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 ...
that was found only in ONE perhaps two cultures and is village level rare. as in dying out.
Multiple wives still provides the norm because it was entirely based on children or preventing widows from starving. It provided legal protections for the children of those offspring. It was not the cutsey delusion of the harem.
He was either banned or threatened with banning if he didn’t stop.
It was on the eligibility threads.
Parsival was not banned. Self-imposed exile a few months back.
50, who misses Parsy’s postscripts.
sorry, I didn’t mean for you to take offense. just wanted you to know that johnnycap was zotted. also realize you believe in the powers of redemption. may God bless and keep you.
no problem, Blessings back to you & yours...
thanks Gilbo 3. see you around here, and there.
He was annoying on the Obama eligibility threads.
Thanks, I tried doing a search for his name but the search function for “user” didn’t work for some reason.
I sure as heck don’t miss his leftist droolings!
I liked him when he wasn’t on the eligibility threads. He got nasty on those.
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:parsifal/index?brevity=full;tab=comments>
That’s okay... I met him too much on the eligibility threads to ever be amused by him again. At first when I ran into him he didn’t bother me.
But then he got like the Undead man in Perelandra by CS Lewis.
I have been busy today and have not had opportunity to read the rest of posts made on this thread. So I apologize up front IF I repeat any other posts.
Your claim above is result of what got set in motion long ago, because it was stated from our beginning that there are unalienable RIGHTs *LIFE* *LIBERTY* *PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS* endowed by the Creator that NO man/government can take or (give).
The state was by design 'we the people' not a state or 'god' that decided by their supreme decision what is or is not endowed by the Creator that is *LIFE* *LIBERTY* or *PURSUIT of HAPPINESS*... The state cannot put into print what is obscene, they claim they know it when they see it and a crucifix in urine is protected art. Some of these perverse minds have no problem putting on 'we the people' the burden to fund some of this hogwash.
IT is the state - or some peoples 'god' that is usurping power and authority to claim the word marriage can include two males or two females... That is the height of perversion and against what the Creator established and it will not stand for long.
See now personally speaking I could care less what people do behind closed doors, but this is NOT what this discussion has deteriorated down to, it is NOW the state playing god by changing the very meanings of words. AND in the California case ruling against the very foundation that set in motion the preservation of maintaining all 'rights' for each and every individual... the will of the people.
Where is the *LIFE*, the *LIBERTY* or even the *PURSUIT of HAPPINESS* in the homosexual lifestyle.... but hey it is their choice for short termed good time but they can at least quit their belly aching, muck rolling, and demanding the rest of US approve of their perverse flesh lifestyles as if it is normal and should be add to the list of RIGHTS.
I keep hearing/reading that Darwin theory is about the survival of the fittest.... so then given this educational doctrine, why is the political side of a functioning society playing god in protecting activity that obviously is unfit to survive all on its own.
Sheesh - I said good night because it was almost 1am for me and now I am accused of decietful discourse for not answering?
Three hours later and no response?
I will gladly post some thoughts that occured to me overnight on this if you and the others are at least willing to read through them - if you instead just think I’m some homo radical sleeper agent, I will keep my promise made earlier to the Admin Mod and refrain from further posting on this topic.
Gay marriage is one of those efforts of left wing social engineering will hurt the independence and strength of our society. It is like kicking out the foot stool. There is nothing anyone can say to me to accept that it is good for our society to permit homo activists to re-engineer marriage, families and heterosexual relationships. WE have already seen what lesbians do with sexual legal power over heterosexuals.
The feminist movement was hugely damaging on it’s radical end and it was Dykes running that game. Remember sexual harassment laws where Dykes policed heterosexual flirtation in the workplace and in public? The laws that have striped heterosexual dads of their rights in family courts - that is the work of Dyke social engineering. At one point they were calling all sex between a man and a woman male sexual aggression.
Look at what is happening in our schools. We have homosexuals writing children’s sex education and it includes every porn act known to homosexual man. As young as six they are teaching children to copulate, in Montana, yet.
No argument you could make would be able to erase the knowledge and observations I have of homosexuals acting out destructively with sexual social engineering legal power.
The judge who wrote the decision in California also claimed it was “hate” to be against homosexuality and that is a direct attack on religious freedom and homos will be able to use to persecute Christians and anyone else who does not approve of any sexual behavior they care to enforce on the public.
The question is why does the government have any interest in any two peoples relationship at all.. and the answer is they don’t.
With one exception.
Heterosexual unions create offspring and the state does have a vested interest in its next generation of citizenry. Homosexual unions do no, they can do whatever they want to each other and they won’t produce offspring, so there is no vested interest in the state to care in any way about their union.
So to argue the state is violating homosexuals rights, by not sanctioning their unions is idiotic. There is no interest in the state for their union at all, and frankly as a heterosexual married man, I want no involvement from the state in my union either. However, to claim that they have no interest at all in the next generation of citizenry is foolish as well.
As I already said, if the state abolished marriage tommorrow, I’d still be married, the paper from the state means NOTHING, because my marriage is before God, not a judge.
Again, homosexuals are not being denied any rights by legislatures who do not pass laws recognizing their unions, as you say, a contract can exist between two people with no need for government involvment... inheritence, power of attorney, etc can be handle by contracts of two parties, so they are not being discriminated against, nor are their rights being violated.
About the only constitutional right
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.