R
rapunzel77
Guest
Exactly right! I prefer to use arguments based on science, history, and logic on this issue since marriage is an essential part of any kind of society. You don’t have to bring religion into it at all.
- Status
Exactly right! I prefer to use arguments based on science, history, and logic on this issue since marriage is an essential part of any kind of society. You don’t have to bring religion into it at all.
K
kenofken
Guest
The fact that you believe science and the natural world have nothing contradictory and counterintuitive tells me you haven’t studied the subjects in any depth. Based on “common sense” empirical observation, it was obvious that the sun rotated around the Earth and that Newtonian physics explained everything about motion and gravity. Spend a few hours reading a textbook on quantum mechanics and tell me if you still think scientific truth is “self evident.”
Moving back to biology, homosexual behaivior is well documented in other animal species, and it appears to be an important mechanism for regulating population sizes relative to resources. It also appears to confer a survival advantage in some family units as the gay “aunt” or “uncle” contributes resources to the hetero offspring which otherwise would have been used on its own young. My memory of this citation is hazy, but I think it pertained to primates.
This doesn’t pass the bar for me as a non-religious conclusive scientific argument. It is an opinion rooted in religious belief about the “natural order” of things with a thin veneer of scientific assertion over it.
Another observation I would make about the debate in general is that as far as I can see, attempts to put forward “non-religious” arguments about homosexuality are ALWAYS submitted by folks with an obvious underlying religious agenda. If there really was good objective proof that gay partnership or orientation was truly harmful, I would expect to see some significant number of atheist or secular scientists getting behind the issue. I don’t see any. Surely not all of them are political liberals or homosexual activists or cowed by political correctness. Scientists are a contentious lot, and those with tenure are rarely afraid to spit in the eye of conventional wisdom if they think the data will back them.
As a scientist myself, I would be open to reconsidering the issue if I were to see convincing, repeatable data produced with modern scientific understanding and methods by scientists who had no religious affiliation or funding. I won’t hold my breath.
R
rapunzel77
Guest
You continue to state this but give no actual evidence. You demand that we give evidence that is plainly obvious but you give NO actual evidence that can be cited and verified by non-ideological scientists who are not bent on giving fodder to homosexual activists. It is not we who must give evidence for what is very natural. It is you since you insist that morality and the law must change to accommodate a very unnatural union.
You have not demonstrated that your position is the correct one especially when it goes completely against thousands of years of tradition and experience. You want to further demean marriage by throwing away common sense (ie. marriage is between ONE MAN/ONE WOMAN) in exchange for pretending that any other union can possibly be a marriage even though there is NO possibility for them to pro-create. Furthermore, you seem intent on disregarding God’s law on this. Why? What purpose can it possibly serve? Society will be detrimentally effected by this in ways that you cannot imagine.
All I see from the “pro-gay marriage” lobby is a thinly veiled attack on religion, especially Christianity. It isn’t about “equal” rights. They have that in the form of hospital visits, etc. No, they can’t take no for an answer and are not satisfied until everyone “accepts” their unnatural and gross lifestyle and they won’t stop until any and all religions shut up and accept them. This is what the real attack is. No amount of “studies” done will convince me and many others that homosexuality is ok when to often than not these “scientists” have been bought by the lobby to give them fodder.
I wouldn’t expect it because they don’t care either way. Some will give anti-gay marriage arguments based on evolution but there are very few. Most of them hate religion and marriage does have a religious aspect but also a social one as well that predates Christianity.
I have yet to see an honest, unbiased study that says that homosexuality is natural and healthy in any environment. The onus is on YOU to demonstrate that it is with verifiable proof. Again, you want to change the laws and the meaning of marriage to accommodate an unnatural union that is useless from an evolutionary standpoint or a cultural one.
K
kenofken
Guest
A couple of citations to consider. One involves a possible explanation for an evolutionary role of homosexuality. Certainly not a conclusive proof of anything, but it’s clear that there is no consensus in the scientific community that gay orientation is inherently “un-natural.”
The other is findings of fact by psychologists/experts in a trial on the question. I don’t imagine anyone who believes they know God’s mind infallibly will give much weight to it, but there it is for consideration.
Another reason I don’t give much credence to the idea of “natural law” as a non-religious argument against gay marriage is that the “save marriage” folks don’t appear to believe it themselves. They say that no, we don’t have anything against gay people, it’s just that they violate God’s order of things because they can’t bear fruit.
