To be added or removed from the VK list, FReepmail Darkwing104.
Posted on 08/19/2010 6:18:04 AM PDT by throwback
Together with my good friend and occasional courtroom adversary David Boies, I am attempting to persuade a federal court to invalidate California's Proposition 8—the voter-approved measure that overturned California's constitutional right to marry a person of the same sex.
My involvement in this case has generated a certain degree of consternation among conservatives. How could a politically active, lifelong Republican, a veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, challenge the "traditional" definition of marriage and press for an "activist" interpretation of the Constitution to create another "new" constitutional right?
My answer to this seeming conundrum rests on a lifetime of exposure to persons of different backgrounds, histories, viewpoints, and intrinsic characteristics, and on my rejection of what I see as superficially appealing but ultimately false perceptions about our Constitution and its protection of equality and fundamental rights.
Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
All of the examples you brings are to prohibit unsavory marriages before god - that is the job of the church!
You claim we give the government the right to define marriage - where exactly did we do that?
As long as the Government recognizes the marriage union as a right in which certain other rights stem from (inheritance for instance) they must define marriage to determine who qualifies.
And now you've reached the crux of the argument! By making marriage (before man) a "right" from which others stem - and which government alone is responsible for defining! - we have returned to the form of rule we escaped during the revolution!
Our rights do not stem from anywhere except the Creator. I have the eternal right to decide what happens with my property / money - I can leave it to my children or dispose of it as I see fit. If I live in a contractual union before man - then my spouse and I share certain rights to property / money. These contractual rights are governmed by the laws of man - not the Creator.
IOW - get government out of traditional marriage - that belongs to the Creator alone.
If the government feels the need to promote any one type of union between free peoples over other types, then it should be done in accordance with standard legal precepts and based on sound legal arguments - just as any other contract.
Laws about who can have sexual relations with whom have nothing to do with whether government should define "marriage" - and governments are rightfully charged with regulating certain behaviors based on thier immediate danger to others (incest, sex with kids, etc...)
If you learned a man in your community announced that he had married his 12 year old biological daughter, that now she is no longer his child but his wife and she is now pregnant with his child, would you be comfortable with allowing that under the law?
Having sex with a 12 year old, daughter or not, has nothing to do with "marriage".
Without defining marriage, you’d have to.
Why?
Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither.
C. S. Lewis
BISEXUALITY, was certainly practiced in Sparta, but raising the next generation of warriors became the priority. Institutionalized homosexuality and bachelorhood was shunned during Sparta's prime (If you respect primary sources rather than sources 400+ years later).
Revisionist historian, Plutarch, came around and observed Sparta as “enjoying” institutionalized homosexuality/paederasty and thought “this must of been the norm”. Of course during Plutarch's time, Spartans were primarily composed of helots and surfs who were granted citizenship.
If you get your history from the Paul Cartledge types, I feel sorry for you. I would rather study a society through primary sources, not from those with an agenda and from historians centuries after the fact who engage in speculation.
Okay, here’s some statements by homosexual activists on their reasons for pushing homosexual marriage, supports what you stated:
From LA Times of March 12: ...
“Divided over gay marriage” by Roy Rivenburg Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor who runs the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives, including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men and women who share sexual relations.
One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights. The other goal is to “push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society.” ... [snip]
An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
“Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):
“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake —and one that would perhaps benefit all of society—is to transform the notion of family entirely.”
“Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”
Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.
Crain writes: “...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn’t deserve the position.” (Washington Blade, August, 2003).
Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater “understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.”
He notes: “The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.” (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)
Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said:
“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.” (partially quoted in “Beyond Gay Marriage,”
Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated:
“Isn’t having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. “(quoted in “What Marriage Is For,” by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)
Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says:
“Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I’d be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of ‘till death do us part’ and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play.” (quoted in “Now Free To Marry, Canada’s Gays Say, ‘Do I?’” by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)
1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: “Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.”
[Also among the demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]
To be added or removed from the VK list, FReepmail Darkwing104.
I like that one too!
Agree 100% and that should be the consevative position—who you swear allegiance to is none of my business, and if a gay wants to do it, fine—he’s not asking MY blessing, which I do not give.
Keep it in the church(es), since it’s a matter of morality and personal belief, anyway.
Nonresponse! Hate Crime Laws have nothing to do with marriage. That they want them is clear - doesn't mean we should pass them - or any OTHER hate crime laws ... Prop 8 was struck down because it gives one group of people an advantage over others financially & contractually.
