Posted on 06/17/2008 8:55:59 AM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
“And we’d be subjecting our children to a vast, untested social experiment whose consequences no one can foresee.”
Well, I think we might have seen a taste of it in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible. There the righteous had to lock themselves in fortresses and attempt to buy off the natives from raping even visitors to that fair civilization. Evil had total freedom and righteousness insured prison.
I agree 100%.
And, using the phrase
“redefining marriage”
is totally incorrect.
The correct phrase is
“UNDEFINING marriage”.
McCain is no more “my boy” than Obama is yours, however, we do know for certain what type of judge’s Obama the Muslim militant will chose. You would have to be a fool to think Obama would be the better choice.
Barack Hussein Obama, says of his nominees, “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old and that’s the criteria by which I’ll be selecting my judges.”
John McCain says of his nominees, “The duties and boundaries of the Constitution are not just a set of helpful suggestions. They are not just guidelines to be observed when it’s convenient and loosely interpreted when it isn’t. In federal and state courts there are still men and women who understand the proper role of our judiciary and I intend to find them and promote them. My nominees will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power.”
Seriously, it’s not about “getting married” for the activists -
it’s about undefining marriage, removing the pillar of our society.
Evidence - only 5% of “gay” couples get married in Canada where it’s fully legal.
The correct phrase is
“UNDEFINING marriage”.
bttt
I agree, for some it is about undefining marriage altogether. But that is not what pushes four out of seven justices to render their ridiculous decisions.
I'll expand on that. For the judges, and many proponents of gay marriage (not necessarily activists), it is truly about eradicating so-called "second-class citizen" status. Western civilization is very strong on universals, sometimes to its detriment. The by-product of that universalism is that fighting discrimination has legitimacy that resonates deeply with folks.
The counter-rhetoric spoken to defeat judicial activism in this and other cases, to be more successful may present a view that doesn't ignore the sense of fairness driving those undesirable decisions.
I kind of expect the 9th Circus to take it up at some point and try to force the abomination on the entire country at the same time it “strikes down” the California marriage amendment when it passes or even before it pases.
Just how is marriage discrimination “against” the homosexual population? Marriage consists of a man and a woman. There has never been a legal stricture against a homosexual man marrying a woman or a lesbian marrying a man.
Isn’t there any way to vote out these liberal activist judges? They are deliberately trying to destroy the traditional family unit.
It made sound crazy but since the majority of Christians can’t scream and yell about homosexuality without being accused of a hate-crime,then let’s see how the Muslims deal with it! And then I want to see how the liberals deal with the Muslims. It could prove to be interesting.
I guess you could say “the honeymoon’s over.”
I think Ms. Gallagher is being charitable in the extreme by calling the pronouncements of the gay-marriage media "surprisingly open." I would call them swaggering, saber-rattling, and gloating.
It is a law of nature that "pride goes before destruction." And that is a very good thing.
This is on a runaway train headed straight for SCOTUS. Within a week, there will be a lawsuit filed by a Nevada/Utah/Idaho/pick any state gay couple in the United States District Court, challenging the full faith and credit clause in the U.S. Constutition, when they get married in California and are told by their home state that their marriage is not, and will not, be recognized as lawful in Nevada/Utah/Idaho/pick any state.
Also, I think Blacks are not really keen on Gays comparing their “struggles” with those of the African-American community. As one Black friend of mine put it: “during the Civil Rights movement, you couldn’t exactly HIDE the fact that you were black. Gays, on the other hand, don’t have to let anyone know they’re gay until they want to. It isn’t like anyone in Montgomery was going to through a sissy-boy off the bus for sittin’ up front!”
Maggie Gallagher and her razor-sharp message need to be showcased in every major periodical, blog, or television production that will have her from now until the November election. The things she reveals, if allowed to be disseminated, will sweep the homo-activists' agenda back a few years.
Excellent, pithy post.
If we strip away the definition of marriage all together, the moral center of gravity in civilization as we know it completely disappears.
Gov. Patterson of NY has demonstrated that it’s simply up to the Gov. to force state agencies to recognize gay marriages in any state, even if they are not legally able to perform them.
Has Gov. Schwarzenegger gotten any opportunity to appoint to the Cal. Supreme Court? Despite Arnold’s disappointing position on this issue, I wouldn’t be surprised if he appointed a fairly originalist jurist.
Getting closer to Revolution time...
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.