Posted on 08/11/2010 9:08:02 AM PDT by Kaslin
If 10,000 years of tradition isn’t good enough defense everything is fair game. That is the real goal. Destroy the foundations, you destroy the building.
What a giant red herring.
Liberals are admittedly skillful at presenting their viewpoint as the status quo while attacking the REAL status quo but they’ve got millennia of evidence and history to overcome while they play parlor games about childless marriages.
Any gay person may marry any person of the opposite sex he or she wishes.
Otherwise we’d have no Windsors.
Same-Sex marriage was never banned from California, even with Proposition 8. Same-sex couples were allowed social security, insurance, and inheritance benefits through registered domestic partnerships. The California populace clearly had no problem with that. The same-sex couples could call their relationships marriages if they wished to. However, the real issue here was the title part. If they want everyone to call their relationships the same as marriage, sorry, they’re not the same kind of relationship.
While common sense says that gay marriage will be bad for society, you can’t PROVE it—especially if its never been tried. And you would have people arguing about what is “bad”. Its hardly objective. One person’s bad is another’s good. Its like trying to prove that welfare has been bad for society. Most would probably say yes, except for the welfare queens and bureaucrats.
Yep. We're now ruled by liberal federal district court judges and their ad hoc rationalizations.
I see that the prop 8 team was pretty lame in it’s presentation. I suspect it is because they are assuming this will go to the SCOTUS, where they will prevail.
RINOs stomping around conservative sites.
We have homo-trolls circulating on the fora trying to hype up support for homosexuals.
The article is one giant red herring.
Stupid political stunt brought upon us by sociopath bullies who really hate the “normal.”
In an earlier time, the howls for impeachment and removal of this embarrassment to self government would be overwhelming.
Ted Olson, white courtesy phone please.
Don’t you mean the author’s argument?
Yes.
Well, to my surprise it was an excellent and well-reasoned judgment. Not what I had anticipated, but the intellectualt clarity contained therein satisfied my initial doubts.
Next will be marriages to animals, robots, siblings,dolls,children,and marriages to multiple partners, and who knows what else.It is the slippery slope that will be damaging to procreation.
Why do persons of homosexual orientation insist upon calling what they want to gain “equity” with hetrosexual couples “marriage”?
They have been offered “civil unions”, a means of allowing the persons who choose to subordinate their lives to another of the same sex, the same advantages given freely to persons of opposite gender who have chosen to make this kind of long-term (even lifetime) contract. No matter how it is cut, the state-sanctioned marriage contract gives unequal apportionment of the rewards of married life to one partner or the other in the event of its breach. And even now, these advantages written into the tax code are being eliminated or denied upon expiration of the tax reform enacted early in the Bush administration.
And yet, even this offer of “civil unions” have been soundly rejected by a minority within the homosexual community, as “not enough”.
What do they really want? It has nothing to do with gaining any “right to get married”.
As you say, the whole argument against polygamy was not political or legal but societal.
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.