IF we then accept the premise that marriage is primarily or only for the purposes of reproduction, we have a problem. We allow lots and lots of infertile/elderly people to wed. Worse, there are many millions of perfectly healthy couples who choose not to reproduce, thus actively (and often permanently), frustrating this fruit-bearing function which you say marriage is all about. Birthrates are plummeting in most developed countries, often well below replacement levels. This is overwhelmingly the fault of heterosexual, not homosexual couples. Logic would dictate that the protections of marriage MUST be denied to able bodied hetero couples who don’t make some good faith effort to reproduce. I don’t see any such language in the laws and constitutional amendment floating around out there.
Prop-8 folks try to dismiss it by saying “well that’s not the issue.” It IS the issue. If it’s not, “natural law” arguments against gay marriage won’t hold a drop of water. We’re then left with personal distaste of gays and religious opinion, and nothing else. That’s fine. You can and should advocate your real beliefs, and the whole matter will shake out along political/legal/demographic lines.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100204144551.htm
The decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/0…2292-ORDER.pdf) shows the findings of fact that
Quote:
Originally Posted by #69
The factors that affect whether a child is well-adjusted are: (1) the quality of a child’s relationship with his or her parents; (2) the quality of the relationship between a child’s parents or significant adults in the child’s life; and (3) the availability of economic and social resources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by #70
The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by #71
Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted.
The other is findings of fact by psychologists/experts in a trial on the question. I don’t imagine anyone who believes they know God’s mind infallibly will give much weight to it, but there it is for consideration.
Another reason I don’t give much credence to the idea of “natural law” as a non-religious argument against gay marriage is that the “save marriage” folks don’t appear to believe it themselves. They say that no, we don’t have anything against gay people, it’s just that they violate God’s order of things because they can’t bear fruit.
IF we then accept the premise that marriage is primarily or only for the purposes of reproduction, we have a problem. We allow lots and lots of infertile/elderly people to wed. Worse, there are many millions of perfectly healthy couples who choose not to reproduce, thus actively (and often permanently), frustrating this fruit-bearing function which you say marriage is all about. Birthrates are plummeting in most developed countries, often well below replacement levels. This is overwhelmingly the fault of heterosexual, not homosexual couples. Logic would dictate that the protections of marriage MUST be denied to able bodied hetero couples who don’t make some good faith effort to reproduce. I don’t see any such language in the laws and constitutional amendment floating around out there.
Prop-8 folks try to dismiss it by saying “well that’s not the issue.” It IS the issue. If it’s not, “natural law” arguments against gay marriage won’t hold a drop of water. We’re then left with personal distaste of gays and religious opinion, and nothing else. That’s fine. You can and should advocate your real beliefs, and the whole matter will shake out along political/legal/demographic lines.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100204144551.htm
The decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/0…2292-ORDER.pdf) shows the findings of fact that
Quote:
Originally Posted by #69
The factors that affect whether a child is well-adjusted are: (1) the quality of a child’s relationship with his or her parents; (2) the quality of the relationship between a child’s parents or significant adults in the child’s life; and (3) the availability of economic and social resources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by #70
The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by #71
Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted.
D
Dwyer
Guest
I would argue that the “discrimination” against the sodomists from marrying is not** invidious**.
The distinction is made to uphold the cultural institution of marriage as it has been practiced in the United States for hundreds of years, and in Western Civilization for thousands of years.
This type of legal distinction involving marriage is not on par to the invidious racial discriminatory laws that African slaves and African-Americans endured in the south.
This is the People’s cultural tradition and customs, and, as a People, we have a right that our cultural and social institutions reflect our traditions and customs.
Judicial opinions like the recent federal case are examples of Cultural Destruction on a massive scale.
We are seeing the dismantling of our Culture and Judge Walker Vaughn is committing Cultural Destruction on a worse level than when the British took over Scotland in 1746 after the Jacobite Rebellions, and made it illegal for Scots to wear the tartan or play the bagpipes, because this Cultural Destruction involves the most fundamental institution of the human race, the building block of every society and culture.
As citizens, we are not being allowed to practice our Culture.
For thousands of years, marriage has been defined as the stable union of man and woman to continue the human race through the procreation of children.
The supporters of Gay Marriage are fiercely determined to impose their politically correct agenda on all the citizens of the state – human history, culture and moral principles not-withstanding.
