Posted on 11/05/2008 10:34:34 PM PST by chrispycsuf
Hi — new Freeper here in San Diego — you’re absolutely right about the radical agenda of the “gay rights” crowd here in CA. It’s right out of Bill Ayers’ revolution-through-education playbook.
Yes, prop 8 was put on the ballot after getting enough signatures.
Welcome to FR. Are you a Duncan D. Hunter constituent?
It’s also right out of the Communist Manifesto.
Your questions made me think and research this- to put in words is difficult, sometimes the simplest concepts are the most difficult to express. But I will try.
The benefits and legal protections/definitions of marriage under the law exist to protect the family unit , because it is a benefit to society as a whole that the family is protected- to ensure socialization and protection of the children that are the product of marriage.
Conversely it is a danger to society if the children are not properly socialized and that legal issues such as property rights, inheritance of assets etc are not properly defined.
same sex unions provide no benefit to society and can be argued to be a danger to society.
Therefore the government /society has no compelling reason to afford it the same legal protections as marriage, and it could be argued that the state has compelling reasons to discourage same sex unions just as it does to discourage procreation outside of marriage. ( Unless you assume the State has primary responsibility for the socialization/care of children, which is the alternative- not a very attractive one)
So to afford the same legal constructs, rights, benefits and legitimacy of marriage to same sex unions would diminish the ability of society/government to discourage same sex unions, and at the same time facilitate the conception and socialization of children outside of the traditional marriage/family unit , which would be to the detriment of society as a whole.
The primary purpose of marriage is to ensure that children have a mother and a father, they are protected and socialized by that mother and father , and the values are passed on to the next generation.
The rights same sex unions seek are already available, without the redefinition of marriage, such as hospital visitation, transfer of property , etc. “
.Nothing in current law prevents homosexual partners from being joint owners of property such as a home or a car, in which case the survivor would automatically become the owner if the partner dies. An individual may leave the remainder of his estate to whomever he wishes, without regard to sexual orientation or marital status, with a simple will. Entire estates have been left to trees, cats and other peculiar survivors. If a homosexual cannot receive his or her partner’s estate, more than likely, it is because the deceased partner failed to write a will and make necessary legal arrangements.
In the end it is clear that the fight for marriage is less about “gaining rights and responsibilities,” and more about gaining a public stamp of approval for the homosexual lifestyle. That is the true goal, and homosexual activists should own up to that fact.
Sociologist Kingsley Davis has stated that in no time in history with the possible exception of Imperial Rome, has the state of marriage been more problematic than it is today. According to Edward Gibbon in his classic work, “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” Rome fell for several reasons, two of which were the rapid increase in divorce and the undermining of dignity and sanctity of the home.arrangements.”(http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Apr04/Art_Apr04_oped1.html)
Statement By Andrew Pugno, General Counsel of ProtectMarriage.com
“The lawsuit filed today by the ACLU and Equality California seeking to invalidate the decision of California voters to enshrine traditional marriage in California’s constitution is frivolous and regrettable. These same groups filed an identical case with the California Supreme Court months ago, which was summarily dismissed. We will vigorously defend the People’s decision to enact Proposition 8.
This is the second time that California voters have acted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. It is time that the opponents of traditional marriage respect the voters’ decision.
The ACLU/Equality California lawsuit is completely lacking in merit. It is as if their campaign just spent $40 million on a losing campaign opposing something they now say is a legal nullity. Their position is absurd, an insult to California voters and an attack on the initiative process itself.
The right to amend California’s Constitution is not granted to the People, it is reserved by the People. The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged the reserved power of the People to use the initiative process to amend the Constitution. For example, when the Rose Bird Court struck down the death penalty as a violation of fundamental state constitutional rights, the People disagreed, and in the exercise of their sovereign power reversed that interpretation of their Constitution through the initiative-amendment process. Even a liberal jurist who vehemently disagreed with the People’s decision on the death penalty, Justice Stanley Mosk, nevertheless acknowledged the People’s authority to decide the issue through the initiative-amendment process.
It should also be noted that the ACLU recently made this same “constitutional revision” claim in a nearly identical matter in Oregon and it was unanimously rejected. The claim was made under almost identical provisions of the Oregon State Constitution, against an almost identical voter constitutional amendment which read,“…only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.” The Court of Appeals of Oregon unanimously rejected the ACLU’s “revision” claim.(Martinez v. Kulongoski (May 21, 2008)-— P.3d——, 220 Or.App. 142, 2008 WL2120516).
The coalition that has worked so hard for the past year to enact Proposition 8 will vigorously defend the People’s decision against this unfortunate challenge by groups who, having lost in the court of public opinion, now turn to courts of law to pursue their agenda.”
“One was arresting for resisting...” and another arrested for not resisting. ;-)
Damn. That “will of the people” thing only works when the Hollyweird crowd SAYS it does, I guess.
Are we expecting riots?
Keep hope alive
Good question. Prop 22 won by majority BEFORE SF Mayor Gavin Newsom declared himself Emperor of the People and told gays they could marry.
Asidem but relevant: After passage of Prop 209 (repealing preferential aa); D-Bill Lockyer asserted that "Californians weren't going to obey laws they disagreed with", and, he and Dems were not going to obey Constitutional Amendment enshrining Prop 209.
But here's what I find interesting: Gay lobby perpetually asserts they wish to be "just like" everyone else. Well, "every one else" has just said "no thank you" and the gay lobby is asserting they want to be just like everybody else, still.
Truth is, they don't want to be like everybody else.
Yo, fags, ya had your chance. Now shut the hell up ya perverts.
Come on Porterville, you know some stupid activist homosexual supporting judge in Calif will make himself look stupid trying to reverse this by judicial fiat.
OMG! Michael Jackson was there!!!
It appears we Californians got this one right for once.
They’re doing this NOW? Wouldn’t that be a bit like us organizing a McCain-Palin campaign rally today?
“It must be especially stinging for them to see the same state that votes 60% for 0bama just banned gay marriage as well”
Amazing isn’t it?
Not one bitter clinging Pennsylvanian had a thing to do with it.
“But, I don’t really understand the opposition to gay marriage - it’s not like the state is trying to force churches to recognize them.”
That is where you err.
First - the state recognizes gay marriage, and also passes anti-discriminatory laws.
Then - when these people are considered legally married - and they are denied marriage ceremonies in the churches - the churches are open to lawsuits.
The churches are open to lawsuits for reading from the letters of Paul and presenting it as valid teaching.
Church sponsored adoptions that only arrange adoption for traditionally married men & women - shut down for discrimination.
Any church related group/organization -that refuse to accomodate the new “definition” of marriage are sued or shut down.
“We heard a report that the gays were heading towards the Mormon temple in Los Angeles.”
Probably not a good idea. Although I am not a mormon, most of the mormons that I know are also firm believers in the 2nd amendment and hunters.
So, hey gays, good luck with that.
I could live with gay marriage, but the problem for me is that once the traditional definition of marriage is changed, it opens up the door to things that are extremely bad for civilization: incestuous marriage, group marriage, child marriage, etc.
Without a black-letter understanding that there are no further “frontiers” in marriage, I can’t support any change in marriage laws. Religion has nothing to do with 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.