Posted on 07/10/2006 4:06:21 PM PDT by america4vr
Jul. 10, 2006 | There's nothing like a judicial ruling -- in this case, the extremely tortured one written last week by Judge Robert S. Smith of the New York Court of Appeals against gay marriage -- to make me feel simultaneously all-powerful and helpless. On Friday, my family read the news over breakfast. I was on my way to volunteer at my church food pantry; my wife was finishing the endless paperwork for our 17-year-old daughter's college loan, and Katie -- one of the "children" in whose interest the court said it ruled -- was on her way out the door to her summer job.
Who knew we could have such a grandiose impact? Just by hanging out in our kitchen, the three of us challenge what Smith called the "accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex." By asking for the legal benefits of marriage, we threaten the already unstable institution of the heterosexual family.
Judge Smith's decision posited two major reasons to "rationally support" the ban on gay marriage -- both of them grounded in the assumption, which I share, that marriage is important to the welfare of children. After a few factually incorrect preambles (note to judge: Not all gay couples become parents through adoption or "technological marvels"; we can tell you how reproduction works later, in private) he launched his argument.
First, the judge delivered a surprising attack on the heterosexual agenda: Straight people, he said, are really bad at marriage. Opposite-sex relationships, wrote the judge, are often "casual" or temporary. (Wasn't that what right-wing frothers used to say about queers?)
(Excerpt) Read more at salon.com ...
Judge Smith's decision posited two major reasons to "rationally support" the ban on gay marriage -- both of them grounded in the assumption, which I share, that marriage is important to the welfare of children.
Actually the judge cited many incidental reasons that "rationally support" marriage as it is and always has been understood. Including one if not the only primary rational based reason that homosexual couplings do not nor can not aspire too -procreation...
Creating children is a far different vocation than that of raising children...
Children need to grow up within a normal, heterosexual-parent family -- ideally, the one that conceived them. Gay couples have NO right to deprive children of that experience. Gay couples' twisted view of normalcy need not be the issue, so long as they don't foist it on children or impressionable teens.
Why should marriage and with it the societal accommodation and privilege be limited to only heterosexual couples that wish to marry?
Simply put, because society has decided so. As evidenced in tradition, conventional wisdom, common law, and enacted law. Society -the people through elected representatives, in legislative bodies have enacted legislation that is premised alone upon the rational basis of procreation -society has decided such... Unlike those arguing for a leftist utopian socialist village ideology would suggest, marriage has never been accommodated, merited privilege, and rewarded simply to foster and promote love or even monogamous sex...
Incidental exceptions, e.g. couples who choose to contracept, do not negate the basis, they test it and in doing so clearly contrast against and specifically identify the basis that some attempt to deny as one very much existing and relevant. Case in point, Griswold v. Connecticut where premised upon a right to privacy it was decided that individuals have the right NOT to procreate via use of contraceptives...
One can clearly see that with Griswold it is that contrasted with the exception that demonstrates clearly the rule, the rational basis of procreation exists!
Regardless a legislature has not chosen to handle exceptions to the basis, e.g. those that choose to contracept, exceptionally by incorporating more rules or by changing totally the basis or doing away with ANY marital accommodation -that is their prerogative, not something for the courts to decide.
Again, as evidenced in Griswold v. Connecticut, there is no supposed heterosexual (or homosexual) right to be accommodated and rewarded by society for entering into non-procreative marriage -such marriages are exceptions incidental to the basis of procreation with such incidence being premised in the right to privacy (just as abortion is). Unlike privacy, marital accommodation, subsidy, and reward is a societal privilege premised upon legitimate and rationally based societal discrimination -marital accommodation, subsidy, and reward is NOT a right...
It is only by illegitimately ignoring the rational basis of procreation - illegitimately conflating the right to privacy (which prohibits the State from enforcing procreation) with the privilege accorded marriage (rationally based in procreation as provided for legislatively by the State) that one can even attempt to argue the ability to choose to engage in homosexual sex with another as something that merits anything from society.
In essence, homosexuals do not get a "free pass" under the privacy right like non-procreative heterosexuals do BECAUSE homosexuals objectively can not possibly ever procreate homosexually...
The ability to procreate and the possibility of procreation -something two homosexuals can not do no matter how much they try...
Some may argue -but what of no-fault divorce laws? Did not the "procreative position" as to rational basis lose most of its force in the 1970's when almost every state passed no-fault divorce statutes?
