Posted on 03/14/2005 12:16:45 PM PST by Dont Mention the War
Breaking...
I've read a number of books about WWII and how Jews were rounded up, massacred, sent to the camps, and so on. The question people often have is "How did the Jews let it come to that pass? Why didn't more of them fight back? Why didn't more escape when they had the chance?"
We need to ask ourselves the same questions. I get the feeling that if we wait a lot longer, people in the future will ask those questions about us and our fate.
The Torie plan is to pass an amendment giving Congress the power to pass a national law on this one way or the other, or regarding Civil Unions. Odd that only I seem to support such a proposal, when the idea seems to be so demonstrably fair and sensible. :)
Language often defines the debate, and it is interesting that HRC and gay activists tried to define the language in a certain way, and you are following it (hook line sinker) ...
Sticking with marriage as it has been defined for 1500 years doesnt "ban" anything. Nobody is 'banning gay unions'. if you are gay and want to create a 'union', go ahead.
The proper way to ask is this way: Do we keep marriage as defined for eons in western civilization?
Or do we change it?
And if so, how?
Do we redefine marriage to include polygamy (1-to-many)?
Do we redefine marriage to include homogamy (same-sex)?
And if we redefine marriage for one, why not the other?
The comments I made were to refute an argument from an earlier poster who did assert exactly those things. You are addressing them in a different context. They are not meant to be a justification for gay unions in and of themselves, it is my assertion that gay unions need no justification other than two people love each other and want to spend their lives together and enjoy the same benefits as heterosexuals. What I have sought from this discussion is a reason for that not to be the case, and I have addressed those reasons as they have appeared. Please don't take those responses and presume that they are the justification for gay union. As I said, I believe it needs no justification other than it's existence.
To be put on the ballot by the legislature would require Democrats to support the referendum, since Republicans are less than half of each house. I really doubt that would happen.
Sorry but fundamentalists who supported segregation such as Robert KKK Byrd is not a true Christian. True Christians opposed segregation and slavery. They were the abolitionists and marched with MLK!
because even a childless couple can raise a child as a normal offspring. An adopted child need never know they are adopted, a child trapped in a homosexual environment will ALWAYS know they are in an abnormal environment.
Remember also homosexual "couples" do not adopt. One adopts and then IF and only IF a state allows will there be a second "parent" adoption. 27 states restrict or prohibit homosexual sex partners from adopting children of sex partners. (no heather has two momies as a matter of law)
There is ALWAYS the potential of a mother father situation of a normal couple. There is also grandparents which are part of the normal extended family.
Homoseuxal "couples" only serve recreational sex NOTHING else.
"The gay civil rights movement just like any movement is a business that wont stop. You think all those Gay Civil Rights activists will shut up! They will demand more and more!"
Dang, wait 'til some genius starts thinking up reparations.
"Gays are pleading for employee benefit rights to health insurance for their partners. "
Yeah, and many big employers already provide that ... meanwhile those same employers are cutting jobs, outsourcing, and giving other folks less than they got before in other ways. I know. Been there, seen it.
(P.S. I been having problems with this but no one answers me logically, they just saw how they feel about it. What I want to know is how the two things above can be logically consistent.)
I don't see a problem -the same argument could be made of the US Constitution. IF homosexuals are now considered due the same rights as heterosexuals due to the equal protection clause THEN why did women and blacks require constitutional amendments to acquire said rights?
The answer is simple -liberal judges are now interpreting beyond the original intent of the Constitution. In essence legislating from the bench...
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.
No, that's pretty much how the Constitution was intended to work, and I have yet to meet anyone -- conservative or otherwise -- who really thinks it's always a bad thing when the SCOTUS applies a Constitutional limitation in a new way.
