Mash His Cute Little Nose
We're Looking For a Little Yellow
Donate Monthly
Sponsors will contribute $10 for each New Monthly Donor
Posted on 11/04/2011 10:55:20 AM PDT by merryandrew
It has been 47 years since the passage of the Civil Rights Act, and 46 years since the passage of the Voting Rights Act. And yet the political leaders of this nation of liberty cannot seem to muster the courage and principle to sweep away one remaining example of institutionalized, government-sanctioned discrimination: The 1996 law that denies the right of marriage to same-sex couples.
The law, the Defense of Marriage Act, was passed in the heat of election-year fear and bigotry against men who want to marry other men, and women who want to marry other women.
It was a bipartisan act of cruelty, sponsored initially by Republicans but passed overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton. It was then, and still is, unconstitutional, because it violates the principles of federalism by allowing states to refuse to recognize marriages performed in other states and because it is blatantly discriminatory....
(Excerpt) Read more at loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Marriage is not a right.
Go to some strange woman on the street and try imposing on her your “right” and see how far you get.
Again, certain forms of marriage have always been illegal and more over those who cannot enter freely into marriage are not allowed to marry at all.
That’s the way its always been.
And speaking of freedom, this guy belongs to that subset of mankind, who in every in other instance, wants to diminish freedom to the greatest extent possible.
Like freedom of association. We must be forced to give our blessing to a certain kind of association, whether we like it or not.
That’s how much liberals truly value the spirit of freedom.
That makes no sense at all. Your position is like saying, Try going to the New York Times and forcing them to publish your story and if they refuse then there must be no right to freedom of the press. Just because one has a right to marry doesn't mean that another person is obligated to marry them. Just as the right to publish doesn't mean someone else is obligated to give you their printing press. And all "rights" are subject to restrictions which is why freedom of speech doesn't mean you can yell fire in a crowded theater which isn't on fire.
You’re expecting logical consistency or something?
If there was a right to marry, all of us would be married.
We have the right to freedom of speech but we have no right to be heard.
The difference between a privilege and a right is that a privilege is conditional on the performance of certain obligations. A right is self-executing by nature. A privilege means we must abide by such and such to gain full benefit from it.
That’s true of a drivers’ license. Incidentally, all marriages are licensed, too. One has obligations to fulfill to validate the privilege.
Whoa now. I want my 2nd Amendment rights restored. This is an enumerated right, stripped away by decades of illegal legislation.
Marriage whether gay straight or polygamous or with animals is not an enumerated right (though it may be in the 10th Amendment, 2 comes before implied 10a rights).
Give me Vermont style carry laws. Then we can talk.
Exactly. Marriage is probably a right but implied not enumerated. Right to Keep and Bear arms is an enumerated right though. We Golden State Warriors have been disenfranchised. I want Vermont Style Carry first as is enumerated in 2A right to keep and bear (says nothing about permits, about discretion, about state police, about sheriffs etc). Then we talk about marriage as a right.
That makes no sense at all. It's like saying if there was a right to peacefully assemble all of us would be assembled somewhere. And I note the that the right to peacefully assemble is a group right. No individual can "peacefully assemble" - they need the cooperation of others to exercise this right. And the right to peacefully assemble can be conditioned on obtaining a license or permit if the group wants to assemble in certain places at cetain times. And not all marriages are licensed - some states still recognize common law marriage. So you are wrong on every assertion you made.
Exactly.
Marriage is the subject of state legislation. You can’t marry any one or anything, if it was a right.
I can’t marry my sister or my cousin even if I am in love with them.
what about the guy on Jerry springer who wanted to marry his horse? Or that other guy who wanted to divorce his wife and marry his TV set. Now that would be true equality if the Govmint would recognize the Jerry Springerites as equal to our mere politicians.
If there was a right to marry, there would never have been restrictions placed on it.
Liberals are seeking to sweep away one type of long-standing restriction. But one can argue then, if its a right, why can’t every else have it also?
Common law marriages are a type of marital privilege sanctioned by certain states. They could abolish it if they want to.
That can’t happen to a right for those eligible to exercise it. Hence the difference.
If liberals had the honesty of their convictions, they would say they’re in favor of extending discrimination a notch more, not to get rid of it.
But a vacuous and stupid poll-tested slogan like “Marriage Equality” sounds good.
If they get it their way, the fact remains some marriages will still be more equal than others.
Every other right has restrictions why would marriage be any different?
AS usual, the liberals are hypocrites about everything. There is literally no issue they hold so dearly (with perhaps abortion being the exception) that they will not be hypocritical about. Just look at the different way they have examined Herman Cain with a microscope and total lack of care they have about Obama’s relationship with KNOWN TERRORISTS.
Because marriage is a privilege. Not all of us are suited to handle it. With that privilege comes many responsibilities as well as of course conjugal pleasure.
Cute kitty!
Like others have said, everyone has equal marriage rights. Any single man can marry any willing single woman not his close relation.
Equality isn’t what homosexuals want. They want to change marriage so that the state sanctions destructive behavior.
Discouraging destructive behavior isn’t bigotry. It’s the action of a healthy society. Turning a blind eye to or sanctioning destructive behavior is the action of a dying society. This petulant blogger may get his wish but the society that grants it will be courting it’s own extinction.
To be added or removed from the Viking Kitty/ZOT Ping List, FReepmail Darkwing104
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.