Posted on 03/09/2003 5:40:25 AM PST by A. Pole
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:09:15 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
DURING THE ORAL argument in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the Massachusetts lawsuit aimed at legalizing same-sex marriage, it was Justice Martha Sosman of the state's Supreme Judicial Court who put her finger on the crux of the case. ''Could it not also be framed,'' she asked Mary Bonauto, the lawyer for the gay and lesbian plaintiffs, that ''you're seeking to change the definition of what the institution of marriage is?'' After all there have been right-to-marry cases before, involving (for example) interracial couples, prison inmates, or the mentally retarded. But, Sosman noted, they ''have not changed . . . the historical fundamental definition of what the institution is.''
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
By the same logic, interspecies marriages should be recognized. Why just two people? Barney Frank might like to marry his boyfriend, his gay sister AND his French Poodle.
Well, if that's what marriage is "centrally about", then the plaintiffs have a very good case.
The possiblities are endless. Think about possible 'honorary marriages'. A public personality could be married by his or her entire fan club membership. Or, a future dictator could marry the entire country population.
Temporary marriages could be arranged between whores and their clients, for the time they are performing business together. And the state could collect funds from issuing the marriage license.
Is Algore discussing all these possibilities in his last book?
The weirdos are chipping away at our society. We let them get their foot in and now we can't keep them out.
This is all about 'self esteem'.
And lets not forgot MANBLA
DURING THE ORAL argument in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the Massachusetts lawsuit aimed at legalizing same-sex marriage, it was Justice Martha Sosman of the state's Supreme Judicial Court who put her finger on the crux of the case.
Exactly. The following is from some of my previous ranting on the issue...
Gay advocates of "domestic partnerships" are in effect saying to other homosexuals, that it is only acceptable to be "gay" as long as other homosexuals conform to their hypocritical standard of monogamy. The general public discussion about marriage, homosexuality and "domestic partners," does not address the central issue - - monogamy is a sectarian establishment of religion in the law and violates the First Amendment’s prohibition "regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Various homosexual pressure groups that claim to support "equality" never address bisexuality and the idea that a bisexual is not allowed to benefit from relationships with persons of both sexes. Nor are they, the Left Wing Media, and Left Wing Educational Establishment willing to discuss polygyny or polyandry, which are, or have been traditions for Muslims, Mormons, Hebrews, Hindus, Buddhists and Africans, as well as other Pagan cultures. The two sides currently represented in the same-sex marriage debate both want special rights for monogamists. However, the proponents of heterosexual only marriages are willing to concede that a homosexual has just as much a right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any heterosexual does. [Incidentally, the desire to have children is a heterosexual desire.]
Nowhere in the religious texts of the above mentioned cultures is there a prohibition of polygamy and I challenge any scholar of theology, literature or history to refute it with proof from the Judeo-Christian Bible, Holy Qur’an, Mahabharata, Rig Veda, or Dhammapada. The ignorance of these historical and cultural facts is evidence of the failed public education system and the fig leaf covering the personal bias of certain staff members in the Left Wing Press and Left Wing Educational Establishment concerning facts, reporting them and/or teaching them.
To allow an institution of homosexual marriage in a monogamous form requires some sort of moralistic meandering to justify it and prohibit any form of polygamy. Upon what basis, if we are to assume it is discrimminatory to not allow homosexuals to "marry," can there be a prohibition of the varying forms of polygamy? Especially, since the First Amendment is specific in forbidding an establishment of religion in the law and is supposed to protect the people's right to assemble peaceably? The entire issue of "same-sex" marriage hinges upon the assumption that monogamy is the only form of marriage. I contend that it is based upon human biological reproduction and is outside of the government's authority to regulate in regard to the First Amendment...
To bolster some of my assertions:
-
"What gay ideologues, inflated like pink balloons with poststructuralist hot air, can't admit, of course, is that heterosexuality is nature's norm, enforced by powerful hormonal cues at puberty. In the past decade, one shoddy book after another, rapturously applauded by p.c. reviewers, has exaggerated the incidence of homosexuality in the animal world and, without due regard for reproductive adaptations caused by environmental changes, toxins or population pressure, reductively interpreted bonding or hierarchical behavior as gay in the human sense."
About the writer: Camille Paglia is professor of humanities and media studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia.
-
The issue of polygamy is an Achille's heel for both popular sides of the same-sex marriage issue. The religious cannot find a prohibition of it in their sacred texts. The advocates have to resort to a litany of moralistic meandering based upon the creationist philosophy they claim to oppose to justify it. Both want special rights for preferred groups and are not interested in the individual freedoms of free association. They both want an establishment of religion in the law no matter how much they will deny that.
Unless you like conforming to the religionist dictates, I suggest you and others re-examine the B.S. the guardians of political correctness on the Religious Left have been feeding you.
The First Amendment is very unambiguous. The creationist cultural patent of monogamy is an establishment of religion in the law. The idea that some people get a preferred status based upon their personal relationships goes against the idea of individual rights and the idea of equal protection before the law. What of the people's right peaceably to assemble? It does not take an advanced legal education to comprehend the very clear language of the First Amendment. I say the federal and state governments have no Constitutional authority to be in the marriage business at all, except where each individual has a biological responsibility for any offspring they produce. With "reproductive rights," there must be reproductive responsibilities.
In addition, prohibition of polygyny, polyandry and various forms of polygamy (which includes bisexuals) is not consistent with Roe v. Wade - - society has no right to intervene in private reproductive choices. The recent case of a polygynist being prosecuted in Utah is a great example. Do the women associated with the man who fathered those children have a "right to choose" who they want to mate and produce offspring with? Does the man have a right to choose concerning the production of his progeny? Roe v. Wade says societal intervention in private reproductive choices is a violation of individual liberties. What implication does this also have concerning welfare and public funding of abortions? The issue of polygamy tears down a lot of the sacred cows...
