Posted on 05/15/2008 10:02:52 AM PDT by NinoFan
Opinion just released.
I certainly won’t argue with your second point.
What did you object to in that excerpt from my post? You don’t agree that opponents of interracial marriage are now a minority?
[”... the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage — cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest...”]
This is the fraud of judicial power—that judges don’t make law but simply apply it. Their entire argument is based on that point, and yet it is entirely their own personal opinion, having nothing to do with the law. They are not applying the law, but simply re-writing it to reflect their own liberal views.
Apparently Ruth also doesn’t understand the difference between the OLD and the NEW.
Are you a Republican?
"So what"?! What, was "whatever" taken? ... Let's be serious, not flippant. In the abstract yes, some practices"might need to be overturned for the sake of equality. But this isn't slavery. And we're not talking about just "some practice" here. We're talking about redefining a fundamental institution around which civil society has been built for thousands of years. It's a monumental change, not just different wording on a legal document. That's not a small matter of "so what" that should be determined by the interpretive whims of a handful of judges.
As to your equality point, homosexuals are just as free to marry members of the opposite sex as I am. Now that may sound flip but it speaks to the truth about marriage and the practical reason we give it special recognition via law and government policy. The state doesn't legally recognize traditional marriage because the spouses love one another. If so, then you'd have a point about equality. It would be unequal to recognize heterosexual marriage and not homosexual marriage if this was about love. Gays love too, after all. Leaving aside religious traditions for the moment, the state accords legal privileges to marriages because it recognizes the once self-evident benefit to society of promoting stable male and female relationships which in turn build supportive environments for the procreation and nurture of children.
Me? I think marriage should be taken out of the government’s hands entirely. The government ought to deal in civil unions only, and leave marriage (and the definition thereof) to religions.
The case against brother/sister unions is strongly rooted in the danger to the health of the offspring of such pairings. I’m not sure about brother/brother. i’m certainly no fan of the idea, but if a church wanted to perform a marriage ceremony for two brothers, I can’t imagine it affecting me (and children wouldn’t be possible, so I’m not sure who would be affected).
I know a few of large, black gay men. And I’ve heard some of them make the point for me.
Your second point, in the post to which I responded, was not about guys marrying their brothers.
You are a supporter of judicial activism. Most liberals prefer an oligarchy with promises of cradle to grave government largesse and special rights for special people created by small men and women in black robes. It's always been that way and I don't expect it to change any time soon.
PS: Take a math refresher course.
Adios.
No, more of a libertarian.
Red herring. I know that you're too smart to believe that the two issues are genuinely analogous.
I don’t know why you’re intent on labeling me, but that’s okay too.
Marriage was not found to be the union of mixed-race couples until judicial activists decided to do so.
If you think interracial marriage should have been put to a vote rather than decided by courts, then your position is consistent. It would mean that interracial couples would have been denied the right to marry until about the 1990s, according to all the poll data regarding attitudes about interracial marriage. Some people think that would have been the better course of action, and we can agree to disagree.
I’m certainly no math whiz. My husband is, so I’ll have him check my post for mathematical errors. :)
Come now, you don’t think I’m smart. ;)
I do indeed think the issues are genuinely analogous, and remarkably so.
It's not about "leaving people out" -- those benefits and legal restrictions you refer to are all available to gays, they just might have to work a little harder to get them (e.g., write a will).
What it is about, though, is destroying the institution of marriage...and family. Observe what government policy has done to the black family, for cryin' out loud. Perhaps not intentionally, but in effect -- single moms with multiple children by multiple fathers, locked in a cycle of dependency.
Re-writing the laws of marriage -- which have served society so well over the centuries -- will, in the end, have the exact same effect on all families.
Co-habitation will be all about sex...and benefits. Commitment, marriage, motherhood and fatherhood will become artifacts of the past...children will be an "inconvenience", left to the government to raise.
Gay marriage isn't about creating "equal rights" for gays. It's about destroying a society they are alienated from. If you can't recognize this is a cultural war, you're going to help lose it.
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.