Posted on 03/25/2013 7:05:17 PM PDT by neverdem
I share yor prayer and concern. The Constitution says nothing about marriage and a court with any integrity would acknowledge this is a matter for the states to decide. Unfortunately, we have several justices who have no integrity and will weasal word some interpretation lurking in some unseen penumbra we mere mortals cannot see. It will likely go 5-4 one way or the other.
Some of my Conservative brethren claim we “can’t legislate morality” but we sure do a heck of job legislating (or adjudicating) immorality.
What happens to marriage by common law——better not have a roommate for very long!!
Common Law is established by States therefore it will be determined by States...don’t see the problem. Now if the Federal Laws undermine these laws, well that is the problem isn’t it?
Just because of your comment...
I really hate the current laws regarding co-habitation. It does seem that again the man takes the brunt of the after effects.
Why does the woman get the benefit of the doubt when two people live together? Why is it not the default that these folks take what they had before joining and take half of what is accumulated during the the so called (time together - marriage). I do not have a problem with this as long as it is as long as at least a few years - (I can leave this up to the Courts).
Today - Men would be foolish to co-habitat with any women if they take their financial future into account. Do so at your own peril. The laws are so against men that it just does not make any sense whatever!
I’m sure that it is not what you want to hear but RightLady, your response did require a correct rebuttal.
bttt
who takes the brunt when two men are habitanting? I agree with you on common law.
Six thousand years or more recorded history have taught us nothing? Right, got it.
I would say that marriage is built into the human psychology, much like the bond of a woman for her infant (another human trait that the left has been relentlessly attacking). This reduction of human biological imperatives into self-indulgencies has not had a good effect. Trying to make marriage into something it isn't, that is not hard-wired into our brains, is a bad idea.
The entire premise of homosexuals is that their behavior is beyond their control or environment. Homosexual behavior, they propaganda, is an immutable trait.
For the court to find a “love test” in marriage requires that marriage be ONLY about adult sexual satisfaction.
Will We Get Another 11 Million Illegals after an Amnesty?
Scam Cell - California’s embryonic stem-cell research institute fails to deliver.
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
The problem with this suggesting is that the strategic attack platform is Article IV of the Constitution, the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
In a 1981 interview, Lambda Legal lead trial attorney Evan Wolfson laid out the strategy: By hook or by crook, get "gay marriage" </ off oxymoron > legalized or decreed in one, just one, State, and then sue all 49 of the remaining States with their 97% heterosexual Peoples into submission in the Supreme Court using Article IV as the battering ram.
An amendment to the Constitution will (would) be necessary to forefend this outcome and defend the rights of the People and the dignity and legitimacy of representative democracy and self-government.
That need was foreclosed by President George W. Bush's refusal to take DOMA to the stage of constitutional amendment. When he endorsed DOMA, he and his RiNO allies were actually playing to throw the game, the same thing they did in their Heller brief on the Second Amendment, which they strewed with back doors to future regulation and future effective bans on ownership and/or use.
Called "essentialism". It's purely a legal strategy, science need not apply. (The search for a "gay gene", undertaken by homosexual scientists, has been fruitless .... so to speak.)
At the same time the homolawyers were pleading essentialism, their gay bretheren in the performing and social arts were swearing up and down that sexual orientation is situational and fluid, mutably mutable, gradational, notional, any sort of whiffenpoof word you liked ......... clearly, they were not on the same page as the attorneys. Which conveniently gets forgotten about when homopleading sociologists and psychologists like Judd Marmor take the stand, to lay down the essentialist Party Line.
Think of it as the latest iteration of Lysenkoism, and closely related to Anthropogenic Global Warming: More politically-motivated b.s. from Moonbat Central.
Exactly. "Essentialism" draws for the intended audience (SCOTUS justices) a direct parallel (incorrect but direct) between the homosexual movement and the civil-rights cases of the 1950's and 1960's. Black skin is now supposed to be exactly analogous to sexual perversion.