The so-called empowerment of women and rights of women have been appropriated by a few to mean rights of the few and no longer means an individual woman’s right to equal treatment. Some would emphasize the "inalienable right" of women to decide whether or not to bear a child. This has the effect of defining women as reproductive units rather than as human beings. Real women’s rights would emphasize greater opportunities for education and employment instead of emphasizing a cult of fertility which leads to economic dependency on men and the rest of society, including homosexual men and women who do not reproduce.
The inaccuracies concerning the political economy of sex as portrayed by pro-"choice" advocates deserve a thorough review: Reproductive "choice" is made when two heterosexual people decide to engage in adult relations, not after the fact. The desire to have children is a heterosexual desire. Provided it is a consenting relationship, no woman is forced to become pregnant. Modern science and capitalism (see: Ayn Rand’s Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and Camille Paglia’s Sexual Personae) have provided methods to give women pre-emptive power over the forces of nature. No woman has control over her body; only nature does. It is modern Western Civilization that gives women power over nature, not Roe v. Wade. [Incidentally, Roe v. Wade, if strictly interpreted, would prohibit public funding for abortion since public funding for abortion is a form of societal intervention in reproduction - - the very thing prohibited by Roe v. Wade.] One may reply Roe v. Wade is part of a larger good called "women’s rights," but this is really a disguise, consigning other women (those who don’t reproduce or those who oppose abortion) to second class citizenship.
This topic is applicable to homosexuality, both the male and female variety, as well as to sexual crimes. The choice to engage in any type of sexual activity is an individual’s, provided of course, he or she is not victim of a sexual assault. It is absurd to claim the rapist has no control over his actions and it is equally ridiculous to say a homosexual does not have a choice not to involve him or herself with another. The same is true for heterosexual females - - being a woman is not an excuse for making poor choices. The idea that "the choice to have an abortion should be left up to a woman" does not take into account the lack of a choice to pay for such services rendered: The general public is forced to pay massive subsidies for other people sex lives. Emotive claims that the decision to have an abortion is a private one is refuted by the demands of those same people who want public funding for their private choices and/or mistakes.
An adult male or female can be sent to the penitentiary for engaging in carnal pleasures with a minor. One female schoolteacher had become the focus of national attention because she produced a child with her juvenile student. She went to prison while pregnant the second time from the very same child student. Courts allowing a minor female to have an abortion without parental consent or notification can destroy evidence of a felony (such as molestation, rape or incest). Those courts and judges therein have become complicit in the destruction of evidence and are possible accessories in the commission of a felony.
Another source of amazement is the concept of those who hold candlelight vigils for heinous murderers about to be executed, a large number of whom think it is acceptable to murder an unborn child without the benefit of a trial. Is the "right to life" of one responsible for much murder and mayhem more important than that of a truly innocent unborn child? Perhaps we should call capital punishment "post-natal abortion" and identify abortion as a "pre-natal death sentence" or "pre-natal summary execution." "Reproductive freedom" is my economic and environmental tyranny.
There are likewise examples of polygyny in the Bible...
Don't misunderstand me.
1. It is my fundamental contention that "marriage" is based on human reproductive biology and outside of government's authority to regulate.
2. There is no outright prohibition concerning polygyny in the Bible at all (this is not found in the Old or New Testament anywhere). There is no prohibition in any religious text. The actual words of Jesus in the Gospel makes no mention of the issue for Jews or Christians. In fact, the Old Testament is explicit in it's permitting of polygyny.
3. If marriage is based on human reproductive biology, is outside of government authority to regulate, and is a religious institution - - then only the churches may regulate marriage. Some may not like this idea, however, the churches that venture outside of accepted tradition will ultimately fail, they will not have any congregation to support them.
Furthermore, abolishing non-profit status for religious institutions will keep the institutions alive that people actually actively support. There are too many organizations and false churches kept alive by the non-profit crutch.
I'm not saying I support something by discussing the issue, but it is imperative that a biological basis for marriage is established. This makes the issue of homosexual marriage null and void...
The possiblities are endless. Think about possible 'honorary marriages'. A public personality could be married by his or her entire fan club membership. Or, a future dictator could marry the entire country population.
See post #10... I am interested in all of your thoughts on it...
Who are we to deny a man the right to spend the rest of his life in a covenant, blessed by God himself, with the farm animal of his choice?
On the other hand, there is no example anywhere in the world and at any time in the past of 'homosexual' families. We know that people used to seek pleasure in fornicating with children or humans of the same sex, or with animals, or corpses, or with themselves but such practices never turned into 'families'.
The 'homosexual family' would be something completely knew and probably impossible to sustain. Its only drivers - tax and other 'welfare society'-type 'benefits'.
That is really what I think.
I personally believe that the institution of marriage is intended to provide a stable family for the purpose of raising children. To me, that implies a heterosexual marriage.
The compact that is made is between the two people and God. It is none of the government's business.
In that sense, I suppose I could support a gay marriage or a polyamorous marriage. I do not -- but I still don't think it is the government's business. It is God's business.
If we're going to redefine marriage, and eliminate elements 1, 2 & 3, why not do away with that "love and commitment" business as well? Why does a marriage have to be "till death do we part?" Why not have a temporary marriage contract, for a month or 8 months, or 3 years or however long the persons (or animals -- or plants?) involved choose?
This would have the side benefit of reducing the divorce rate (and the expenses involved). If some persons know that the contract expires in a year, they may not get on each others' nerves so much. And if they find each other compatible, they can extend the contract for a few more months.
And why the pretense that "love" should be "central" to this arrangement?
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.