Replies

Like it or not, this is the function of a Supreme Court: to determine if our laws are consistent with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In 1958, only 4% of whites approved of interracial marriage. When interracial marriage was finally made legal ten years later, only 17% of whites approved. Why was it made legal? Because a few “imperialist activist judges,” oh, I mean the U.S. Supreme Court, ruled that it was fundamentally unconstitutional to deny citizens the right to marry the person of their choice. I quote from the court’s decision from this case (Loving v. Virginia, 1967): “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man’.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.” Replace “race” with “gender” and you’ve got yourself gay marriage.

Like it or not, this is the function of a Supreme Court: to determine if our laws are consistent with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Absolute poppycock. Nowhere does it say that the unelected courts shall be able to define the moral behavior of the people. Nowhere.

Using your logic, a man would be able to marry his son. No one has the right to do that.

If you're comfortable living under a judicial tyranny, that's fine. But just wait until that judicial tyranny comes gunning for you--you won't like it so much then, trust me.

Answer me this. Who or what gives human beings their rights?

Like it or not, this is the function of a Supreme Court: to determine if our laws are consistent with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ... Replace “race” with “gender” and you’ve got yourself gay marriage.

No. Determining if our laws are consistent with what the Constitution actually says is the function of a Supreme Court. Their Constitution lists the criteria for equal protection, and sexual orientation is not on the list. That should end the discussion, at least at the Supreme Court level. Determining what the Constitution and the state's laws should say is the function of the legislatures or the voters. By creating new laws that are not supported by a literal reading of their Constitution, the Connecticut State Supreme Court has exceeded their authority, and that is by far the biggest problem with their decision.

To save myself a lot of HTML editing, I'm going to post to you twice, because one of my evidence lists is HTML formatted and the other isn't.

Let's put aside the absolutely ludicrous idea that this...

...and this...

...are in any way equivalent, that the term "marriage" can even be applied to a union of two homosexuals. Let's talk about fire in a crowded theater.

The Constitution states that my right to freedom of speech shall not be abridged, but I can't express myself by yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. That's because the possibly disastrous impact on others outweighs my right. I submit that homosexual "marriage" would be the demographic equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

Now, here's my first list...keep it in mind when you read the next post:

Gay Marriage? What could it hurt?

Results of gay marriage in Scandinavia.

Results of gay marriage in Holland. (Note: Written before the Dutch decided to legalize polygamy.)

Where it will lead sociologically.

More on Holland (and why contraception, secularization, etc. aren't the reason for the European problems)

Why libertarians should stand up against gay marriage.

Now, here we get to the meat:

In the links that I posted to you previously and the ones that will follow, I can show that acceptance of sexually-based privileges for homosexuals has led to the following things:

1. Increased illegitimacy in the heterosexual population

2. A decrease in marriage overall

3. An increase in the prevalence of homosexuality

4. Most importantly, egregious violations of the rights of other citizens

In other words, interracial marriages were saying the word “fire” and gay “marriage” and other sex-based privileges is yelling it in a crowded theater. One is the use of a basic right, the other is a dangerous exercise that will surely be regretted later on.

Here are my other links:

Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Will Increase Prevalence of Homosexuality
http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_legalizing.html

If gay “marriage” is all about freedom and human rights, what about these people?

Leo Childs
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005774.html

Scott Brockie
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/apr/04041604.html

Ake Green
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ake_Green

Scott Savage
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49761

Crystal Dixon
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355507,00.html

Ene Kiildi
http://people.maine.com/paula/pph/pph-2.9b.98.html

The Mennonites of Roxton Falls, Quebec
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/aug/07081701.html

Christian (and Mormon, Jewish and Muslim) business owners in Colorado
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68060

Guy Earle
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=7096c4b6-e48c-46ea-9aeb-7a075a3766e2

Christian youth in Australia
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08062406.html

Christian civil servants
http://www.10news.com/news/16663610/detail.html

The Philadelphia 11
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41705

The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association
Yeshiva University
California Lutheran High School
A psychologist at North Mississippi Health Services
A Vermont civil servant
Elane Photography
A Christian doctor
A private adoption agency
The Boy Scouts
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

anyone else notice how a few newns have come on recently arguing for homo sham marraige and have their perverted scik twisted views forced on to us
well for those newbs who are here to spread homo views forget it I with my kids and normal natural family will never accept your perverted sick lifestyle

hello newbie

yea right
that sounds like a homo argument, so should I have 9 wives as like you said it is a right ARF no it is not.

should I marry my daughter, we’re not interfering with you, we are not hurting you, it is our business

SARC

so newbie are you pro homo?

Like it or not, this is the function of a Supreme Court: to determine if our laws are consistent with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In 1958, only 4% of whites approved of interracial marriage. When interracial marriage was finally made legal ten years later, only 17% of whites approved. Why was it made legal? Because a few “imperialist activist judges,” oh, I mean the U.S. Supreme Court, ruled that it was fundamentally unconstitutional to deny citizens the right to marry the person of their choice. I quote from the court’s decision from this case (Loving v. Virginia, 1967): “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man’.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.” Replace “race” with “gender” and you’ve got yourself gay marriage.

Are you really attempting to compare a benign characteristic like race to the government putting its stamp of approval on deviant sexual behavior?

It is NOT a right for homosexuals to marry. In fact, the Founders didn't believe there was a right to engage in homosexual behavior. So, we know the intent the of the Founders wasn't to pervert the definition of marriage and allow homosexuals to marry.

In fact, based on your arguments here, the government shouldn't have the right to prevent polygamy or siblings from marrying either.

Take the liberal arguments elsewhere.