Homosexuals Push for Same-Sex Marriage After Sodomy Ruling

CNSNews.com ^ | 6/27/03 | Robert B. Bluey

[dennisw]

I am so sick of what these black robbed Pagan Terrorists are imposing on our country through judical activism because the homosexual activists cannot accomplish their vile and twisted goals through a normal legislative process.

Pagan is right! Mega dittos! (I read some Proverbs and Job today so I'm a bit charged up :)

[elfman2]

"Nothing wrong at all except it is pagan….Even the Islamics get this one right. "

Yes, even though health and tradition are listed in opposition, the motivation is overwhelmingly religious. I don't see clear evidence and reasoning in opposing arguments, just circular like "marriage is between a man and woman" and unsupported leaps that this will lead to the destruction of civilization.

[Cloud William]

If I'm lucky maybe I can snag a Canadian

Your best bet is Florida during the winter months. Good hunting! ;-)

[Theodore R.]

Also even more than "legal marriage" and related financial benefits, the gay rights advocates want public "acceptance." They do not want to be considered sexually "inferior" to heterosexuals. It is also doubtful that "marriage" would control promiscuity among homosexuals.

Just in the past ten years (since Clinton), we have seen a growing acceptance of homosexuality in American society. One recent poll put the nation at 49-49 over the issue of "gay marriage."

[Ron H.]

I fail to see how slavery is relevant to this particular issue posted here. Typical tactic of one who wishs to try to confuse, muddie or otherwise to divert attention away from the issue at hand. Do you really think that in the end that the Lord is going to be swayed by your argument here!?

[Jim Noble]

marriage (in modern times) is an economic structure to protect and support children and one spouse in two parent families.

Not any more, it isn't.

if by modern times you mean our times, marriage is state-registered cohabitation, terminable at will by either party without fault or damages, with associated government and government-approved benefits.

Any other form of marriage is illegal.

Try making a contract, for example, not to divorce. When your wife divorces you anyway, go to court to enforce your "contract".

You will find your contract is set aside because it is "contrary to public policy". Said policy only approves state-registered cohabitation at will with benefits.

THAT'S what marriage is, in modern times.

[FITZ]

Also even more than "legal marriage" and related financial benefits, the gay rights advocates want public "acceptance."

Can you say insurance spousal benefits? That's why a group who used to say they wanted the government out of their bedrooms, that the government didn't have the right to control their sex lives, now suddenly turns around and demands the government give it's blessing to their unions.

[af_vet_1981]

Do you also think that we should ban smoking and drinking because it affects health? How about fatty foods? Should the government mandate that it's SUBJECTS eat nothing but fruits and veggies? Should it mandate exercise for all it's SUBJECTS?

Should states be prevented by the supreme court to enact laws
1. forbidding incest between consenting adults ?
2. forbidding bestiality (you can kill and consume animals) ?
3. forbidding child pornography (if states lower the age of consent to puberty) ?
4. setting the age of consent to any age they choose ?

The supreme court is arrogant and a threat to our Republic. That is what happens when the wrong people are elevated to high office. There are always consequences.

[elfman2]

"Should states be prevented by the supreme court to enact laws… 1…2 … 3… 4 "

Each of your 4 examples endangers someone, potentially someone or something that's helpless. The supremes decision simply forced government to leave people alone.

[foreverfree]

bump

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Entropy always accelerates, very much like the cliche snowball building mass and speed as it rolls downhill.

You want a look at the near-term future? Just watch California.

The medium to longer term is not so pretty. There's never been a country of this size or power before (nope, Rome wasn't even close) that's fallen from the weight of its entropy. The political scramble to scoop the dregs could get really ugly.

[MissAmericanPie]

Being a bondmaid or bondman was an economic neccessity of the times. In fact it served both parties well up to the 1700's at least.

My own ancestor came over as an irish bond servant as he didn't have the fare. He worked out his time and did quite well in his new country.

[Teacher317]

Wrongo, buddy. Sodomy is a public health issue, and, as such, falls under the jurisdiction of the government.

Heterosexual sex passes all kinds of diseases, including HIV. Shall we invite the federal government into regulating marital sex now, too? According to you, that makes it a public health issue, and therefore federally regulatable. It's amazing that "conservatives" like you actually support this notion.

[EuroFrog]

I have a comment on that. I was searching for Foster Care resources because it is something I am interested in doing. Much to my horror I found more websites pertaining to helping homosexual couples adopt children than I found on foster care.

Homosexuals are already adopting children!!

[PhiKapMom]

Scalia: 'Court Has Taken Sides' With Gay Agenda
By Jimmy Moore
Talon News
June 27, 2003

WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- Another major decision was handed down from the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday that overturned a Texas law that had forbidden "deviant sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex."

