Posted on 05/15/2008 10:02:52 AM PDT by NinoFan
Opinion just released.
Well,
as a wife I get my husband’s social security benefits when he dies. I suppose a gay husband can get his gay husband’s social security now, theoretically.
Spousal benefits would have to be extended to gay partners. Like, if my work offered health insurance to me and my family, it would have to offer it to Roger and his husband Jim.
Roger and Jim, statistically, will have a lot more health problems.
Just a couple of things off the top of my head.
Amen, Mr. Silverback, a major component of the communist manifesto is the destruction of the traditional nuclear family.
Seems they’ve scored a victory here. Hopefully they will not win the war.
...a lazy, yet friendly way of outreach, as if to say “please read the tagline, that’s all for now”. ;-)
Isaiah 64:6
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
Interacial marriage laws were about CHILDREN. It was about mixing of races to produce offspring which could not have a racial determination.
Homosexual marriage is just marriage based on rewarding hedonistic sex.
Marriage is about the future of society. Homosexuality contributes NOTHING to the future of society.
Homosexual behavior is NOT analogous to race. Homosexuality is a selected behavior, you do not select your melanin content.
The interacial marriage BS is a left wing pro-homosexual talking point.
Would have been good to keep relgious marriage separate from politically sanctioned unions. By trying to establish Christian marriages in the State realm, it has opened the door for government to change the definition of marriage.
This is an interesting concept. How do you propose gay, unmarried couples transfer unlimited funds between partners or inherit unlimited amounts of money without paying taxes? I don't see an obvious way of doing that through a will or other legal document.
A very good observation, questions on polls can be twisted easily to alter the results, and often are! You can find that here, on the Gallup website:
Most Americans Approve of Interracial Marriages
The question asked was: "Do you approve or disapprove of marriage between blacks and whites?"
According to their data, 1991 was the first year more respondents answered "approve" than answered "disapprove".
Because of the increasing immorality in this country, I have decided that life under Muslim rule will be an improvement.
There are plenty of places you can move to that will be happy to accomodate you. You'll be quite the propaganda tool.
You've apparently already decided that you're living under a secular humanist government that's ordering you to send your children for homosexual indoctrination.
"Because of the increasing immorality in this country, I have decided that life under Muslim rule will be an improvement."
Yes and polygmory and group marriage too!
I agree. States should not be permitted to redefine marriage. We could have 50 different definitions of marriage - one per state. Unfortunately, I can’t see them passing one anytime soon.
I don’t want life under neither. I want to live in a free country based on Judeo-Christian values, like this used to be. :(
That alone is enough reason to discard as just plain silly the argument that banning same-sex “marriage” is analogous to banning interracial marriage.
Now, inevitably, someone will pop up and announce that not every heterosexual coupling produces offspring. That older people sometimes marry who are too old to produce offspring, or people are infertile or sterile, or just choose not to have children. That's true, but there's more to marriage than that.
This comes as a shock to libertarians who think society doesn't exist, but marriage is a societal institution. It isn't something designed to make people feel good as individuals, or to heighten some ego-driven freak's desire to “exercise his personal autonomy in a way that maximizes his sexual gratification”, or whatever. Marriage is a way for society to celebrate and honor the obvious fact (obvious to anyone other than the four blithering idiots who composed the judicial majority on the California Supreme Court) that men and women are opposite sexes who form a whole (who become one) when joined in a loving relationship. This is most obvious in the ability to produce children and to raise them in a manner that doesn't contradict nature, but it's not limited to that.
Even if a particular marriage never produces children, it's still a societal celebration of the natural bonding of the sexes, and serves as a model for men to put aside their natural promiscuousness and often misdirected behavior in behalf of settling down with a member of the other, different half of humanity. To devote his greater physical strength and aggressiveness to her protection, since she is the bearer of all future members of the species, or at least is representative of that vitally important role in the life instinct of society.
The fact that there's a small percentage of the population that is screwed up and wants to play boy-girl with another person of the same sex is nothing but a deviancy. It's deserving of no respect whatsoever. This is why it took the Western world so long to degenerate to this point. Even standard liberalism was never sick enough to treat these filthy and degenerate “relationships” as anything worthy of respect, let alone elevation to equality with normal relationships. We had to sink to the level we're at now, which is pretty damn low, to even contemplate this. And still yet we haven't plumbed depths of depravity so low that this is accepted by the mainstream public. That's why the homosexual lobby is using the courts to force their agenda down our throats, brazenly using raw, unaccountable government power to forcibly alter a multi-thousand year old cherished societal institution. Does that sound like the behavior of government in a healthy and free society of self-governing people?
The fallout from this will be enormous, and will seriously restrict our traditional liberties. Otherwise, the modern totalitarian variety of liberals wouldn't be so enthusiastically pushing for same-sex “marriage”. Does anyone seriously believe that the leftists at MoveOn, Daily Kos, etc. are for same-sex “marriage” because they support freedom? Hell no. They support it because it degrades our civilization and will be used to justify massive expansions of government power, which will undermine traditional liberties such as religious freedom, freedom of speech, and property rights.
Once nonsense like this becomes law, we're told that the “right” to same-sex “marriage” is so important that all other rights must bow before it. This is especially important since it isn't actually spelled out in the constitution. To justify the judicial activism which created this new “right”, the left has to assert that it's such an important right that it didn't even have to be spelled out. Thus, it's more important than mere freedom of speech or other rights actually mentioned in our federal and state constitutions and in our founding documents.
So when the inevitable clashes come, when John's right to same-sex “marriage” conflicts with Jim's property rights, guess who will win? What will happen when restaurant owner Jim refuses to provide Valentine's Day discounts for same-sex couples? Well, he'll be fined. But what about his property rights? Ah, but those aren't as important as the right to same-sex “marriage”. Those are mere enumerated rights, not nearly as important as the unenumerated variety.
But what if Jim is a Christian and considers homosexuality a sin? Well, too bad Jim. Religious freedom is an enumerated right actually discussed by the Founding Fathers. Same-sex “marriage” is a freedom so overwhelming that the founders didn't even visualize its glorious heights.
But what if Jim speaks out and says he doesn't approve of same-sex “marriages” since they're immoral and unnatural. Well, Jim, I hope you have a few thousand dollars handy to pay the fine for violating the hate speech code. Oh, and by the way, Jim, the new textbooks that will be forced on your kids next term by the state describe you and your church as bigoted and will give your kids all the encouragement they need to experiment with the glorious, progressive “gay” lifestyle. At the very least they'll be programmed to sit down, shut up, and follow orders.
Anyone who doesn't see this coming is blind. Much of it is already here.
States’ rights, and one more good reason to leave California.
I need to read the opinion.
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.