I’m Floored
That You Haven’t Donated Yet!
Sponsoring FReepers leapfrog0202 and another person will contribute $10
Each time a new monthly donor signs up!
Get more bang for your buck
Sign up today
Lazamataz! We miss you.
Posted on 05/02/2011 11:04:40 PM PDT by neverdem
In adherence to the old newsroom adage that opinions are free and facts precious, in three-and-a-half decades as a journalist I have declared my own view on a public policy issue precisely once. Having covered, before age 30, four cases of men charged with capital murder who were innocent, I concluded that the death penalty was wrong, and explained my reasoning a decade ago in a conservative magazine under the theory that this was the constituency that most needed convincing.
--snip--
But does that mean that the other side shouldn't be allowed to have its say in court? Does it mean that a federal law passed only 15 years ago, the Defense of Marriage Act, that codifies the status quo is not worthy of legal representation? Or that those who argue for maintaining the traditional definition of marriage should be marginalized, silenced, demonized?
The Human Rights Campaign, a prominent 30-year-old gay rights organization, answers those questions in the affirmative. So, too, do a surprising number of Democratic Party office-holders (most of whom were unwilling to risk their own re-elections by standing up for gay marriage when it counted), along with numerous "progressive" pundits. As for King & Spalding, the huge corporate law firm that ignominiously dropped the gay marriage case last week -- and sacrificed its most accomplished partner in the process -- its...
--snip--
This propensity to look through a wider lens might prove significant. Specifically, I wonder whether the ease with which HRC caused King & Spalding to capitulate might cause Tony Kennedy to reach an obvious, real-world conclusion: namely, that gays and lesbians are far from powerless, and are doing just fine without any "heightened" protections. If it comes down to that, the campaign against Paul Clement would have backfired -- and produced its own rough justice.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
The teaching that matrimony is a sacrament gives to a religious clergy the power to judge the lawfulness of marriages and power of ecclesiastical censure for divorce...
The government of men’s external actions by religion, pretending the change of nature in their consecrations cannot be esteemed a work extraordinary, it is no other than a conjuration or incantation, whereby they would have men to believe an alteration of nature that is contrary to the testimony of sight and of all the rest of the senses...
The idea “thou shalt marry and be given in marriage” is corrupt and degenerate, which is an impossible immortality of a kind, but not of the persons of men.
Ecclesiastics would have men believe they are not worthy to be counted amongst them that shall obtain the next world, or absolute resurrection from the dead, as inmates of the world and to the end only to receive condign punishment for their contumacy of monogamy as opposed to the freedom of the polygamy found in nature.
Evolution for mammals is only possible with heterosexual relationships.
Not just evolution, but survival of the species.
It’s long, but worth the read.
Thanks - will read in a bit.
Family Research Council is reporting that the NRA has also dropped King and Spaulding as legal counsel in a scathing letter. I hope there are many more.
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.