Posted on 08/19/2010 6:18:04 AM PDT by throwback
Together with my good friend and occasional courtroom adversary David Boies, I am attempting to persuade a federal court to invalidate California's Proposition 8—the voter-approved measure that overturned California's constitutional right to marry a person of the same sex.
My involvement in this case has generated a certain degree of consternation among conservatives. How could a politically active, lifelong Republican, a veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, challenge the "traditional" definition of marriage and press for an "activist" interpretation of the Constitution to create another "new" constitutional right?
My answer to this seeming conundrum rests on a lifetime of exposure to persons of different backgrounds, histories, viewpoints, and intrinsic characteristics, and on my rejection of what I see as superficially appealing but ultimately false perceptions about our Constitution and its protection of equality and fundamental rights.
Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
Nice lightning!
Johnnyc(r)ap also desired to be an internet martyr, he got his wish!
Kind of like the bear enthusiast who wanted to wind up in bear poop. He got his wish, too.
Blackmail/bribery. Can’t think of anything else that would cause such change of mind from being rational to irrational. Of course I have no idea.
I agree. I should have responded with that in my first post.
I see that you signed up TODAY just so you could push a militant homosexual agenda. I'm not sure if this is your first time or if you are a veteran retread, but I'm fairly certain your stay here will be short.
Be sure to tell the DUmmies that we still oppose sodomy.
Thank you for that input. People change. Not always for the better.
Signup date today, that was her sole comment last I checked; coming to give johnny some backup.
What makes you think the troll is a she? Deah is probably some deviant’s sodomite name.
I agree with you. This is sickening. The need to be invited to coktail parties/get lucrative book deals/be in with the worst poeple — seems to be a powerful lure for many conservatives to sell out.
I find him to be more disgusting than the liberals who one expects to be doing this.
cool links...saved the proposed seal pic, very telling of our founding indeed...
You have got to be kidding me. That is the sickest sh$t I’ve ever seen. Why are they not arrested? no wonder the commercial fisherman beat the sh*t out of them down in Key West.
Check you FReepmail in a few.
THANK YOU — everyone of FR needs to read this — it’s the core of the ematter of why the gov’t can’t get out of the marriage business.
The whole site is cool. Some poor women stepped on Jeffersons foot during Sunday services in the House of Reps. She must have been mortified!
Yup. I got through all of 3 pics and closed it.
You are right, as soon as I typed “she” I figured it should really be s/he/it.
You brough in hate crime laws, not me ... and I am not arguing for anyones agenda ...
Prop 8 defined “marriage” as a union between a man and a woman only. Marriage, legally today, confers special priveleges upon those married which are denied to others. I contend that these priviledges should not exist in the first place!
Marriage is a promise made before God. It should remain that.
The founders refused to place anyone religion before another - the even went so far as to explicitly forbid the government from doing it! They did NOT say that these restrictions applied only to Christianity, although they could have if they had been so inclined. Many other religions were well known at the time, and, unless I missed something in the Constitution - none of them were excluded from protection. That the founders *prefered* the Judeo-Christian tradition and based almost ALL of our founding principles upon them is a well known fact. They apparently also accepted the premise of Free Will.
Your final quotes are interesting in that the prove that the early government was not indisposed to encouraging religious practices and even provided penalties for the disruption of them! Would that our government today encouraged church going and punished those that would disturb anothers observation of thier religion. But I must note that the government “recommended” these things - they did not require them ...
I know there is greater cause than 'we the people' for which WHY we are the greatest most blessed nation in all of recorded history. IT is NOT my dogma, all one need do is spend a bit of time reviewing the literal historical record wherein any 'self' governing society that turn their back on the 'manual' survived for any length of time...
It is a pagan god that has no morals or authority that usurps authority never given but taken through deception that attempts to produce Nirvana here on earth.
You are correct the Creator is not going to force anyone to LOVE, HONOR, and OBEY His commands during this flesh journey.... That is and will always be the GOD given freedom of each and every individual... Judgment day though there will be no lusting flesh it will all be with full knowledge as to how each and every one of us make an informed decision.
some folks can dabble with alc/drugs and be still be responsible, while keeping their choice from the society as a whole...
homos, on the other hand, are 'all in' from the gitgo and the 'hole' of society is put at risk by their agenda which is dependent on recruiting the fresh meat...
yea they’re really going to stay out and not tell churches to marry them.
Look at MA and you’ll see how they used their so called marriage as a step to further their agenda.
Even going after Catholic charities and making them give kids to them which is against their religious beliefs .
If you have no problem with homosexual sham marriages then you are supporting their agenda.
GOOD ARGUMEMNT. THANK YOU.
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.