Posted on 03/14/2005 12:16:45 PM PST by Dont Mention the War
Breaking...
EXACTLY !!!
David
Yes -the homosexual activist cheerleaders seem quite animated today...
It doesn't, anybody can marry as long as they meet the marriage requirements of the states and localities. To claim differently is simply wrong. Ergo, no discrimination.
Well, it does seem unconstitutional. I mean, isn't that why some think there would have to be a constitutional amendment against it for it to remain illegal?
The amendment is to make it clear to activist judges who tend to interpret the law according to their present mood that it is indeed unconstitutional.
ENDQUOTE
OK, I'LL BITE. EXPLAIN TO ME (AND TO A WHOLE LOTTA JUDGES IN A WHOLE LOTTA PLACES, SEEMS) HOW IT IS PRESENTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Oops. Looks like a posted a little too quickly and got a little sloppy. The first two sentences is a quote from you, post 81. This is what I was replying to. In the third sentence, I meant to say 'constitutional', not 'unconstitutional'.
I'll have to make that my last word of the evening. Good night, all.
----"I'm sure I'm in a very small minority on FR, but for the record I agree with the logic of the rulings in all of these recent cases. Religious marriages recognized by private organizations are the business of those private organizations, but state-registered civil marriages -- whether called 'marriages' or 'domestic partnerships' or 'civil unions' or whatever -- should be available to same-sex couples for as long as they're available at all. The various courts that have addressed this issue in the famous cases of the past few years have gotten the Constitutional part right. (I only wish they were as zealous in protecting Second Amendment rights.)
The power of the government is not a legitimate weapon in a 'culture war' -- on either side. The government simply has no legitimate role in the marriage-definition game (other than restricting unions to parties legally competent to give consent)."----
This idea that if the govt affords legal recognition to traditional marriages, then it must do the same for alternatives is nothing less than a complete surrender to the Left on this battle in the Culture war. Whether its valid or not, the Courts have become THE weapon for the Left in the Culture war since its the only one they have that works. Just as its the only way for extremists to get public nativity scenes and prayers before highschool football games banned, so too is it the only way to have abortion on demand and gay marriage/civil unions.
So you think its right for judges to take some part of the Constitution that was ratified w/o any thought or intent that it ever be used in such a manner as imposing gay marriage/civil unions, to turn around and do just that? When the Constitution and its subsequent Amendments were ratified, that represented an approval from the people for the purposes put forth by the authors. For the Courts to take it upon themselves to declare that now these provisions apply to thing for which they were never intended is a violation of the whole principle of having the consent of the governed.
This is clearly one of those things for which the Founders designed the 10th Amendment. And the people of each state have a right to decide which if any type of union they will grant legal recogntion (i.e. public endorsement). If someone in Texas or Ohio doesn't like it, then they should move.
Moreover, good luck in finding judges who on the one hand think its their duty to impose gay marriage/civil unions, but on the other hand have respect for the Second Amendment. You can find them; Kennedy and O'Connor might be examples, but in finding one who favors the former you'll probably end up with a thoroughly leftist judge like Souter, Stevens, Breyer, etc.
I'm not surprised, and the sooner the public realizes that passing these amendments banning gay marriage are not going to prevent judges from overstepping their authority the better.
This is the main reason I support a constitutional amendment, though obviously the judges have taken to disobeying the constitution as they see fit as well.
Best solution is to limit the power of the judiciary AND start impeaching judges that do not uphold their oath.
-off topic: Are you really a goat -fast or boomer?
One more thing before you go Mr Attorney. The lunatic judge was ever so predictable in his use of interracial marriage as a precedent for overturning the will of the people. The only problem with that is that there is no precedent. Miscegenation laws were indeed discriminatory and in violation of Californias' Constitution. Current laws are not discriminatory in any way as written.
I guess what the majority wants doesn't count any longer.... It seems like the they (gays) are going to do what ever they can to destroy marriage as we know it.... I wish those people would just go back in the closet, sorry but that's how I feel...
My best friend on this forum is on your side of this issue as far as changing the law to allow homosexuals to marry. Obviously, I disagree vehemently but we are still friends. And I consider anti-abortion, pro 2A, anti judicial activism my friends as well.
So let's presume this; in order to get the same civil benefits, homosexuals marry for convenience. Now who who you like living next to you, a quiet, loving couple, going to work each day, cooking out in the back yard, mowing the lawn, you know, normal people stuff OR a nominally married gay couple, hitting the bars at night looking for love/sex, different men/women over every night, and loud raucous parties? I would prefer the former.
"I believe that a principled 'judicial activism'"
Thanks. That's really all I need to know. You believe in judges making law so long as they are making laws that you think are somehow embodied in the Constitution, or really, that you think should be embodied therein.
Marriage is a construct of society, not some fundamental right, and as such society has a right to define it. That a state's decision to recognize traditional marriage means it must, under the Constitution, recognize homosexual marriage is the view of those who hold the ridiculously open-ended view of the Constitution as a 'living, breathing, evolving' document that changes to meet the times, and that the only arbiters of how it must change are the Courts. Scalia has effectively thrashed that whole mindset of chaning values and 'emerging national consensus' by pointing out that the judges are merely substituting their own personal ideological views in place of the people at large.
The idea that any part of the Constitution was ever ratified with the thought that it might ever be used in such a manner can't be taken seriously. It is not right for the Courts to take provisions that dealt with, for example, ex-slaves and black Americans, and then arbitrarily decide that they now apply to homosexuals. Such a decision should ideally be made by an Amendment, or at the very least by those elected officials who are accountable to the people.
The problem with the Left and those sharing your views is that you know such an Amendment can't be ratified, and that the legislatures will not act as you wish, so you therefore cloak this obvious unpopular dirty work of the Left in Constitutional rhetoric.
Look, I don't want the state preaching that heterosexual and homosexual unions are the same. It's as simple as that.
My friend Torie will tell you that I'm set in concrete on this. No sense trying to convince me. My ways are not in error.
Classic argument from the aristocracy. If I didn't know better I would swear OhioAttorney is Justice Kennedy.
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.