You gonna agree with Obama and tell us that muslims built America?
No. I'm going to agree with the founders that refused to place any one religion before another!
The Creator created marriage. The church, as his instrument in the world, enforces his will.
The rest of your post is not worthy of response as it has nothing to do with the argument of what marriage is and whether government should be defining it!
>>Also, I think this should apply to people who are not religious, don’t marry using a bible and a church if you don’t believe in the entities behind them. <<
Hey n00bie, keepit up and you will end up like johnnycap. Click the link.
http://www.freerepublic.com/~johnnycap/
IATZ
The rest of my comment is indeed relevant.
Natural Law. Created by the Supreme. No where in the world it doesn’t apply, nor at any time throughout the existence of the universe.
Plus, I don’t agree about churches enforcing His will.
And that statement has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand, anyway.
I didn't say they did. It has to do with the agenda....which you appear to be pushing.
Prop 8 was struck down because it gives one group of people an advantage over others financially & contractually.
Really? What did Prop 8 say? Can you tell me?
Be aware that another poster pushing the agenda was just banned.
No. I'm going to agree with the founders that refused to place any one religion before another!
Again you are wrong. They followed Christianity.
Proposed Seal for the United States LOC
On July 4, 1776, Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams "to bring in a device for a seal for the United States of America." Franklin's proposal adapted the biblical story of the parting of the Red Sea (left). Jefferson first recommended the "Children of Israel in the Wilderness, led by a Cloud by Day, and a Pillar of Fire by night. . . ." He then embraced Franklin's proposal and rewrote it (right). Jefferson's revision of Franklin's proposal was presented by the committee to Congress on August 20. Although not accepted these drafts reveal the religious temper of the Revolutionary period. Franklin and Jefferson were among the most theologically liberal of the Founders, yet they used biblical imagery for this important task.
Congress was apprehensive about the moral condition of the American army and navy and took steps to see that Christian morality prevailed in both organizations. In the Articles of War, seen below, governing the conduct of the Continental Army (seen above) (adopted, June 30, 1775; revised, September 20, 1776), Congress devoted three of the four articles in the first section to the religious nurture of the troops. Article 2 "earnestly recommended to all officers and soldiers to attend divine services." Punishment was prescribed for those who behaved "indecently or irreverently" in churches, including courts-martial, fines and imprisonments. Chaplains who deserted their troops were to be court-martialed.
Aitken's Bible Endorsed by Congress LOC
The war with Britain cut off the supply of Bibles to the United States with the result that on Sept. 11, 1777, Congress instructed its Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from "Scotland, Holland or elsewhere." On January 21, 1781, Philadelphia printer Robert Aitken (1734-1802) petitioned Congress to officially sanction a publication of the Old and New Testament which he was preparing at his own expense. Congress "highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion . . . in this country, and . . . they recommend this edition of the bible to the inhabitants of the United States." This resolution was a result of Aitken's successful accomplishment of his project.
Looks like you got your wish.
IATZ again.
DeahLee @ reply # 142 may be the next victim.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2573548/posts?page=142#142
It is my belief that the call for legalizing drugs, and the movement to solidify societal acceptance of homosexuality, unwittingly wind up doing pretty much the same thing, destroying the next generation.
Sending the message that homosexuality and heavily medicating yourself are neutral (not good or bad) pursuits when you reach adulthood, can only lead to one thing, a generation of people cast adrift.
The ultimate goal, is to free up children to make disastrous choices very early in life.
Homosexuality has been taboo. So has taking drugs. Now there are no taboos. If you do either now, it’s with the understanding that you just jumped the gun for something that will be just peachy in a few years anyway.
I don’t like where any of this leads, because drug use and the movement to subvert our youth goes hand in hand. it used to be if you were drunk, you might get taken advantage of. That was a heterosexual risk.
Isn’t it just grand some folks seem to think adding homosexuality to that risk is a great idea.
There’s more. There’s always more posters pushing the lefts ideas.
I came to know Barbara and Ted Olson about 12 years ago professionally and was invited to dinner at their home several times. They seemed to have a genuinely loving marriage.
I had great respect for both of them at the time. I continue to hold Barbara in high esteem, and my respect for her memory keeps me from saying what I think of Ted now.
I strongly believe there are other things at work here of which we will probably never know.
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.