Anyone who opposes them is quickly labeled a bigot for not kowtowing to their ideas of Liberal Philosophic Orthodoxy.
The distinction is made to uphold the cultural institution of marriage as it has been practiced in the United States for hundreds of years, and in Western Civilization for thousands of years.
This type of legal distinction involving marriage is not on par to the invidious racial discriminatory laws that African slaves and African-Americans endured in the south.
This is the People’s cultural tradition and customs, and, as a People, we have a right that our cultural and social institutions reflect our traditions and customs.
Judicial opinions like the recent federal case are examples of Cultural Destruction on a massive scale.
We are seeing the dismantling of our Culture and Judge Walker Vaughn is committing Cultural Destruction on a worse level than when the British took over Scotland in 1746 after the Jacobite Rebellions, and made it illegal for Scots to wear the tartan or play the bagpipes, because this Cultural Destruction involves the most fundamental institution of the human race, the building block of every society and culture.
As citizens, we are not being allowed to practice our Culture.
For thousands of years, marriage has been defined as the stable union of man and woman to continue the human race through the procreation of children.
The supporters of Gay Marriage are fiercely determined to impose their politically correct agenda on all the citizens of the state – human history, culture and moral principles not-withstanding.
Anyone who opposes them is quickly labeled a bigot for not kowtowing to their ideas of Liberal Philosophic Orthodoxy.
M
mlund
Guest
I just want to take a moment to examine a few points:
First of all, Perry v. Schwarzenegger lacks any gravitas as judicial precedent due to the terrific misconduct of the judge in question and the monstrous pile of personal opinions falsely placed under the label of “finds of fact,” while pretending that Baker v. Nelson never even existed. Judge Walker divested himself of all credibility on the matter.
nationalreview.com/bench-memos/243693/most-egregious-performance-ever-federal-district-judge-ed-whelan
nationalreview.com/bench-memos/243265/walkers-misunderstanding-opposite-sex-character-marriage-ed-whelan
To the main point, though, private “marriage” between same-sex couples does not contribute significant harm to those uninvolved in the relationship. Such a matter was (rightly) judged to be outside of the purview of government control decades ago in the striking down of Texas anti-sodomy laws. That is not, however, the issue that is truly at question here. The issue is actually:
“How does the Government’s endorsement and public sanction of same-sex ‘marriage’ harm people?”
There are several ways in which this presents a problem:
1.) Violation of Equal Protection
Equal protection under the law requires that whenever the government provides a benefit for one person and not another that the state present a Rational Basis explaining how the personal receiving the benefit is holding up their end of a quid pro quo arrangement with the Public Interest. The Rational Basis for state endorsement of the union of one man and one woman in a marriage has ever been to encourage the procreation of future generations in households with their (ideally biological) mother and father. While determining fertility between men and women conclusively requires illegal invasion of medical privacy, comparing sexes does not. Likewise comparing ancestry is a matter of public record, so incestuous unions are denied. And, no, “love” (or infatuation, really) does not enter into this equation at all.
Bestowing benefits on same-sex “marriages” and treating them as identical to true marriages while excluding all non-sexual partnerships violates Equal Protection.
2.) State Indoctrination
It has already been exhibited in California and Massachusetts. Having established real marriage and same-sex “marriage” as fungible for all intents and purposes, the Public School Curricula have been altered to teach this “fact” to children in loco parentis. Furthermore, contrary opinions are labeled “hate speech” and banned from schools. Factual and demonstrable differences and principles of natural law are now banned and children are taught ontological falsehoods by the state. That is a grievous harm.
3.) Suppression of Free Speech
Building on the idea of “hate speech,” the assertion that homosexuality is a protected class and that same-sex unions are completely fungible with marriages becomes the only tolerated opinion in public spaces. Failure to ascribe to that doctrine and assert the state’s opinions becomes grounds for dismissal among civil service positions. Failure to comply can also result in the termination of public contracts with vendors or even the outright sanction of private businesses large enough to be deemed vulnerable under the Commerce Clause. Even the “chilling effect” such opportunities provide is sufficient to classify as material harm to the public.
So, in conclusion, material harm is not done the public by the private conduct of homosexuals, but rather material harm is done to the public by the public conduct of the government as it pertains to establishing a state doctrine of defining “marriage” as something other the union of one man and one woman.
