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 ...
" I have arrived. My travels are over for the time being."
"You seem overly upset, Mark. To borrow a phrase from Navarro, you need to chill."
Travels are never over as when you think you’ve arrived, there is always another place to head to.
Combined with nonsense posts, that's not a good sign.
Does he legitimately make "the case" conservative?
NO.
Conservatives in principle believe that what is good for society is best decided by society itself NOT elitists.
Conservatives believe that in the free economic market as in the free moral market that what is of value is best decided by the market participants NOT imposed by government...
So marriage is all about making babies?
I understand and AGREE that homosexuality is not natural - even if such tendencies seem to date back quite far and can even be found in certain animals. I also agree that the Creator commands that a "marriage" before Him is one between a man and a woman and that HE grants His blessings upon them. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the church was charged with the administration. In other religions, similar arrangements were made.
But where is our Government charged with the enforcement of the Natural Law / the Laws of the Christian God / the laws of any other relgions?
Our system of government, and the vast majority of our laws are based on the Judeo-Christian tradition - but our founding principles included the Christian idea of Free Will and that we, as a nation and a people, can not dictate our morals on others. Certain of our "morals" can be found universally (abhorance of murder, theft, etc ...) and were codified - others not. That is what made us great - even if this founding idea has been dilutted over the years! Most Americans still believe that the self evident truths are valid and this tends to make America more powerful than most of the world - even if the vast majority of the people can no longer even think for themselves.
So you ARE talking about sex only.
http://www.freerepublic.com/~prot/
This account has been banned or suspended.
Probably just some stupid kid playing games. He certainly talked like one.
But where is our Government charged with the enforcement of the Natural Law / the Laws of the Christian God / the laws of any other relgions?
“The law of nature and the law of revelation are both Divine: they
flow, though in different channels, from the same adorable source.
It is indeed preposterous to separate them from each other.”
— James Wilson (of the Law of Nature, 1804)
“To grant that there is a supreme intelligence who rules the
world and has established laws to regulate the actions of his
creatures; and still to assert that man, in a state of nature,
may be considered as perfectly free from all restraints of law
and government, appears to a common understanding altogether
irreconcilable. Good and wise men, in all ages, have embraced
a very dissimilar theory. They have supposed that the deity,
from the relations we stand in to himself and to each other, has
constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is indispensably
obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution
whatever. This is what is called the law of nature....Upon this
law depend the natural rights of mankind.”
— Alexander Hamilton
“[O]ur ancestors established their system of government on morality and religious sentiment. Moral habits, they believed, cannot safely be trusted on any other foundation than religious principle, nor any government be secure which is not supported by moral habits.”
— Daniel Webster, American Jurist and Senator
Their sexual perversion is how they define themselves.
They posted nonsense. They had that nonsense on their homepage too.
Okay.
I see that I am wasting your and my time by continuing to post on this thread.
I hope that you have at least understood my postings as a basis for discussion and thought - at least I found a few of your points thought provoking as to where the logical conclusion of MY opinion might lead and how that could be rectified with both my religious and political beliefs.
I appreciate the non-confrontational dialoge!
FRegards!
BTW Bytani (sp?) I wanted to thank you earlier for your use of FRiend - but in the heat of the discussion, I forgot.
Ask yourself where unalienable rights endowed by the Creator fit into the equation.
Is our government legitimate established above God or is our government legitimate established under God?
I would suggest that one of the truths held to be self evident is the definition of marriage -this together with the value that society has historically placed upon said definition of marriage...
A reference that you and others may find useful from the noble prize winner F. A. Hayek -think of it as another arrow in the quiver of rational sound arguments that defend what is morally right and historically proven successful against the morally devoid elite leftists who wish to experiment and innovate based upon what they 'feel' should be right and historically has failed repeatedly.
Those who would be God and create a Utopoia on earth always follow the same path -they acquire power, to free the masses they enslave the individuals, to lift up those who fail they knock down those who succeed, they become evil pursuing a means justifies the ends noble ideological cause -pursuing heaven on earth they create hell on earth..
Some may be failiar with F.A. Hayek who wrote a book I recommend to any free market conservative --he is noted for his writings on the inherent good associated with the free market system and the inherent evil associated with socialism. It is no coincidence that underlying legitimate individual freedom are premised not only his arguments on the value, benefits and sound reason for the economic free market but as well arguments regarding the value, benefits and sound reason for the moral free market e.g. society -its historically proven sucessful and historically observed traditions and institutions...
Hayek on Tradition(40 Page PDF Document)
-excerpt:
Traditional morality is rejected today as commonly as it was once taken for granted. And if the specific content of that morality, especially where it touches on matters of sexuality, is widely regarded with contempt, the meta-ethical notion that one ought to respect a moral code precisely because it is traditional gets even worse treatment: It is held to be beneath contempt. Modern educated people take it to be a sign of their modernity and education that they refuse to accept the legitimacy of any institution or code of behavior, however widespread, ancient, and venerable, which has not been rationally justified. Traditional morality stands doubly damned in their eyes: It is not rationally justifiable, and its adherents fail even to attempt to justify it so. The traditional moralist, they take it, is a slave not merely to the “conventional wisdom” but to the conventional wisdom of people long dead. He is in the grip of irrationality, superstition, and ignorance; worst of all, he is out of date.
Read it, add it to your arsenal, use it, and pass it on...
For those interested on what Hayek says about big government socialism: Readers' Digest Condensed Version of the Road to Serfdom (in PDF format(40 Page PDF Document)
Oh, if any of you do want to continue along these lines, I will oblige - just seems we have reached a point where I wont agree with you, nor you with me ... but I enjoy debates as they tend to be thought provoking.
What if anything defines a "homosexual" OTHER than sex?
You want to talk about anything but what is relative? IT is ALL about sex -that is ALL it is about.
We talk about an activity here -not individuals...
What if anything defines a “heterosexual” OTHER than sex?
(sorry couldn’t resist and posted just for fun - no offense or argument intended!)
Place mark - time for me to go to bed.
Good Night.
roflmao.
Not much else -the term "heterosexual" is scientific and it is objective -it defines how a species procreates -with two sexes, male and female. It does NOT define a species...
"Homosexual" on the other hand has no basis in science and is subjective -it does not define procreation, it defines recreation. It does not define a species...
There are NO homosexual beings -there are simply disordered heterosexual beings...
What if anything defines a “heterosexual” OTHER than sex?
(sorry couldn’t resist and posted just for fun - no offense or argument intended!)
Heterosexual (must be a recently invented word) means default/standard/normal.
Your effusive backtracking is fooling no one, btw.
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.