Posted on 07/30/2002 9:09:34 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
You asked a question.
I answered it.
Because they're politicians, nothing more.
Meaningless sloganeering.
Signifying nothing.
What is really at issue here--IMO, at least--is adoption. If we allow homosexuals to call their "thing" marriage, we might assist in opening the door to adoption of children by homosexuals.
You might think of "marriage," as involved here, as a trademark. The state has decided to make the use of this "trademark" a requirement for adoptions that are organized by the state. Therefore, the state is a party to a marriage contract in a way.
I don't object to homosexuals doing whatever they please with each other, as long as they do it on their own property and no one can see or hear them. But they shouldn't call it a marriage, because that's not what it is.
For what it's worth, though, the Constitution is pretty limiting on the Federal government, pretty much specifying that anything not specifically addressed in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights as being a Federal authority was reserved to the states or the people. So it pretty much depends on what the state constitution says if it is not specifically covered in the the Constitution or BOR.
That is not to say, however, that the Federal government, over the years, has not usurped a lot of authority that is not granted to it by either the Constitution or the BOR. That, I think, is really a gray area, but a lot of it has been upheld by the Supreme Court at one time or another. So we really have a situation where the government intrudes into our lives where they had no original constitutional authority to do so and, as I would suspect that a lot of Libertarians and constitutionalists would argue, they still do not have the authority.
Marriage is a state issue, so I would look to the individual state constitutions for guidance there, or at least how it ties to administrative law as addressed in the state constitutions.
Should we abandon them?
Certainly not.
Should we enlist government guns to enforce them?
No.
The only morally legitimate purpose of government, is defense of individual rights.
If an action violates rights, then by all means prevail upon state to restrain it.
Otherwise... not.
Not a particularly good one, anyway. ;^]
Correcting two fallacies.
1) I do not despise this country.
2) Rights are not "opportunities" granted by state.
Rights are an inherent part of each and every individual, and they are either respected by state, or not.
LOL That's right, AIDS may very well be a part of the solution. But I don't think we should just sit patiently and do nothing while homosexuals are infiltrating our schools, companies, and governments, subjecting our children to their propaganda, and using the government to deny us our rights.
They are inherently repulsive, even when they're not trying--and they are trying hard, as this article shows. But we should not let them scare us away. We should speak up and keep explaining to people what's wrong with the homosexual agenda.
If not, then who? Eric Rudolph? Bo Greitz? A civilian militia?
Is there another place on this earth where you have as many freedoms and liberties as this country?
You seem to be missing the point.
Actions which do not infringe upon the rights of others, may not be morally restrained by force AT ALL.
Certainly you may protest against them... boycott their practitioners, reject their association, or whatever other means you may choose to reject their position.
But you may not morally restrain their actions by force, unless their actions violate rights.
Once again.. rights are not granted by state.
Rights are an inherent part of each and every individual, and they are either respected by state, or not.
The United States was once far better at respecting rights than it is today, but it has most certainly never been perfect.
But I don't understand what your "another place on this earth" question is driving at.
Are you suggesting that these legitimate moral questions simply be ignored because other countries happen to be worse?
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.