First of all, Perry v. Schwarzenegger lacks any gravitas as judicial precedent due to the terrific misconduct of the judge in question and the monstrous pile of personal opinions falsely placed under the label of “finds of fact,” while pretending that Baker v. Nelson never even existed. Judge Walker divested himself of all credibility on the matter.
nationalreview.com/bench-memos/243693/most-egregious-performance-ever-federal-district-judge-ed-whelan
nationalreview.com/bench-memos/243265/walkers-misunderstanding-opposite-sex-character-marriage-ed-whelan
To the main point, though, private “marriage” between same-sex couples does not contribute significant harm to those uninvolved in the relationship. Such a matter was (rightly) judged to be outside of the purview of government control decades ago in the striking down of Texas anti-sodomy laws. That is not, however, the issue that is truly at question here. The issue is actually:
“How does the Government’s endorsement and public sanction of same-sex ‘marriage’ harm people?”
There are several ways in which this presents a problem:
1.) Violation of Equal Protection
Equal protection under the law requires that whenever the government provides a benefit for one person and not another that the state present a Rational Basis explaining how the personal receiving the benefit is holding up their end of a quid pro quo arrangement with the Public Interest. The Rational Basis for state endorsement of the union of one man and one woman in a marriage has ever been to encourage the procreation of future generations in households with their (ideally biological) mother and father. While determining fertility between men and women conclusively requires illegal invasion of medical privacy, comparing sexes does not. Likewise comparing ancestry is a matter of public record, so incestuous unions are denied. And, no, “love” (or infatuation, really) does not enter into this equation at all.
Bestowing benefits on same-sex “marriages” and treating them as identical to true marriages while excluding all non-sexual partnerships violates Equal Protection.
2.) State Indoctrination
It has already been exhibited in California and Massachusetts. Having established real marriage and same-sex “marriage” as fungible for all intents and purposes, the Public School Curricula have been altered to teach this “fact” to children in loco parentis. Furthermore, contrary opinions are labeled “hate speech” and banned from schools. Factual and demonstrable differences and principles of natural law are now banned and children are taught ontological falsehoods by the state. That is a grievous harm.
3.) Suppression of Free Speech
Building on the idea of “hate speech,” the assertion that homosexuality is a protected class and that same-sex unions are completely fungible with marriages becomes the only tolerated opinion in public spaces. Failure to ascribe to that doctrine and assert the state’s opinions becomes grounds for dismissal among civil service positions. Failure to comply can also result in the termination of public contracts with vendors or even the outright sanction of private businesses large enough to be deemed vulnerable under the Commerce Clause. Even the “chilling effect” such opportunities provide is sufficient to classify as material harm to the public.
So, in conclusion, material harm is not done the public by the private conduct of homosexuals, but rather material harm is done to the public by the public conduct of the government as it pertains to establishing a state doctrine of defining “marriage” as something other the union of one man and one woman.
- Marty Lund
K
kenofken
Guest
"…
There are several ways in which this presents a problem:
1.) Violation of Equal Protection
Equal protection under the law requires that whenever the government provides a benefit for one person and not another that the state present a Rational Basis explaining how the personal receiving the benefit is holding up their end of a quid pro quo arrangement with the Public Interest. The Rational Basis for state endorsement of the union of one man and one woman in a marriage has ever been to encourage the procreation of future generations in households with their (ideally biological) mother and father. While determining fertility between men and women conclusively requires illegal invasion of medical privacy, comparing sexes does not. Likewise comparing ancestry is a matter of public record, so incestuous unions are denied. And, no, “love” (or infatuation, really) does not enter into this equation at all.
Bestowing benefits on same-sex “marriages” and treating them as identical to true marriages while excluding all non-sexual partnerships violates Equal Protection.
2.) State Indoctrination
It has already been exhibited in California and Massachusetts. Having established real marriage and same-sex “marriage” as fungible for all intents and purposes, the Public School Curricula have been altered to teach this “fact” to children in loco parentis. Furthermore, contrary opinions are labeled “hate speech” and banned from schools. Factual and demonstrable differences and principles of natural law are now banned and children are taught ontological falsehoods by the state. That is a grievous harm.
3.) Suppression of Free Speech
Building on the idea of “hate speech,” the assertion that homosexuality is a protected class and that same-sex unions are completely fungible with marriages becomes the only tolerated opinion in public spaces. Failure to ascribe to that doctrine and assert the state’s opinions becomes grounds for dismissal among civil service positions. Failure to comply can also result in the termination of public contracts with vendors or even the outright sanction of private businesses large enough to be deemed vulnerable under the Commerce Clause. Even the “chilling effect” such opportunities provide is sufficient to classify as material harm to the public.