Following their controversial decisions on affirmative action and Internet pornography earlier this week, the court ruled that the law against gays committing sexual acts violated their constitutional right to privacy.

The 6-3 decision is in stark contrast to a 1986 ruling that gave states the power to penalize gays and lesbians who engage in oral and anal sex.

The court's latest decision shows a more lax approach to homosexuality in the United States. It also greatly limits what a state can do in regards to gay activity, which many still believe is immoral.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority opinion, said that the Texas law forbidding gay sex "demeans the lives of homosexual persons."

Kennedy was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor voted in favor of overturning the Texas law, but not for the same reasons Kennedy stated in the majority opinion. Rather than basing the ruling on privacy concerns, she believes the law should be reversed because of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Other laws against sodomy exist in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri. Nine other states do not permit these acts for heterosexuals or homosexuals. It remains to be seen if this ruling will affect these laws or not.

The attorneys for the two Texas men who were accused of violating the Texas law made the point that their clients were discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. That point resonated with Kennedy when he said that the men "are entitled to respect for their private lives."

"The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime," he added.

The three dissenting Justices were Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

Just as he did in the affirmative action case earlier this week, Scalia wrote the dissenting opinion. In an unprecedented move, he read the dissent from the bench and began by saying that he has "nothing against homosexuals."

But he expressed sincere concern about the ramifications of the court's decision on American life.

"The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda," Scalia remarked. "The court has taken sides in the culture war."

John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner were the two men involved in this case. Police caught the two having anal sex after they were reported by a neighbor in 1998. They were both fined $200 and were arrested for violating the Texas antisodomy law for homosexuals.

Seventeen years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a similar law as the one in Texas. That case is said to be the spark for the politicization of the gay agenda in America.

Legal groups, medical groups, and human rights supporters were in favor of overturning these laws they view as antiquated for modern society. They made the argument in friend-of-the-court briefs that since tolerance for homosexuality is greater today than it was in the mid-80s, the court should rule accordingly.

The 1986 5-4 ruling allowed a Georgia law against sodomy to stand. The majority opinion at that time stated that gays do not have "a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy."

An interesting part of that 1986 decision is the fact that it was argued that the rights of homosexuals to engage in sodomy was not "deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition."

Of the Justices on the Supreme Court today who ruled in that case, Rehnquist and O'Connor voted with the majority, and Stevens was one of the four dissenters.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs were gratified by the victory, but wanted the court to rule that the law also violated the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law.

But those who defended the law said that the state should have the right to set its own standards and that the 14th Amendment was not intended to be used with gays and lesbians.

Written in 1867, the 14th Amendment was intended to help former slaves overcome the economic and social disadvantages they were subjected to as servants.

Copyright; 2003 Talon News -- All rights reserved.

[EuroFrog]

Well, if you would read more of the Bible you would see that Christians are released from the law of the OT by the price Jesus paid.

Same gender sex is sin, as is premarital sex. Neither ranking worse in the eyes of God. However, society has loosened up enough that for alot of people premarital sex isnt such a bad thing. See where this is going?

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Winston Churchill's famous "tyranny of opinion" (at the time he uttered it, it was a tyranny in favor of pacifism and appeasement of German expansion.

Today the "tyranny of opinion" is that there are no valid societal or community moral standards, merely individual private choices, and that there is no greater degradation to society that will ensue from individuals acting in any manner they wish -- as long as no direct harm comes to any non-participating party.

Anyone who has seen what occurs in urban communities when graffiti or litter or ill-kept front yards becomes tolerable -- then broken windows or cars parked on sidewalks or refuse on front porches becomes tolerable -- would have some difficulty with the premise that what individuals do in private, on their own property, has no impact on the community at large.

Indeed, what the Clinton supporters have claimed has now been borne absolutely true, with Supreme Court backing, it's just a private matter, just about sex, and has nothing at all to do with how "he performs his job."

Clinton was just oh-so-barely ahead of the "tyranny of opinion". Today, he could line up a dozen willing interns a day. If they agreed willingly to it he could even videotape it for the nightly news.

[First Amendment]

Harlow said discrimination in marriage laws and by the U.S. military would be two of their targets. "By knocking out both sodomy laws and the justification of morality, this decision makes it much harder to defend those discriminatory schemes,"

In other words, a declaration of war.

"We don't have any problems with individuals making their own choices and having their own religious views. But in our country, a minority of individuals cannot dictate those views for the whole country."

Condemned by their own words. Why should we let a 2% minority of people who are addicted to perverted "sex" run the whole country?