Posted on 05/15/2008 10:02:52 AM PDT by NinoFan
Opinion just released.
So your opposition to same-sex marriage is based on your own “visceral” reaction to homosexuality in general? Interesting. I think many people, maybe even most, object for the same reasons you do. It’s rare to find it so frankly stated, though.
Why is it a silly comment?
TraditionalistMommy: “Would you have supported leaving interracial marriage to a vote? Looks as though it would have been illegal until about 1991.”
You are completely, totally missing the point. This issue isn’t for a handful of judges to decide. They simply redefined the law to fit a particular agenda you may or may not agree with. If they can remake the law to mean whatever they want, there is absolutely no real limit to what they can do, and you and I are no longer free. Even voting them off won’t fix the damage they have already done.
Now you may think the judges acted morally in this, but again, it is NOT for them to make up law. They have seized power against the will of the people, and no American should tolerate this open rebellion against the rule of law! Want gay marriage legalized? Then get people to agree with you and vote to change the law. Don’t use judges to do your dirty work for you. That is the way of the left.
You didn’t answer the question. Based on your response, it looks as though you would have preferred the legality of interracial marriage be left to a vote. Is that correct?
I'm thinking of getting married to a box of hand grenades.
I honestly don’t care what people do in the privacy of their own homes, but this isn’t about the “liberty” to do as you wish within your own home. This is about the court’s unilaterally creating a “right” to have the government step in and sanction and legitimize a particular lifestyle. Every time a “right” is created out of whole cloth, “liberty” is taken away from some other area. It is difficult nigh unto impossible for the government to recognize homosexual marriage without recognizing and protecting practicing homosexuals as a group under the law. If they begin to receive protected status under the law then eventually discriminating against practicing homosexuals will be illegal for even the most trivial matters, not just with regards to the government’s own policies, but with respect to society at large. Since many of religious beliefs require us to put a certain amount of seperation between ourselves and people who choose to live in sin, it is inevitable that our religious beliefs will soon come into conflict with the law. Christian organizationa will be compelled to employ homosexual staff, Christian welfare organizations will be forced to aallow them to adopt their children. Eventually simply stating standard Christian beliefs on homosexual behavior will be regarded as hate speech within this country. I’m all for lieve nad let live, but that’s not what this is about at all. They don’t want tolerance they want acceptance and they’ll use the tools of the government to enforce it. The eventual outcome of the courts affirmatively sanctioning, legitimizing, and enfranchising the homosexual lifestyle is the government persecution of conservative christians. This is not a one off and done proposition. This is not a case where we let them use the courts to get their way on one issue and get outrages for a time then completely forget about the issue five years late. If we lose on this issue nationally, as minor as it may seem to some, this will persist and this will be nipping at our own liberty for as long as this Republic persists.
More to the point the government has an interest in promoting traditional, you do know what that means one would hope, marriage for obvious reasons, the number one reason being that they don't have to take more of my money to give to untraditional families, ie: no fathers.
Interracial marriage is a strawman argument used by lefties. Marriage has always been defined as the union of one man and one woman with certain age and relation requirements codified in law. Marriage between men and women is fundamental in America. That citizens and courts erroneously denied that right to interracial couples says absolutely nothing about homosexual marriage. Nothing at all.
Not all of us.
But hey, we might need a few clowns, who knows?
This case is about feelings.
Traditional marriage is a thought crime and thus the state of california deems parents who teach it as abusing their children.
If they state of california can say which feelings are allowed and not allowed (as compared to behavior and actions) then they can easily criminalize thought. (ie conservatives)
How does it not effect DOMA? If gays in CA or MA move to another state which does NOT recognize gay marriage, DOMA gives that state the authority to NOT recognize that gay union. This will be a crucial defense to any equal protection or substantive due process argument.
As I said, the part about “the constitutional right to form a family relationship” is the more serious difficulty with the ruling.
It is not entirely irrational to judge equality of rights to individuals, but it makes no sense to project rights to a union of two individuals.
The studies put out are very deceptive, I assume intentionally. They show positive correlations and rely on people not understanding the difference between a positive correlation and a causal factor. I got into this big argument with one of my friends over this issue who insisted that the studies show their are certain genetic markers found in the majority of gays.
So, I had to resort to an obvious example and said “what if a study was done at the death row of a prison to determine if more murderers had blue eyes or brown eyes? One category of eye color would have more murderers. So what if more than half of the murderers have blue eyes? Does that mean that having blue eyes CAUSES one to be a murderer?”
She had to answer but still insisted so I pointed out that a study showing more blue eyed people are murderers is a study that shows a positive correlation between blue eyes and murder, not a study that shows that blue eyes is a causal factor. She went off from our walk in a tiff but has been nice to me since........LOL.
“...and I’m NOT even ALLOWED to voice my opinion in public;...”
Let me tell you, I’ve read some other boards today on this issue, and it is very, very, frightening the number of direct threats I saw leveled against Christians who do not support the homosexual lifestyle or the overturned vote.
You could just about feel the wish to do harm.....
Really? Why do you think it says “Nothing at all”? Until the point interracial marriage was legalized, and even long after, people made exactly the same arguments you’re making. I think that alone says something, most likely different things to different people. Can you explain why you think it’s a strawman argument?
How, do you imagine, same-sex marriage might “take more of” your money?
I think the gut reaction toward federal ban of gay marriage over state jurisdiction is unwise. An explicit Amendment strengthening DOMA would be better - voluntarily segregation along socio-political lines may not be a bad goal.
I know it is harsh, but if one state wants to attract criminals, vagrants, homos, druggies, welfare queens, regulations, high taxes, etc shouldn’t the rest of us be happy? Like garbage, these aspects will always be “with us”. Why not have a toxic waste dump? Damn, you could even start a charity to provide free one-way tickets there.
That, to me, is one of the advantages of federalism (as the term is meant today) - it provides something closer to a free-market for laws. Let the idiots try out their little doomed-to-failure socialistic utopia experiments without dragging the rest of us down.
Truthfully, I think we need to strengthen the things that remain....
Interesting. In this very thread, several people have expressed their wish that an earthquake strike California. That seems like a “wish to do harm,” doesn’t it?
As I said elsewhere, this doesn’t effect DOMA, and more than Mass. did. DOMA is only effected if some federal judge decides to force another state to recognize a gay marriage from Mass. or now California.
Suppose the moon were made of green cheese?
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.