Posted on 11/29/2002 7:26:10 PM PST by joeu
There is no violation of the Equal Protection Clause because every American is entitled to be married as long as they marry a member of the opposite sex who doesn't happen to be their sister or 4 years old.
This is a tenth amendment issue that should be the province of the states. There is no inalienable right to marriage.
I was calling CJ a liar and I thought I was specific about this.
To my memory you are sometimes just flat out wrong, but I've never known you to lie. I'm sorry if I said that somewhere, if I did I WAS WRONG AND I APOLOGIZE. If I didn't never mind.
I don't care what people do in the privacy of their own homes, period. I don't think the state should either.
I do think that marriage between men and women is and has been the strenght of America's republic. As evidence I offer the devastation that LBJ's Great Society inflicted on urban America where men were replaced by the state as head of household.
Sometimes you have to draw a line in the sand and here's where I draw this one. Homosexual couples can draw up contracts that are legally binding and that should be respected as such in courts of law. That they have to go the extra mile is the price paid for choosing an unnatural union.
However, if you are going to extend the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples, then why not extend it to brothers and sisters, Mothers and daughters, Fathers and children or two friends who live together platonically. All loving relationships.
How do you know that?
I am familiar with the people who live on our little cul de sac, that's how I know.
Enforcement? Why what full-bore libertarian wants to get the government involved?!
Who calls for the government to enforce an agreement? Not manly independent libertarians!
First of all, no one called you a drug user. I do remember you telling me not to ping you anymore, with some whine about 'stalking,' but here you are pinging me again. Please desist from pinging me in the future. Thank you.
But how do you know that? How can you predict that any "marriage" between two lesbians would be a good thing?
But I can safely say without hesitation that such a s "marriage" would be unnatural, sterile, as well as sexually, psychologically, and socially dysfunctional.
I need not know anything about the traditional marriages in your cul de sac to reach such a conclusion.
And it greatly annoys them that after having forced their sick agenda ninety-five years to the goal line, there are a few stalwart defenders dgging in who just won't yield despite all the name-calling and and all-out assaults by the pro-gay PC goon squads.
The "stalwart defenders" of State-Sanctioned Marriage are virtually doomed to fail. When you make Caesar your god, he will stab you in the back -- every time.
If even one State grants full Legal legitimacy to homosexual marriage and overcomes a Constitutional challenge in the USSC, then it's Belshazzar in reverse -- the writing is on the wall.
Meanwhile, the Libertarians have observed (correctly) that if Marriage and State are separated, the entire "field" of battle is cleared. Both Abram and Moses enjoyed healthy Marriages with Sarai and Zipporah (respectively) without the Sanction of the State; likewise will heterosexual Christian marriage survive without the approval of Caesar.
Heterosexual Christian Marriage needs no "State Marriage license" to be Valid, Licit, and Holy. The Benediction of a duly-ordained Presbyter and the Witness of the groom and bride's respective Clans will acomplish that much, in the eyes of God. But eliminate that State Marriage License entirely, and the homosexual "couple" no longer has a State-sanctioned piece of paper to wave in Jerry Falwell's face... they have only their own "Private Contract", which no Christian church needs honor.
Without the Approval of Caesar, where's the "fun" in that??
Eliminate the State Marriage License, and you will see the "demand" for Homosexual Marriage drop by 90% or more.
Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field. ~~ Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"
Delusional fanaticism.
I don't think Darwinism would be a proper way to justify homosexuality in society. Darwinism and the creed of "survival of the fitest" already account for homosexuality within the animal kingdom. It is refered to as EXTINCTION. Nature's way of removing "that which is unfit to exist" from the gene pool. If we took a Darwinistic attitude towards homosexuality in modern society, it would be akin to supporting a mass suicide movement.
Still, I do agree with your point. The problem we have facing us now is the fact that they don't need to adopt. They are infiltrating our school systems to reach our children at an early impressionable age to recruit them. Organizations such as GLSEN work hand-in-pants with the NEA to coordinate "Tolerance/Diversity" training to inflict their perversion on young children via homosexual propganda and misdirection of the risks of such behavior.
GLSEN will approach a school and recruit students who will them state that they are being harrassed due to "questionable" sexuality. Then they will argue to the school board that "protections" much be installed to protect the minority of potentially gay students from persecution. Tolerance and diversity seminars will be inflicted upon innocent children with or without parental notification. Sooner or later, children will be invited to attend "off campus" GLSEN activities where they can then be "recruited" into the homosexual lifestyle. That is the GLSEN MOO.
That is why it cannot be tolerated publicly. They inenvitablely cannot control themselves and will prey upon our innocent children if we give them so much as an inch on the issue. In this case it is best to think of the well being and safety of children and beat them back into the closet.
If marriage once again became available only sacramentally, wouldn't we see a rise in "Vegas" style churches that exist only to grant speedy divorces and homosexual marriage?
My mother (a catholic) married an agnostic. After 7 kids, the state granted a divorce, after the divorce, the Catholic Church granted my mother an annullment...saying that my father never seriously intended to become a Catholic. This was in 1970- before the big divorce boom.
What role do you see for the church, if it steps aside from this battle in this nation?
Actually, marriage is defined as the permanent union of a man and a woman, and it is already abolished in all fifty states.
The legalization of homosexual marriage (and, yes, polygamy) is inevitable as the (unstated at the time) corollary to the abolition of heterosexual marriage.
Restoration involves more than forbidding homosexuals to avail themselves of the fruits of heterosexual temporary state-registered cohabitation.
It was 5-4, and contradicts much of their other jurisprudence. I think Bowers v. Hardwick cannot survive another similar case being presented for review.
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.