So, in conclusion, material harm is not done the public by the private conduct of homosexuals, but rather material harm is done to the public by the public conduct of the government as it pertains to establishing a state doctrine of defining “marriage” as something other the union of one man and one woman.
As to the second point, it ultimately falls to parents to convey their beliefs even if they are in contradiction with public school teachings. Creationists are convinced the teaching of evolution is a grievous harm. Parents with deeply held white supremacy convictions and even just those who don’t want the schools getting involved in the values business have the same issue. There are concerns there, but I’m not sure that’s a good reason to deny a class of people civil rights.
The third point boils down to the fact that exercising one’s free speech rights does not convey a right to be popular. If there’s a public opprobrium on anti-gay marriage opinion out there, and perhaps there is, that in itself does not constitute a violation of free speech. It’s where the culture has gone, and it’s unfortunate for people who hold that opinion, but it’s how the marketplace of ideas runs.
If we’re talking about government punishing people for holding those opinions, that’s quite another matter. No private citizen should (or would) be jailed for expressing anti-gay marriage views, but government does have some right to choose where to spend its money, and to mandate certain public accomodations by business. A judge or county clerk of some type was recently sacked or retired because he refused to marry an interracial couple. I expect sooner or later the same will happen to someone who refuses to marry a gay couple in jurisdictions where it is the law. I won’t see it as any more, or less regrettable. If people’s conscience won’t allow them to do the government’s bidding, don’t take the job.
Likewise if business owners are denied the right to discriminate against gays, it will be an infringement of their rights, but no greater than the laws presently barring them from putting up “No Japs” or white’s only in their storefronts.
There are several ways in which this presents a problem:
1.) Violation of Equal Protection
Equal protection under the law requires that whenever the government provides a benefit for one person and not another that the state present a Rational Basis explaining how the personal receiving the benefit is holding up their end of a quid pro quo arrangement with the Public Interest. The Rational Basis for state endorsement of the union of one man and one woman in a marriage has ever been to encourage the procreation of future generations in households with their (ideally biological) mother and father. While determining fertility between men and women conclusively requires illegal invasion of medical privacy, comparing sexes does not. Likewise comparing ancestry is a matter of public record, so incestuous unions are denied. And, no, “love” (or infatuation, really) does not enter into this equation at all.
Bestowing benefits on same-sex “marriages” and treating them as identical to true marriages while excluding all non-sexual partnerships violates Equal Protection.
2.) State Indoctrination
It has already been exhibited in California and Massachusetts. Having established real marriage and same-sex “marriage” as fungible for all intents and purposes, the Public School Curricula have been altered to teach this “fact” to children in loco parentis. Furthermore, contrary opinions are labeled “hate speech” and banned from schools. Factual and demonstrable differences and principles of natural law are now banned and children are taught ontological falsehoods by the state. That is a grievous harm.
3.) Suppression of Free Speech
Building on the idea of “hate speech,” the assertion that homosexuality is a protected class and that same-sex unions are completely fungible with marriages becomes the only tolerated opinion in public spaces. Failure to ascribe to that doctrine and assert the state’s opinions becomes grounds for dismissal among civil service positions. Failure to comply can also result in the termination of public contracts with vendors or even the outright sanction of private businesses large enough to be deemed vulnerable under the Commerce Clause. Even the “chilling effect” such opportunities provide is sufficient to classify as material harm to the public.
So, in conclusion, material harm is not done the public by the private conduct of homosexuals, but rather material harm is done to the public by the public conduct of the government as it pertains to establishing a state doctrine of defining “marriage” as something other the union of one man and one woman.
- Marty Lund
As to the second point, it ultimately falls to parents to convey their beliefs even if they are in contradiction with public school teachings. Creationists are convinced the teaching of evolution is a grievous harm. Parents with deeply held white supremacy convictions and even just those who don’t want the schools getting involved in the values business have the same issue. There are concerns there, but I’m not sure that’s a good reason to deny a class of people civil rights.
The third point boils down to the fact that exercising one’s free speech rights does not convey a right to be popular. If there’s a public opprobrium on anti-gay marriage opinion out there, and perhaps there is, that in itself does not constitute a violation of free speech. It’s where the culture has gone, and it’s unfortunate for people who hold that opinion, but it’s how the marketplace of ideas runs.
