Posted on 02/23/2014 11:44:35 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
In 2006, 57 percent of Virginia’s electorate voted to amend their state’s constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Last week, U.S. District Judge Arenda Wright Allen ruled the amendment unconstitutional.
In 2004, 76 percent of Oklahoma’s electorate voted to amend their state’s constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. On January 14, 2014, U.S. District Judge Terence Kern ruled the amendment unconstitutional.
In 2004, 66 percent of Utah’s electorate voted to amend their state’s constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. On December 20, 2013, U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby ruled the amendment unconstitutional.
In 2004, 75 percent of Kentucky’s electorate voted to amend their state’s constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. On February 12, 2014, U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II “struck down part of the state ban that he wrote treated ‘gay and lesbian persons differently in a way that demeans them’” (Washington Post).
In 2008, 52 percent of California’s electorate voted to amend their state’s constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. On August 4, 2010, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled the amendment unconstitutional.
There is no doubt that federal judges will continue to do this throughout the country. Even the vote of 81 percent of Alabama voters will count for nothing to some federal judge.
Society is no longer being permitted to define marriage in the only way marriage has ever been defined in the annals of recorded history. Many societies have allowed polygamy, many have allowed child marriages, some have allowed marriage within families; but none in thousands of years has defined marriage as the union of people of the same sex.
None of this matters to these judges or to all those who seek to redefine marriage and can’t convince a majority of their fellow citizens to agree.
For them, it is identical to ruling that laws that banned interracial marriages were unconstitutional. But that argument is utterly flawed. First, the analogy is false because there is no relevant difference between black people and white people, while there are enormous differences between males and females. Second, no great moral tradition or thinker ever forbade interracial marriages (interreligious marriages were sometimes forbidden). Moses, for example, married a black woman, and neither the Bible nor God hinted that it was wrong.
Some conclusions:
Proponents of same-sex marriage regularly label opponents “radical” and “extremist.” However, given that no society in thousands of years has allowed same-sex marriage, it is, by definition, the proponents of same-sex marriage whose position is radical and extreme. You cannot redefine marriage in a more radical way than allowing members of the same sex to marry. You can argue that this is the moral thing to do. But you cannot argue that it is it not radical.
All these judges have a hubris that is simply breathtaking. They not only know that they read the Constitution more accurately than the vast majority of the residents of many of America’s states. They are also entirely comfortable with forcing great majorities of Americans to accept this new definition of marriage.
That it is conceit rather than legal reasoning is easily shown when one peruses the opinions of these judges.
I will cite only Judge Vaughn Walker as an example:
Walker: “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.”
“No rational basis”? This is hubris. What he is stating is that for all of Western history — and contemporaneous non-Western history — there has not been a rational basis for defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Vaughn Walker is convinced that he thinks more rationally than every moral leader and thinker in history, not one of whom advocated same-sex marriage. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, the Enlightenment — all were irrational regarding same-sex marriage, according to Judge Walker.
In his mind, it is irrational, just to cite one example, to prefer that men and women form families in order to provide children with a mother and a father.
Walker: “Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.”
Yes, without in any way reducing the worth or the decency of any gay human being or dismissing the depth of same-sex love, California, like the rest of the world, has indeed believed in the superiority of man–woman unions. Not in the superiority of straight men and women as people: The gay human being is created in God’s image every bit as much as the straight human being; and there are gays who have led vastly more moral lives than many straights. But regarding how the family — the building block of society — should be constituted, the civilized world has always believed that it should be based on a married mother and father.
Society has also believed in the superiority of mother–father families to single-parent families; and that, too, never meant that every married person is inherently superior to every single person.
Walker: “Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis.”
This is another example of the lack of serious thought — as opposed to serious passion — that underlies the movement to redefine marriage. If American society has a “constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis,” then there is no plausible argument for denying polygamous relationships, or for denying brothers and sisters, or parents and adult children, the right to marry.
