Genuine debate on gay union is over

Arizona Republic ^ | 2/29/2004 | Doug MacEachern

[Utah Girl]

Before the courts and the activist mayors hijacked the issue, there really was a genuine debate, an intelligent discussion, about the merits and consequences of same-sex marriage.

As it happened, it was between conservative and conservative.

On the right was Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, who argued with informed passion and good sense for the traditionalist concept of marriage.

[longtermmemmory]

Ahhh but surrogate mothers is a states rights issue. Some states have outlawed the practice.

Perhaps on both BUT it does mean that those remain outside normal family lines. You can't stop people from being selfish. We can stop people from using the courts to force us to accept it under fiat of a judge.

[longtermmemmory]

You live and hopefully you learn.

We screwed up with no-fault divorce, I see people wanting to get ahead of the court curve. People have learned NOT to trust the courts. We have also learned to NOT leave it for the court process to work. The process is the problem.

[StonyBurk]

Do agree -having won that battle in the courts -where the
enemy anticipates the battle for homosexual marriage will
also be won. Adoption was one of many methods by which the
enemy chose to force all of America to sanctify their
aberrant and destructive lifestyle choice.Enough States now
have courts that will grant adoption.And even courts in
States that do not formally recognize the fraud of homosexual unions many State courts will dissolve unions their States do not recognize.This is but the latest battle
to capture the Government of America And they are greatly
encouraged by Lawrence v.Texas.And America's submission to
even a corrupt and errant court order.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Statement: "Genuine debate on gay union is over"

Response:An illustration of the basic problem: "Debate," Discussion," "Different points of view." all such statements indicative of the toying, tampering, licking and fingering of serious matters. A symptom of the inability to say yes or no, the inability to take a stand!

[edchambers]

(snip)I wonder what the author thinks is the solution if he is against a constitutional amendment and against same sex marriage? Is there a third option? (snip)

OK call me a simpleton but what would be wrong with INFORCING federal and state laws already on the books?How about arresting these "officials" performing the ceremonies? and letting it be known that these fraudulant unions will not be recognized by any state or federal institution?

[Lucas McCain]

Perhaps there is a third option. We already have the federal Defense of Marriage Act. I know that some judge will likely attempt to strike it down. But there is a solution to that. In another thread a freeper noted that Article 3 of the Constitution allows Congress to remove laws from judicial review. I looked it up and it looks that way to me. It appears that Congress could simply decide that the Defense of Marriage Act is not subject to appellate action. All that would be required is a simple majority in Congress. Of course, the Democrats would probably attempt to filibuster. One could only hope they would.

[jordan8]

But it operates from the historic conservative principle that government should not inhibit individuals from the pursuit of happiness.

There is nothing historical or conservative about the "principle that government should not inhibit individuals from the pursuit of happiness". That is the recasting of libertarianism or even anarchism in a conservative mold. Conservatives, and everyone else, have historically had no problem limiting the activities of individuals, of inhibiting them from "the pursuit of happiness", in the interest of larger society. No society could exist without such inhibitions. This recasting of libertarianism as conservatism is a tribute to the domination of social and political thought by left, to their power. It is a fallback position in reaction to the popular post-60s decadence of modern society.

Barry Goldwater country, that.

Barry Goldwater of later years, maybe, when he was winning "Strange New Respect" from the establishment by pissing on his former supporters. But it is simply dishonest to imply that Goldwater (or for that matter anyone else) would have seen a constitutional imperative or support for allowing gay marriage in 1964.

[mrustow]

And preWWII Germany had the Brownshirts as a "youthgroup". The fact that Rohlm and his "buddies" used it as a supermarket for fresh meat has been lost on the homosexual agenda PR spin.

But that's impossible. As everyone knows, gays were persecuted by the Nazis as much as, if not more than any other group!

[EdReform]

'Activist Judges' Phrase Offends Homosexual Advocacy Group

[EdReform]

Bump

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda
( www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1076476/posts )

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)
( www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1026551/posts )

The Stamp of Normality
( www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1085090/posts )

[Utah Girl]

Um, I disagree. Cheney has been a fantastic VP. Sometimes children make choices that their parents do not agree with. Mary Cheney has not been in your face with her lifestyle. That would just give the Left more stuff to fling during this election.