If we’re talking about government punishing people for holding those opinions, that’s quite another matter. No private citizen should (or would) be jailed for expressing anti-gay marriage views, but government does have some right to choose where to spend its money, and to mandate certain public accomodations by business. A judge or county clerk of some type was recently sacked or retired because he refused to marry an interracial couple. I expect sooner or later the same will happen to someone who refuses to marry a gay couple in jurisdictions where it is the law. I won’t see it as any more, or less regrettable. If people’s conscience won’t allow them to do the government’s bidding, don’t take the job.
Likewise if business owners are denied the right to discriminate against gays, it will be an infringement of their rights, but no greater than the laws presently barring them from putting up “No Japs” or white’s only in their storefronts.
M
mlund
Guest
There are plenty of heterosexual people in relationships that are not rewarded with the privileges reserved for married couples. For one thing, heterosexuals in non-sexual partnerships (say, siblings or comrades-in-arms supporting one another in old age) receive no such privileges. This is because the privileges (yes, privileges, not rights) extended by the state for marriage rest on the procreative assumptions intrinsic to the institution of marriage.
Relationships that, on their face, lack said procreative assumptions are not fungible with marriage.
The idea of “contingent on reproductive fitness” is also subject to terrific scrutiny. Same-sex pairings are non-reproductive sexual relationships as a matter of public record. Determining the reproductive capacity of an opposite-sex pairing requires illegal invasions of medical privacy, with the clear exception of incest (which is already prohibited). Going beyond incest and the mental capacity to consent to marriage leads the state into the dangerous territory of Eugenics.
You’ve skipped over a vital step in the logical process here. Marriage law deals not with what private behaviors are punished by the state, but rather what public behaviors are encouraged by incentives for the Common Good.
No logical or legal rules demand that if the state hands out a proverbial carrot for desirable behavior that it must wield a proverbial stick against less-desirable behaviors. In a free society plenty of private behaviors are sub-optimal or even outright wrong but are not punished by the force of law.
Yes, but what the public schools do and do not teach ultimately rests with the democratic process. If the citizenry does not define marriage as merely a sexual contract between any old group of individuals then the state’s instruction to the contrary is abusive.
Thankfully, no one is being denied any civil rights since there is no civil right to have the state hand out public benefits in direct contradiction to Equal Protection just to make a certain class of the citizenry feel better about themselves.
An honest Constitutional challenge must contend that the Rational Basis for promoting marriage (one man, one woman) is invalid. The consequence of such a challenge being successful is not that suddenly marriage is "opened up” to same-sex pairings, but rather that civil marriage is discarded as inherently unconstitutional. Without those presumed benefits the state has no more right to sanction or promote a marriage than it does to promote a bowling team!
Thus providing a perfect example of how government endorsement of same-sex “marriage” will interfere with the lives of people beyond such unions and cause them harm. Furthermore, the United States is a Constitutional Democratic Republic. The government’s will as to where money is spent and what opinions will be asserted must rest upon the will of the people and the legislative process, not fiat rulings by activist judges.
It will be different on several counts:
First and foremost, at issue is not someone being denied service or employment because they have an innate same-sex attraction. At issue is someone else being denied the right to compete for public contracts or employment because they do not believe that a man-man sexual relationship qualifies as a marriage.
Secondly, the Civil Rights Acts referenced classes explicitly provided for in the Constitution and its amendments. Both the CRAs and those Constitutional provisions were created through the legislative process. These invented “rights” to same-sex “marriage” are not entering the body of Federal law through the legislative process. No bills are passed. No amendments are ratified. Debasing such a processes is ultimately harmful to all citizens who rely upon the Constitution and the democratic process to be secure in their God-given liberties.
- Marty Lund
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
You might try reading the “Gay Marriage” special report at Catholic Answers in the library section. Hope that helps.
J
Julia1996
Guest
That’s actually a pretty good suggestion. I wonder why nobody pointed that out earlier. Perhaps I just missed it.
Is there an actual answer to the original poster’s question? Because I think that no matter what argument you come up with, the other side can always come up with some strand of logic that would punch a hole through your argument. Basically, you can make it bullet-proof, but how do you stop an atomic bomb from going through?
J
JimG
Guest
Here is the link to the special report on gay marriage.
- Status