Replies

I haven’t had time to read this entire thread, as our region had a DSL problem tonight. And I cannot respond to every word, since I’m behind on tasks, but I’ll do the quickest thing I can.

You are preaching to the choir.

I am not & have never been a fan of gay marriage. Moreover, and to the point, I reserve special hostility for those who want to encourage gay adoption and those who advocate for in-vitro to produce a child for a gay couple. Children should not be treated like pets at a shelter; that any good home is better than the orphanage. And I resent those who want to produce via man, that which God will not permit; namely children “produced” by science just for the benefit of gay couples.

But I am a realist, too. I see the world in a conservative way. As it is, not as I wish it to be.

You have mistakenly stomped on the exact reason why good, solid conservatives might at some date consider civil union type things as a better alternative than what WILL be foisted upon us later on. And it is coming, I promise you.

Very good legal arguments can and will be made about why family members cannot marry. Legal precedent is full of them.

To forestall the legalization of polygamy, the definition of marriage has to include TWO people only. Period. Although Jeffrey Toobin has his bony hand in this. If we don’t exact at least this from courts, we are indeed opening the door to polygamy. And Sharia Law. And we will be powerless to stop it, much to my dismay.

Probably 20 years ago, I was at a picnic. It was a friend of a friend of a friend type thing. There were two ladies there, probably in their 60’s, age wise. I was told they were a “couple” who had been together since their mid-20’s.
They were very nice women. Friendly & engaging. They did nothing in public anyone would have to hide their children from seeing. Two grandmotherly types.

While I imagine they are both gone now, given their ages, there WILL be a case like this that finds its way into the judicial system. And the question will be simple:

“Why were these two people prevented from forming a legally recognized household, that would have afforded them the ability to have their household protected by the same laws that protect ALL households? Why would a surviving partner not be allowed to collect Social Security benefits, for example, after many decades of having a household?”

When this question reaches the SCOTUS (yes, even this SCOTUS), there is no where to run & nowhere to hide. If they are originalists, grounded in the Declaration and the Constitution, the question I raised above will be answered. Equal protection under the law means just what it says. And our side is going to be slapped down, regrettably.

I’m on YOUR side.

But I see the world as it is and not as I wish it to be.

Keep in mind I have not mentioned once how this battle is playing out in the younger generation.

If the Boss wants to kick me off for saying this, it’s his right. This is his place and I’m just a guest. But I always thought we were supposed to be about the give and take of ideas.