I assume you're happy the police have to get a warrant before tapping your phone. Well, prior to 1967 they didn't, as long as they didn't place the wiretap on your property; the SCOTUS ruled on that in 1920-something (Olmstead), holding that a wiretap wasn't a 'search' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment (as of course it wasn't if we stick to what the framers and, more importantly, the ratifiers expressly had in mind). However, in Katz (1967), the SCOTUS overturned Olmstead and famously held that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places; ever since then, the Fourth Amendment word 'search' has been expanded to apply to something that was clearly not intended in 1789.
I'm not saying the same-sex marriage case is completely parallel, but that example ought at least to give you a little reason to reconsider whether '[f]or 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' always and in principle.
This is clearly one of those things for which the Founders designed the 10th Amendment.
Well, I think the Ninth and Fourteenth are implicated as well. To make a long story short, I think that the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states the power to regulate the exercise of, but not to violate or infringe, the liberty rights 'retained by the people' according to Amendment IX, and the Fourteenth Amendment imposes additional limitations on such regulation. The question is whether the right to marry whom you please is such a right, and I take it we'll continue to disagree about that. No biggie; I'd have been surprised if very many FReepers did agree with me on that point.
One judge trying to subvert and overturn democracy. It sounds like he should be impeached, removed from office, and publicly shamed for his malfeasance.
"because even a childless couple can raise a child as a normal offspring. An adopted child need never know they are adopted, a child trapped in a homosexual environment will ALWAYS know they are in an abnormal environment."
Good point. We have friends who found they couldnt have children ... they've adopted 3 children and are about to adopt a 4th.
Sorry folks, I am going to call it a night. I have enjoyed the discussion with most of you, thanks for the temperate responses. If anyone cares to address any of this further, feel free to freepmail me.
Not so. It is a recent development -judicial activism -see post # 330
homosexuality has always been viewed as wrong. It has not evolved. Even the much misrepresented ancient Greeks has the death penalty for anyone caught being a practicing soddomite. (ancient athens specifically)
This is about changing the sodomite choice as a having the moral equivalence to normal marriage. That physically can never be the case any more than pedophillia can be made normal. (and yes homosexuality and pedophillia on equivalents. Both are just sexual fetishes.)
until a few judges are removed from office for such outside of the law decisions, no judge has anything to fear. Judges must know that these bonehead decisions will cost them everything in order for them to get the message. As it is now they have no fear.
Look a the infamous FL supreme court, those judges who rulled in 2000 have been up for merit retention votes. They are so secure they did not even bother to run a campaign.
"it is my assertion that gay unions need no justification other than two people love each other and want to spend their lives together and enjoy the same benefits as heterosexuals."
I cant get over this "same benefits" mantra. It's pretty bogus ... like marriage is a check you get in the mail. It's not! It's more of a responsibility, rules and fine print ... Marriage, like insanity, requires a commitment. :-)
"I believe it needs no justification other than it's existence."
Nobody is arguing against gay relationships. If they exist so be it. The argument is whether forms of relationships besides 1 man and 1 woman should be called marriage and have legal recognition thereof. We dont call 1 man and 5 women a 'marriage' in the U.S. and forbid polygamy. It seems, by your logic this is an unjust situation that demands a remedy... by analogy with your statement:
"They are not meant to be a justification for polygamous unions in and of themselves, it is my assertion that polygamous unions need no justification other than some people love each other and want to spend their lives together and enjoy the same benefits as monogamous men and women. What I have sought from this discussion is a reason for that not to be the case, and I have addressed those reasons as they have appeared. Please don't take those responses and presume that they are the justification for polygamy. As I said, I believe it needs no justification other than it's existence."
Not so. It is a recent development -judicial activism -see post # 330
I use that term ('judicial activism') in scare quotes because I don't think it has any clear meaning. However, the practice to which you refer is not a recent development; even people who don't like it date it from at least as long ago as Marbury v. Madison (1803), and in fact it was anticipated by the framers themselves.
Good night, all.
Yes, even those state laws enacted by a general vote of the people at referendum. Only constitutional amendments are immune from challenge as unconstitutional; amendments are constitutional by definition.
Although one poster did point out to me a case from Colorado which I haven't had time to review yet.
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.