Michelangelo Signorile, when it comes to marriage, laid it out in a benchmark essay in the Village Voice in, iirc, 1994, in which he explained that the political and moral function of SSM </cant, pls excuse the oxymoron> is not to establish anything, but to remove the moral authority of marriage and, in the long run, to destroy marriage as a heteronormalizing institution.
I mean by that, that marriage demonstrates the normality of heterosexual bonding and reproduction and contrariwise shines a pitiless light on the pointless copulations and cavortings of deviant sexuality.
Therefore Signorile and the rest of his hostile, sociopathic conspiracy undertook to "establish" SSM </cant> precisely to destroy marriage for the rest of us.
I don’t recall any science of immutability during the oral arguments.
Thanks for the ping!
This is already ABUNDANTLY CLEAR in places like Massachusetts.
The problem lies with the (purposeful) confusion between “orientation” (another word for desire) and practice—and the muddying of the waters that has brought about.
Homosexuals widely attest to the fact that they “never chose this orientation,” and I think they are being honest. None of us really chose to be attracted to girls—its something natural we just grew into. Homosexuals (whether they were sexually abused by a homosexual adult as adolescents or not—and a majority, I’ve read studies show, actually WERE.) also “grew into” same-sex-attraction, without consciously choosing it.
Somehow we as contemporary Westerners think this then MUST give license to practice homosexual acts—when logically, ethics NEVER work that way.
Many “grow into” wanting possessions they didn’t pay for—but if they PRACTICE that “orientation” toward theft...they go to jail.
Many “grow into” wanting to cheat on their wives—but if one acts out that “orientation” —she divorces him.
All pathologies tend to have some unconscious element of desire-one-didn’t-choose. SO WHAT? Ethics by its very nature is controling wrong desires, destructive orientations.
Somehow—building on (or falling further down from) the sexual revolution of the ‘60s—we in the West now assume, that sexual desires MUST be acted on, and if government or other institutions restrict such actions—that’s discrimination and bigotry.
While this attitude hasn’t extended to your typical heterosexual cheating spouse yet (I couldn’t HELP it dear, I’ve ALWAYS been oriented toward blondes!) the pitiful poor despised homosexual (the class sissy...) somehow gets a pass ....as we simply are blind—to the social evils associated with sodomy.
This even after (and during) the AIDS “epidemic.”
Christian spokesmen too, didn’t do themselves any favors by not being clear—that it was the BEHAVIOR, not the DESIRE, that people do indeed choose, and the BEHAVIOR—sodomy—(yes it is an ugly word) is what is objectionable, and destructive—to individuals, and to society.
To me this is why homosexual “marriage” is so destructive...as among other aruably positive things—like “love” and “friendship”, it is a commitment—to commit sodomy, a commitment to continue in and extend perversion.
This is why it is comparable to incest or bestiality—things we still, as a society, agree are perverse and wrong. No one yet in the mainstream...argues that “orientation” toward incest or bestiality—excuses people who practice these sick evils.
I really don’t get it. Except to say propaganda does work. Over the last 20 years there has been nothing comparable historically or at present to all the propaganda—from all sources, educational, governmental, entertainment, the mainline churches—about the “oppression” of poor little homosexuals... (who on average are much wealthier and better paid than any other group...).
Behavior as a civil right? NO.
True, and too many have ignored it's importance for too many years. That's the only reason the idea of 'homosexual marriage' has even been able to take hold.
Marriage (by definition) is an act of commitment by man and woman to each other (generally to God, religious if you look at the past) - supposedly for life. Now you can say the same could happen between homosexuals but without the religious connotation since it is against most religions. That alone changes the current definition of marriage.
The definition of marriage has been standardized for Centuries so to change it at this point would be stupid! Love is a consequence of two people (man and woman - see definition of marriage) who decide that they want to live their lives together.
While their is love between two other people (there are many types), it has nothing to do with marriage.
Trying to change the definition of marriage is what is being contemplated, not the actual union of man and woman. Seems today that our vocabulary is being bastardized to the point that it is meaningless.
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.