Click the baby's bottle!
Many thanks, JoeProBono
Uh oh! This little guy is already breathing fire.
He's going to be a mean one!
Donate monthly to keep the mean dragons away
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 02/08/2012 9:06:26 AM PST by Paladins Prayer
The big news on the culture-war front is a federal court's striking down of Proposition 8, California's constitutional amendment protecting marriage. In a two-to-one ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit wrote, "The people may not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry."
Now, I'm not sure why the judges mention a "disfavored group," as if singling out a "favored" one for unequal treatment would be okay. As far as I know, the 14th Amendment, on which the court based its ruling, doesn't offer equal protection to only those the current fashions deem "disfavored." Thus, I think this is an example of emotionalism influencing a ruling and its language, sort of as if a judge sentenced a defendant and, adding an adjective, announced him as "stupid" Mr. Smith. Calling a group "disfavored" is similarly a subjective judgment. This is not the only thing the judges were subjective about, however.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Good luck with that! I personally plan to marry six more women, two goats, and my car.
The gay marriage law is to ease their conscience and force the public, by law, to dictate a false sense of social status among heterosexuals.
Exactly. The state's involvement in any union between two of its citizens is restricted to matters of law, not religion. Yet marriage is not solely a secular institution. Let the state have its say on the secular relationship, but let's not pretend that that relationship is a marriage anymore than a lease is a marriage between a tenant and a landlord.
Federal tax breaks.
Amen. Well said. God removed from Air Force patches, bestiality legalized for the military, the Komen foundation pressured to provide funding for abortions, impending widespread legalization of homosexual marriages and polygamy and the Catholic Church forced to pay for abortions or stop providing charitable care. Unfreaking believable. The worst of it is that no one on the left can make a single logical argument for any of this, and yet we are allowing our nation to be steamrolled by a minority of vocal idiots. It is indeed time for a political insurrection—starting with a third party if that proves to be necessary.
The sodomites (who already have unions that are exactly like marriage in the eyes of the law), only want the word “marriage” used to define what their union is. In otherwords they only want to piss off normal men and women that are in a normal marriage. It’s all about screaming and hollering till you get what you want. Perverted, immoral sodomites want to be counted as being “married” just like normal people. Maybe if can figure out how a man can get pregnant from anal sex. Maybe Elton John knows.
Willard the liberal is FOR HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS.
He sees nothing wrong with perferted, degenerate sex, that kills if practiced. He is also for sodomites being allowed to adopt children and raise them. In otherwords he does not think a child needs two parents of the opposite sex.
Willard the liberal is one more sick, demented person. Now tell me how his views on this differ from the most liberal democrat in the world. They don’t, not in the least. That’s why he’s the worst possible GOP candidate to run against Obama, because their social beliefs are identical.
“The issue for the left is largely monetary, of course. Spouses qualify under insurance plans, significant others generally do not. Social security benefits and pensions are granted to the spouse of the deceased, not the significant other.”
If it is a problem that significant others do not qualify under insurance plans and Social Security benefits and pensions are not granted to significant others while the same is not true of spouses, then perhaps the laws, regulations, etc. for insurance and Social Security should be changed.
When Blacks were discriminated against they did not change the definition of race so that blacks and whites were included in the same definition. They changed the laws, regulations, etc. that were discriminatory.
Yes-—I have been saying Romney is a Paleobama-—some other Freeper’s term but I am using it.
Obama forced sodomy into the military as “good” in complete defiance of Christian conscience-—it is even a bigger issue to Freedom of Religion and Conscience than the “contraception” issue-—why? It forces every military person to accept “sodomy as good” which turns the Bible into “hate speech” and Christians into bigots and you are forced to accept “evil” as normal. It is forcing the rewriting of Good and Evil—in the Bible-—and turns our fundamental philosophy girding our Constitution and Legal System-—Natural Rights from God——into- Natural Rights from Satan (and Barney Frank).
I have never heard of such fascist government force in the US and this “sodomy is good” idea will destroy morality and corrupt all the children——will make them like the boys of Afghanistan who dream of having their own harem of boys-—there is no sexual morality codes in islam for men—pedophilia is normal. Or it will be like the brutal, slavish Greek society where women are second class citizens-—where pederasty was glorified —even in myths about Zeus and Ganymedes.
We do NOT want a non Judeo-Christian culture which glorifies evil and child sacrifice. The perfect “Good and Evil” paradigm-—was created by St. Thomas of Aquinas-—because he took all the great ideas from Aristotle and the Stoics and combined them with the Theological virtues of love, hope and charity.
Christianity-—the only ideology that can sustain a FREE society—a virtuous one as proved throughout all of history. All Founders knew this-—and the Cultural Marxists are out to destroy all virtue-—Christianity and the natural family.