On the matter of same-sex marriage, mass passions and coercive judges are winning. Above all, hubris is winning. That is why proponents always assert that they are “on the right side of history.”
But history is very long. Our grandchildren, or their grandchildren, will judge whether this is true. The Left since Marx has asserted that every one of its radical positions — such as the demise of capitalism — is on the right side of history. Virtually none turned out to be.
The ancient Greeks and Romans thought they were on the “right” side of history. History has proved otherwise.
Yeah, the poor Greeks and Romans, history outran them, as it will outrun us, no matter what we do.
however, Roman law and institutions pervades the modern world
Note also that the homosexually free culture of Greece still did not have any homosexual marriage
“wrong side of history!” memes are like the race card for the left. They love to say it in order to marginalize the opponents of their agenda, but like the author intelligenetly states, the left believed this about virtually everything they have ever tried to do. “Unions are the future! Conservatives are on the wrong side of history!” Well, now unions are biting the dust all across the country. This is simply Alinsky writ large.
They compare it to the interracial marriage issue, that the history aspect is the same, when it is completely different. Bans on interracial marriage were a product of Darwinian evolutionary theory and the insane eugenics craze of his proteges. They were a flash in the pan as far as history goes. Whereas same sex marriage has never in the history of civilization been legal even during times of maximum acceptance of sodomy (see ancient Greece and Rome). Over 2000 years and not one grain of this concept anywhere on the globe. That tells you that its odds of surviving the exceedingly long tide of ‘history’ are practically nil.
And as I have often said, if I need be on the ‘wrong side of history’ to be on the right side of eternity, then so be it. History is a product of man. Eternity is a product of God.
Yes, but Jesus is the King of History and he might have a few things to say to those judges overturning the will of the people.
There is no “side” of history. These people are knuckleheads.
They use marriage as a veil for sodomy.
There is no loss of freedom involved.
Juvenal called it:
"I have a ceremony to attend," quoth one, "at dawn to-morrow, in the Quirinal valley." "What is the occasion?" "No need to ask: a friend is taking to himself a husband; quite a small affair." Yes, and if we only live long enough, we shall see these things done openly: people will wish to see them reported among the news of the day.
Satire II, circa 100 AD
We are truly living amongst flaming lunatics.... God help us and our beloved USA.... Semper Fi bro....
I still think this gigantic campaign for gay marriage is engineered in the shadows by divorce lawyers. Who wouldn’t want such a massive increase in their customer base? And I’m actually sort of serious about that. Always follow the money.
I was in the 2nd United States Infantry Division, not the 2nd Marine Corps Infantry Division, but my father was an 0699 and served in World War II, Korea and Vietnam, so I'll say "Semper Fi" back at you. Did you know that the 2ID is the only Army division that has been commanded by and included members of the Marine Corps at one time?
No,,,, I didn’t bro. thank you for the info. It’s strange,,,, I went from Paris Island right to “Dugway” when they found out I was a fourth generation gun/bulletsmith. Dugway is an Army installation....
Yes, Dugway Proving Grounds, in Utah. I knew a retired female Master Sergeant who was stationed there as a counterintelligence agent.
Your well informed my friend. That area has quite “the history” from what we were told when we arrived in the summer of “65”. We, I and a bunch of other door gunners were there to get “familiarized with GE’s great gift to us,,,, “the mini-gun” Absolute awesome weapon.
We no longer have free government. We are not a free people. Our government is arbitrary. When one man lives at the will of another, that man is a slave.
No election can reverse eighty years of anti-constitutional court decisions. Elections increasingly serve to determine who will be our masters.
There is little time.
Electorate: All the people in a country or area who are entitled to vote in an election.
“Who are entitled” is the key so the story is misleading to begin with. Based on the story out of 100% of the people entitled to vote, voted which is BS. A small number of folks entitled to vote actually voted and out of that small percentage XX% voted for.
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.