Posted on 04/15/2005 4:56:59 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Try to remember that as you cheer on the ones that do it in the direction that you favor.
Do what I do when I do something like that. Pretend that everyone gets what you were trying to say, unless someone tells you otherwise. I think a good chunk of my posts would need a "sheesh" following them, but since we have no edit here, I'm left with either cowering in a little hole or ignore & push onward.
Actually the Senate banned filibustering until 1806.
"In case of a debate becoming tedious, four Senators may call for the question; or the same number may at any time move for the previous question, viz, "Shall the main question now be put?" "
They dropped the rule in 1806 because it was considered dilatory itself!
But isn't it equally dangerous to contrive "rights" in order to secure privileges and remuneration from the state? Where does it end? The implications of an unending progression of new "rights" being defined is a threat to individual sovereignty when the new rights become entitlements, and entitlements confer moral or financial capital. When these entitlements incur unapproved blessing and financial support from the majority of citizens, you have a kind of breakdown in confidence in the legal system.
Basically you're using a positivist argument: the minority who believes they have a right to secure marriage from the state, if they are able to persuade the sovereign (the judiciary) that their cause has arbitrary merit, they may impose their views on the majority who disagree. How is this fair to the majority?
I think when we're asked by secular humanists, ever desiring to enhance the human race, ever explaining how things can get "better and better" as we cast aside this or that old-fashioned attitude, it's very instructive to point out that there is absolutely no evolutionary value in supporting same-sex couples in their bid to start family units. In other words, I'm willing to take a positivist approach most days, so long as the "sovereign of the social contract" upholds individual rights as defined by Locke and our Declaration of Independence, as well as our bill of rights. However, when the march of new rights begins to violate the consent of the governed, I am very comfortable falling back on the laws of nature directly.
Is this dangerous to talk about higher authorities, above the branches of government? Yes, but it is also dangerous to conduct government business as a "sovereign" when the people clearly disagree. Government officials who violated the consent of the governed in our nation's founding history found themselves tarred and feathered. You bet it's dangerous to talk up natural laws, but when they are so clearly and unmitigatedly violated, one can make a clear case that the positivist legal sovereignty violating it has lost its authority.
I at least am unwilling to stay silent and simply watch the judiciary run roughshod over the will of the people -- especially when natural law supports my case so clearly. Families are from men and women, not from the law benches of our country.
I think the same-sexers should be very concerned about where they are pushing our legal system. A day may come when the majority of Americans loses faith in the judiciary because it is incapable of representing their natural view of the world. And for what? A tax refund? A piece of paper? Is it really worth it?
I have read differently. But at this point of course, the matter is highly moot.
I don't think you read my post very closely. I think legislatures should make laws, not the judiciary.
Seems you've missed much of the fun in this thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1384703/posts?page=409#409
If the public square thought it was a mere piece of paper, the passions evoked on this issue seem very odd indeed. It is more than a piece of paper, much more. It is about recognition in the public square that vows of intimacy among consenting two adults should be given repect even if of the same sex.
Your writing is excellent, mine is passable. A shame the Counselor from Ohio quit. He was sharp, off course a bit, but sharp.
But of course he then went on to claim that the reason the rule was changed in 1806 was to allow unlimited debate!
Hopefully it is moot.
The court overturned all sodomy laws, not only those aimed at homosexuals. You may say that it is disingenuous to claim that sodomy laws forbidding sodomy in all cases were not aimed at homosexuals, but is it really hard to believe that the same Texans who disapprove of homosexual acts also disapprove of other deviant heterosexual acts?
Private sex acts are surely more private, than abortions effected in hospitals.
Same for incest?
What else is so private that we should not be allowed to restrict it?
Drug abuse? Prostitution? Cannibalism?
He seemed to depart when I posted to him. I blame myself. :)
Just send a note to Justice Kennedy and ask him. I can't help you.
Phew, glad it was you!
When something this basic to the laws of nature becomes just another debate for the our legislatures and our law benches, there can only be more trouble on the horizon. And again, for what? A rubber stamp?
Actually the Texas law did apply only to homosexuals. LOL. I could say more, but why beat the drum until it has no sound.
Won't you explain to us what other atrocities have been justified by the Roe V. Wade death sentence on millions of innocents?
I find it increasingly passing odd, that no matter what I post, no matter how out of step with the prevailing sentiments in this neighborhood, few choose to debate me anymore. Maybe I am on bozo filter. :)
Joe, I don't think you are very familiar with my views. That is the most charitable explanation.
SCOTUS threw out ALL sodomy laws, not just those which only applied to "men." Equal protection was not even considered as an argument.
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.