Amen. Well said. God removed from Air Force patches, bestiality legalized for the military, the Komen foundation pressured to provide funding for abortions, impending widespread legalization of homosexual marriages and polygamy and the Catholic Church forced to pay for abortions or stop providing charitable care. Unfreaking believable. The worst of it is that no one on the left can make a single logical argument for any of this, and yet we are allowing our nation to be steamrolled by a minority of vocal idiots. It is indeed time for a political insurrection—starting with a third party if that proves to be necessary.
legally speaking ALL marriage is defined as a civil union.
thhis is deliberate via the ABA model laws program.
There should be a prohibition against judges belonging to the ABA since it is a left wing lobby group that does not represent the vaaaaaaaast majority of lawyers.
You are correct.
I am reading a book on the origins of Judicial Review and Jurisprudence in America, with lots of John Marshall quotes and opinions.
One think is explicitly clear-—all Just Law has to be reasoned and logical. That is what is missing today-—we have absurd irrational judges making laws.
Now, John Marshall said, that any laws (State or Federal) that are repugnant to the Supreme Law of the Land (Constitution) should be struck down as “Null and Void”.
Many current laws can be classified as so repugnant to freedoms and unconstitutional-—it is not even funny anymore. They need to be liquidated.
Homosexual “marriage” and “civil unions” of homosexuals are very repugnant to a document which states our Natural Rights come from God (and His standards) Sodomy is evil and NOT a Right. The “laws of nature” can NOT arbitrarily be flipped upside down and intentionally IGNORED when it is the basis of our Laws. Natural Law Theory is the basis of our Constitution and legal system—it is where Justice and Rights and Duty and Common Sense come from.
By legalizing something as bizarre as sodomy-—you take away natural rights of children and make them means to an end-—something that human beings can never be by our Standards in our Constitution with INDIVIDUAL rights and dignity to every human being. You allow force of law to deny children their biological parent. It is evil and never promotes the general welfare of each individual child keeping them from their natural biological family.
Adder brought up tax breaks and someone replied to me privately and said, hospital visitation and life support wishes for terminally ill partners.
I am trying to understand the reality in all of this so I can discuss it intelligently. I think the hospital issue can be taken care of legally with joint powers of attorney. I'm not a tax professional, but it seems that anyone who is civilly contracted can file jointly and it real estate is held as tenants in common the interest deductions would be treated the same as what my wife and I expect. If I am wrong I'd like to know.
It seems the only point of this argument is to make a mockery of the word 'marriage' and render it meaningless. If that is the case (even partially), I find it even more disgusting because in the liberal community which is where most gays seem to identify, not getting married is possibly more common than tying the knot.
I would think that HIPPA handles all hospital issues. Lord knows I have to sign my life away just to give permission for my wife to be advised of my conditions.
Marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman. It has ALWAYS been so. To say it now encompasses anything else does indeed render the word and the institution meaningless as the article points out.
Eh... same-sex couples cannot file their Federal taxes jointly under any circumstances. See DOMA.
I know a couple of gay guys who would say “forget marriage, just let me sponsor my non-U.S. partner for permanent residency.” That’s a huge issue for people in my professional circle (law), which is pretty international. That issue also wins a lot of people over for favoring same-sex marriage, when they see their friends either staying separated or moving to Europe because of it.
BTTT!
Unfortunately, even that is not sufficient.
To wit:
Transgender is a general term applied to a variety of individuals, behaviors, and groups involving tendencies to vary from culturally conventional gender roles.
[source: Wikipedia]
Transsexualism is an individual's identification with a gender inconsistent or not culturally associated with his or her biological sex. Simply put, it defines a person whose biological birth sex conflicts with his or her psychological gender.
[source: Wikipedia]
It should be clear to anyone reading the definitions above that the terms man and woman, per the authors suggestion, raise some immediate questions.
That said, it was a very well written article, but the problem goes even deeper. If gender is redefined, or undefined, then it doesn't matter what arguments you make concerning a man and a woman as it relates to marriage because it will still be ambiguous, which is exactly what the left wants, because logically...and I've argued this many times, over many years...marriage is contingent upon an understanding that gender is the only true distinction of the human species. Once you wash that away, everything washes away with it, which is why the left is so adamant about doing it. Most people, even intellectuals on our side, haven't made this connection yet. In any event, it probably doesn't matter since transgenderism and transsexualism have already been accepted as legitimate.
Ironically, gender, as the only true distinction which transcends all other superficial differences within the species, is really the only true way to apply marriage fairly since it is not contingent to race, culture, heredity, etc.
The premise of marriage has always been about gender, even from the beginning When God made them male and female, and the arguments lie within that premise.
It is the reason why marriage is limited to only two people, and why, if you alter the qualitative aspect of marriage, you necessarily alter the quantitative, since one is based on dissimilarity which infers a fixed quantity, whereas the other is based on similarity which infers a variable quantity. In this second case, you could limit it to two, but it would be entirely arbitrary and thus prejudicial and bias from the outset.
All those objections are civil (secular) matters and can be handled by new laws or by modifying existing ones. They certainly don’t need to be managed by completely redefining one of society’s most stable, critical, and enduring institutions. They’re nothing but a smokescreen, and the ultimate answer is to amend the Constitution to define marriage once and for all as the union between one man and one woman. Period.
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.