, if you break down his argument, it presents two theories. First, we should not permit same sex marriages because that's the way our society has always been (our moral line in the sand). Second, he throws out the oft used camel's nose under the tent. Both fail. How we have done it for centuries still does not answer the questions of what those 6000 marriages in Massachusetts has done to harm marriage in any way. As for the camel's nose theory, every state can prohibit whatever it wants in the way of family law and if challenged under the 14th Amendment, has an opportunity to present the state's legitimate interest in the discrimination. Most states prohibit same sex marriages, and the courts have found their defenses adequate. So I continue to not see an issue here, certainly not one requiring a constitutional amendment.
But this is about some kind of moral line in the sand. It is not about the protection of marriage.
I think you overlooked a key point in Feder's essay:
Again, the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment is about constraining one group, and one group alone -- judges who care nothing about 5,000 years of tradition, biology, the religious values on which our nation was founded, public opinion, the outcome of elections or actions by the duly elected representatives of the people.
A couple of points. First, of course Congress can dictate those areas it wants the lesser federal courts to refrain from, and has done so on a number of occasions. So no amendment is necessary for keep the district and appeals courts out of marriage issues. Second though, if the purpose is to step into state affairs, rational folks need to think long and hard about that. Each state constitution has set up a balanced three branch governmental system, similar to that of the federal government. When the judges of any state find a constitutional violation of certain rights within that state, it is up to the people of the state to rectify that by a change in the constitution. This is exactly what Massachusetts is doing now. This issue is not in the court system. It is completely in the legislative. If the people of the other 49 states step in and tell the officials of a state that their constitution need not be construed to say what it may in fact say, then we have created a constitutional crisis in that state, by inserting a de facto fourth branch of government. Officials will either be violating their constitution or the Constitution of the US. We have no business creating that dilemma, especially when it is completely curable within the state.
The party whose last president didn't know what the meaning of "is" is, -- the party that condoned Clinton's perjury -- mobilized its full armada of deceit, deception and slander to misrepresent an amendment which is the essence of simplicity.
I think Newt did too.
You present NOTHING to argue against homosexual marriage being anything but an objectively disordered burden upon society(you would probably get immediately zotted for doing so) instead you attempt to disparage heterosexual marriage? Moral relative arguments such as this are flawed -the comparative construct you attempt fails -homosexual marriage is and will always remain an objectively disordered burden upon society REGARDLESS what you choose to compare and or contrast it with...
So far about 6000 same sex marriages have been performed in Massachusetts. So far I can't think of a single threat they have been to traditional marriage, none! So if you want to protect marriage, look at the 800 pound gorilla in the living room instead of the cockroach.
Are you suggesting homosexual marriage is a good idea forced upon society by leftist judges because YOU and the leftists see no threat to "traditional marriage" <---- (you actually mean REAL marriage)?
ROTFLMAO I suggest you go to DU where such leftism is good arguments are welcome...
Have you any concept of how pathetically ridiculous this sounds. It makes absolutely no sense. Well, I said it, so zot me, or shut up. You bet I think those things are the real dangers to marriage. That you don't speaks volumes about your lack of concern for marriage and your 24/7 concern for the bogyman.
Are you suggesting homosexual marriage is a good idea forced upon society by leftist judges because YOU and the leftists see no threat to "traditional marriage"
This may be tough for you to grasp, but I don't have to like or agree with something to recognize it as no danger. If, on the other hand it is, why don't you articulate exactly what that danger is?
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.