check out: http://daisycutter.blogspot.com/2005/05/blogs-for-mccains-opponent-launches.html
Posted on 10/19/2006 6:53:02 AM PDT by slowhand520
Well, gee, thanks. I never said I think this is a good idea. Indeed, I never even endorsed this ruling. All I have said is that it is inevitable that the Court will eventually rule this way.
"At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny," Korematsu v. United States (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. LOVING ET UX. v. VIRGINIA "
You are correct that strict scrutiny is triggered only in race and national origin. However, the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause applies even to non-suspect classes, including sexual orientation (Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas).
If homosexuality is given protected status under the 14th amendment, then incest, polygamy and bestiality and all other manner of sexual pervesion would necessarily have to be given that same protected status.
Slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy.
LOL! Loving led to Romer which led to Lawrence which will eventually lead to hedonism as a protected class.
The Slippery Slope fallacy is only a fallacy if it has not been documented. In the case of sexual preference as a protected class, we have already travelled the slippery slope. You yourself are insisting that homosexual marriage as a right is "inevitable".
Indeed if we allow it to happen by burying our heads in the sand and laying down while the institution of marriage is attacked and trivialized by hedonists bent on the destruction of our social mores.
Sexual preference is a behavioral problem and not a protected class. It should not be given any more consitutional protection than a food preference or a clothing preference. In light of the fact that homosexual activity is life threatening and the homosexual lifestyle is dangerous and unhealty, it should be discouraged and not protected, especially by equating it with race or national origin. Those are things you can't change. Your choice to engage in deviant sexual behavior is not an immutable characteristic. Nobody has to have anal intercourse.
Sounds like a case of low self-esteem and no self-confidence to me.
Why is it that whenever homosexual advocates see themselves losing arguments the first thing they do is try to equate their situation to that of blacks?
It's an old propaganda trick and it turns my stomach every time I encounter it. Just so you know, black people are offended by having our struggle tainted by association with their godless perverse behaviors.
Race is protected under a number of laws. People who identify themselves by their acts: homosexuals, murderers, thieves, lawyers, etc. as groups, don't receive those same types of protections. They receive the rights and restrictions everyone including blacks receive. Such as, only a male can marry a female.
By what authority should our government take it upon itself to normalize their desire for deviancy? We are a people in a nation of the people by the people and for the people. There is no special degeneracy protection for homosexuals in the constitution, and there is no ground swell of people looking to institutionalize depravity in this country. Nor is there any common good to doing so.
Homosexuals are not blacks. They have never been three-fifths of a person. They weren't dragged across the ocean, chained in the holds of boats like chattel, and turned into slaves. They weren't kept on plantations, beaten, and separated from their families. They are not impoverished, denied education, nor do they have limited access to the media and government. On average they have higher household incomes than white families. Why should they receive any special consideration?
Now that people are willing to live and let them live, they use the considerable influence they enjoy in an all out attack on the future and foundation of this nation -- the children by way of indoctrination, and families by their assault on the institution of marriage.
The deviants can parade and yell all the want. They identify their own selves by their disgustingly unclean activities. Merely identifying yourself by a deviant act should not afford you any special rights.
""I care that the institution of marriage and the foundation of society is not rendered meaningless by a bunch of perverts. Does that answer your question?""
"Sounds like a case of low self-esteem and no self-confidence to me."
Your response is nonsense and typically offered by those who have no counter-argument. Gay marriage is a radical proposal that has been unheard of in virtually every society throughout history. The people who are against gay marriage are not the oddballs on this issue, the oddballs are people like you who support it (for whatever reason).
I'm no McCain fan, but he goes on to say immediately after the clip "conveniently" ends that he doesn't believe that gay marriage should recognized under the law.
IOW, if homosexuals want to engage in "let's pretend" and have a private ceremony, that's their twisted business. If they want to force the rest of us to recognize their twisted business under the law, he's opposed. So may I.
Sounds pretty sensible to me.
I'm no McCain fan, but he goes on to say immediately after the clip "conveniently" ends that he doesn't believe that gay marriage should recognized under the law.
IOW, if homosexuals want to engage in "let's pretend" and have a private ceremony, that's their twisted business. If they want to force the rest of us to recognize their twisted business under the law, he's opposed. So am I.
Sounds pretty sensible to me.
I second your comment. I detest McCain, but this is a comment taken out of context and is very misleading.
Nicccce.
Nor should anyone be FORCED to recognize such a union. However, this is the exact aim of the gaystapo, in that they want their lifestyle taught to children - YOUR children (see Massachusetts) - and their union RECOGNIZED across the board, especially by those of religious sensibilities. Anyone halfway paying attention knows this.
I agree! Newt in 2008!
If only.
Are he and Lindsey Graham already registered somewhere? I'm thinking they would like a nice pink tea cozy.
They make such a cute couple. Maybe they have their own civil union. /sarc
McCain is a jackass; sorry if that is offensive
You should be. Jackasses of America are insulted.
You know, I was going to post side by side pictures of McCain and Graham to explain the reason why McCain might have said this, but decided, in the current environment here, not to do it.
New television ads set the record straight! [McCain Appears for AZ Prop 107]
Protect Marriage AZ | 11/3/06
Posted on 11/03/2006 6:09:46 PM EST by bnelson44
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1731817/posts
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.