The legal impact of no-fault divorce laws could be argued both ways and I would suggest that in resolving apparent contradictions between the two ways one would necessarily find the truth as to just what the continued rational basis premising accommodation and privilege of heterosexual marriage was and even more so is now as evidenced by direct correlation to continued societal accommodation and privilege.
e.g. no fault divorce simply is an admission that love can not be legislated and as such is by default not a rational basis premising ANY accommodation and privilege (therefore promoting love via homosexual marriage is a non-starter)...
e.g. no fault divorce simply is an admission that keeping a couple together in the interest of raising children can not be legislated and as such is by default not a rational basis premising ANY accommodation and privilege (therefore promoting raising of children via homosexual marriage is a non-starter)...
IF society has not and does not reward love and child rearing with the benefits reserved marital privilege then what is the rational basis? -- The answer is obvious --PROCREATION
Btw, that's a guy.
Children need a male and a female role model in a permanent relationship, not some distorted government experiment aimed at redefining marriage, subverting the family.
That deserves a bmup all by itself...
One wonders about the "how to" manual.
But one does not want to read it.
Unless the kid was cloned, her daughter IS the child of opposite sex parents, whether she wants to admit it or not.
I have no problem with same sex relationships in the sense that I wish to tell them what to. As long as they show some sense of discretion and decorum. I don't care if they wish to set up some kind of civil contract.
But it is not, nor can it ever be marriage. And should never be codified as such. A dog does not become a horse because we change the way it is spelled. You can name your dog Seattle Slew, but he still can't run in the Kentucky Derby.
And it is unclear to me what "legal protections" and "rights" the child of a married couple has that a child of a single parent is supposedly lacking. Again, the left is out there demanding special privileges be given under the guise of "rights". They surely have bastardized the Constitutional concept of rights.
LOL, is that like brilliant darkness or broiled ice cream?
These liberal scumbags crack me up. Their frustrated, whining, teeth-gnashing irrationality simply brings joy to my heart. All is right in the world when the scumbags are crying.
Really?
Would somebody please explain to me how faggots manage to procreate?
I must have missed something in biology classes.
Nobody ever mentions all those little gay bastards, conceived out of wedlock by gay lovers. Don't all those little illegitimati deserve to be made legal?
Oh, wait.
They hire a stud service, Mr. Turk E. Baster.
Fast and furious, isn't it?
Have you see wagglebee around lately?
Sara, dear, I think most of us, never mind the judge, understand quite well how reproduction normally works already. That's really what's perplexing us in cases like yours. I suppose if we ever meet, I can buy you a drink and a cigar and we can toast the fact that you're not shooting blanks.
It's time for - - -
Cue Theme Music
Announcer: In today’s episode of Gay Divorce Court, a lesbian couple from San Francisco, California comes before Judge Yolanda Sans Spermatozoa to put an end to their six month marriage amid allegations of mental cruelty, false imprisonment and emotional distress.
Marie Ball-Bustier has filed for divorce from her long time lover and short time spouse, Vaginitia Lackluster, claiming among other things that Ms. Lackluster has tried to impregnate her against her will and has taken to locking her in the car on family outings. Let’s now join the court as Judge Sans Spermatozoa solicits testimony in this emotional case.
Marie: Your honor, I’m a feminist/lesbian and I object to any intrusion into my bodily orifices because of my conviction that all heterosexual behavior is rape perpetrated by a patreo/judaeo/christo/mohammedo/capitalo societal framework embossed onto our collective consciousness by Republicans and their archetypical co-religionists.
So you can imagine my surprise when Vaginitia attempted to impregnate me with a commercial grade turkey baster and the sperm of a man whom I consider to be a psycho-historical revisionist.
Vaginitia: Your honor, for years I complied with Marie’s wishes concerning her physical apprehensions but now that we’re married I feel that I have a right to offspring. Since Marie’s my wife, I feel it’s her obligation to give me children…
Marie: I’m NOT the wife!
Vaginitia: You’re the wife…
Marie: NOT!!
Judge Sans Spermatozoa: Womyn, please! Since this is a new area of the law and we’re just making it up anyway, I feel that I have the discretionary latitude to assign roles in these matters. Ms. Ball-Bustier, you’re the wife…
Marie: NOT!!
Cue Theme Music
Cut to Commercial
"extremely tortured" is what gay marriage is all about, Sara.
Not recently that I can recall...
"The N.Y. court says marriage is good for kids. Then why doesn't my daughter deserve the same legal protection as the children of opposite-sex parents?"
Because you chose not to marry her mother (or father) and decided to shack up with someone of the same sex for a counterfeit marriage.
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.