Posted on 05/30/2011 1:35:05 PM PDT by SmithL
Edited on 05/31/2011 10:42:05 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
That's my take on the Minnesota Legislature's decision to put on the 2012 ballot a constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage.
Yes, I know. Technically, one side will win. Barring the need for a recount, on Nov. 7, 2012, either Minnesota will have beaten the odds and rejected this ban, or our state will join dozens of others in telling two gay, consenting adults that they are not entitled to the same legal status as two straight, consenting adults.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Work?
Work!
Um..we have religions right here who have gay married ministers...
Uh, yeah, but that’s been in the last 20 years or so. Historically, there are none worldwide that I can think of who support gay marriage.
>>> With marriage amendment, no one wins
That’s the truth though not so much for the reasons cited. The issue will ultimately be decided not in state legislative initiatives like this, but in the US Supreme Court. Most probably in the Prop 8 appeal already working its way up in the courts.
If the court rules that gay marriage is a right, initiatives like this will be voided as being contrary to the federal constitution. The fight will have been for nothing.
If on the other hand the court rules that there is no guaranteed right to gay marriage, current Minnesota doesn’t permit such anyway. So again nothing is really gained.
The political capital to fight on this issue could be more profitably spent on more immediate and lasting issues. Budgets, unions, etc.
It won't have been for nothing. It will have been for the very valid cause of demonstrating the will of Minnesota. Consulting the People is something movement gays assiduously avoid in every jurisdiction.
The gay movement has always, always sought top-level, "strict scrutiny" Supreme Court rulings as a way to legislate their will against the 96% majority.
The political capital to fight on this issue could be more profitably spent on more immediate and lasting issues. Budgets, unions, etc.
There is no more "lasting issue" than the foundations of society itself. That is why social-conservative issues should be at the top of the list, every election, and only the poofty cabal in the RNC leadership ranks has kept this issue out of the Constitution itself.
We need a federal amendment to spike the gays' guns for good, and President Palin will obtain one.
religion has NOTHING to do with this.
society rewards the institution not the individual.
homosexual conduct is only about recreational sex and how an INDIVIDUAL achieves gratification. Marriage is about an institution which benefits the future of society.
the author must be a flamer because they simple do not get it. homosexual conduct produces zero benefits for society, it only produces costs.
it is not about consent to recreate with adults, it is how to adults will best model the production of offspring for society. homosexuals engaging in the chosen recreational conduct do not produce offspring. They can only buy or recruit offspring.
this amendment is a benefit to society.
the author is just pushing the fiction of “born that way” (ala lady gaga’s song where he sings born that way)
the article assumes that the homosexual fetish is a born behavior like a brain birth defect.
The article’s author obviously has a brain birth defect. I’ve never heard such convoluted logic in an adult... if, in fact, he is an adult mentally.
As far as the author's inane remarks that "no one wins," I'll concede that he is in a sense right, though not for the reasons he has in mind. It's always a tragedy to be forced to defend something so firmly established in common reason and natural law from insane nihilists bent on corrupting the very nature of reason itself. It is never a victory to have to build an expensive, impenetrable bulwark around one's property; even if it does hold back a hoard of mindless barbarians bent on murder. Such is the effect of these marriage amendments: needful, but tragic in their needfulness.
We had to remove your post because you posted more text from the excerpted Star Tribune article. All material from the Star Tribune must be excerpted with no additional text added in the thread. Please make note. Thanks.
My humble apologies.
Pedophiles, kleptomaniacs, canibalists, and homicidal maniacs could be considered “born that way” as well,
but no one would think to make special provisions in the law to accomodate their proclivities.
(I don’t buy “born that way”, either, not given the statistics we see among victims of sex abuse and adoptees of homo couples.)
“Consulting the People is something movement gays assiduously avoid in every jurisdiction.”
As soon as they think they have the numbers, they will be screaming for the amendment repeal process. Amendments and repeal of pro-”gay marriage” legislation have already barely passed by popular votes in some states. Arizona is the only state so far that has failed to to pass an amendment when it was put to the vote, losing by 51% in 2006, then passing it by 56% in 2008. Virginia only passed it by 57% in 2006. Hawaii passed it by an astounding(for Hawaii) 69%, but that was back in ‘98. Mississippi passed it by a whopping 86% in 2004! There are five states that passed amendments by majorities in the 52-59% range. I wonder how those votes would go in 20 years? In 50? Of course, that is if our masters in black robes just don’t decide to cut out the unwashed masses and decide for us.
Freegards
There was the Supreme Court case of Reynolds vs. the United States, where polygamy, incest, and neglect of children were all ruled illegal regardless of marriage license or state sanctioning of the actions, and they specifically defined the ruling as a means of keeping a common rule for everyone to follow. Only problem is that nowadays, people speak so loudly against the idea of common law, when having a common law actually makes society somewhat decent.
“but no one would think to make special provisions in the law to accomodate their proclivities.”
That’s more or less because of common law, making special laws to focus on many different groups creates serious problems. Having a set law that focuses on everyone is a whole lot better.
“but no one would think to make special provisions in the law to accomodate their proclivities.”
That’s more or less because of common law, making special laws to focus on many different groups creates serious problems. Having a set law that focuses on everyone is a whole lot better.
Common law has to be based on a recognized set of basic accepted behavioral values.
Leftists, serving their ideological “father”, have done their best to discredit, destroy, and discard any such set of values because they come from the Objective Source of the law.
You CAN trap them, though, because they certainly wouldn’t want special provisions created for those proclivities I listed, but based on what? They discard our values as simply outdated opinions, or even more unworthy of consideration, “religious reasons”.
What makes THEIR objection to other deviant behavior any more valid? It’s just THEIR opinion over someone else’s, and without an objective reference point, their opinion is no more valid than anyone else’s.
Another comment -
special laws for special groups, arbitrarily enforced, gives politicians more POWER.
Common laws across the board, equally enforced, takes all the power out of the hands of politicians.
Leftists, serving their ideological “father”, have done their best to discredit, destroy, and discard any such set of values because they come from the Objective Source of the law.
The objective source of law was a combination of state statutes plus the Supreme Court upholding them as constitutional limits on Freedom of Religion. You’re right about one thing: Go against various things, and plenty of questions have to be asked: I mean, plenty of people don’t marry plenty of people whom they love. I am willing to believe the agenda is pretty much hostile towards whomever would practice polygamy, but then again, their putting a break in the setup which really confirmed that, for the sake of order in our society, just stick to one man, one woman, as the Supreme Court of the United States dictated back in the 19th century.
Very interesting — the Supreme Court relied on common law for condemnation of polygamy, etc.! Fascinating.
Common law, as you point out, is a thin reed indeed. What, after all, is common law in San Francisco?
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.