My opposition to gay marriage is a definitional one. To Western Christendom, marriage has traditionally meant one man and one woman. I support partnerships that deny gays none of the rights of married people save the name of the relationship.
The constitutional rights argument is specious
The military discriminates against women, old people, the handicapped, drug users and convicted criminals. You surrender many rights when you put on a uniform, including the right to free speech, free assembly, and freedom from search and seizure. You go where they tell you to go and do what they tell you to do. You shut your pie hole when they tell you to, and you submit to random drug tests and room inspections on demand.
Repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell will not be the end, but the beginning. I wonder if it isn't a Trojan horse for smuggling gay marriage inside the walls of Mainstream America.
Is Repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell Really About Gay Marriage?
Allow gays to serve openly, and the disparity in treatment between a traditional family and a gay partnership will be glaring.
Military members receive additional monetary, food, housing, moving and medical benefits to support spouses and dependents. Boyfriends and girlfriends don't count.
This is significant since military people move frequently with the government picking up the tab. A single person with a significant other receives reduced benefits and must pay out of pocket the cost of moving and housing and caring for the partner.
This can be a major factor when stationed at a remote location.If the significant other is even allowed there, she can't be housed, or seen at the clinic, or even go shopping in the military community. The military is a self-contained world, and military life is much harder when "family members" are shut out of the system.
Allowing gays to serve openly is only step one
The obvious disparity in benefits and treatment of significant others will spur a whole new debate on fairness and marriage and civil unions. The US Military led the way on civil rights for people of color, and the homosexual lobby is hoping for a gay repeat.
Think this through all the way to the logical end, and Christianity, or any religion that teaches that homosexuality is wrong would now be in a very precarious position, with concepts like hate speech and discrimination hurled at it.
I support equal rights for all, to include the right of people to hold, teach and espouse traditional religious beliefs that do not conflict with our constitution.
Update: I've posted quite a few articles on this subject. I am a libertarian who believes in equality for all, and I am also a Christian who believes marriage is a life-long commitment between one man and one woman. So it appears that I'm kinda stuck in that mushy middle I so often criticize.
Concerning gays in the military, I agree with combat veteran Uncle Jimbo:
“If I am lying by the road bleeding, I don’t care if the medic coming to save me is gay. I just hope he is one of those buff gay guys who are always in the gym so he can throw me over his shoulder and get me out of there.”Here are links to my previous posts:
DADT should be decided by military necessity and effectiveness, not political correctness
Judge Walker's Rape of Reason
Gay Rights, States Rights
New Hampshire - An Ominous Harbinger
39 comments:
Hi, i've seen your post :)... i just want to remind you that the issue of same-sex couples marrying is primarily about civil marriage. In our civilized world, including the US, civil marriage is a secular thing, religious marriage is a religious thing. They are two different things. Gays and lesbian couples are simply demanding state-issued marriage licenses. For the record, there are some Christian churches (the United Church of Christ for example) that believe that marriage is the union of two persons, not just of a man and a woman. In fact, UCC ministries marry same-sex couples in States where gays and lesbians can obtain marriage licenses.
Luke
As you can see Luke, I'm not really staking out a dogmatic position here. Being a libertarian, I am certainly not saying the state should foist my orthodox religious beliefs on everyone. I am saying there is a danger of the state imposing its will on religion, which would also be a violation of the constitution.
This post is more about how one issue can be used as a Trojan horse for another.
But thanks for stopping by and stating the obvious.
@ Silverfiddle... i cannot agree on what you're saying: in the places where gays and lesbians can legally marry the person they love (Spain, Portugal, Argentina, etc) no religion has been forced to marry same-sex couples... not even in Sweden (a country where the protestant church is widely seen as a State-religion, as it was until 2000). Why the hell in the US should be different? I live in Europe, where gays can legally marry in 7 countries right now... i've never seen a gay or gay-friendly person demanding a same-sex religious marriage imposed on a particular Church. I think that your fear is immotivated. Don't let religious bigots scare you ;-)
Luke
Christianity is irrelevant in Europe, but it still means something to a majority of Americans.
I don't "fear" anything surrounding this issue. I am highlighting a fault line.
I've added links to other articles I've written on this subject so you can get a better sense of where I'm coming from.
Christianity is irrilevant in Europe..? What?? Every person i know is a christian, i am a christian; the fact that we don't like to go to the Mass to be told what to do in our private lives and the fact that we distinguish in a very deep way our civil laws from the religions (even here in Italy, where the Catholic Church is very popular, a President swearing on a Bible is unthinkable, the anti-sodomy laws are unthinkable, we're about to legalize civil unions for different-sex and same-sex partners )... doesn't mean that we do not believe in God and prey. I'm a very religious person, i deeply believe in God... as the 90 percent of italians i do not let the Pope dictate my private life (i masturbate, i use condoms, etc), but this doesn't mean that Christianity is something irrelevant to me. It's not.
@ Luke,
Here is the thing, this subject matter being presented by Siver is an issue in the U.S. not Europe, so any and all comments about what European countries do is completely irrevelent.
What happens in Europe can stay in Europe. If the U.S. wanted to emulate the continent we would not have had a Revolution for pete's sake.
Even further as Silver aptly points out, U.S. Military life is completely separate from civilian life, so again any and all comparisons between the two are irrevelent as well.
Well, I'm not going to get into a debate about who's holier than who, and I won't presume to judge another.
I am simply making a commentary on gays in the military and the larger issue of gay marriage.
@ Christopher... we're not talking about "emulate Europe" (or "emulating latin america" or "emulating south africa"), we're talking about a fear that is unreasonable and abouth the fact that here in Europe Christianity is not irrelevant; we clearly distinguish between religion and politics as weel as between our faith in God and the words of the priests, but this fact doesn't mean that for us Christianity is something not important, this fact doesn't mean that we do not believe in God and prey.
Luke
As a gay guy now in my early 50's who's seen a lot of the rights battle over the years, I don't see a dependent connection between DADT and the marriage issue. There is one obvious connection, both are gay issues, but the marriage rights thing is about, as Luke said, a civil matter, mostly to do with the ability to have the same =civil= rights as other couples. Why churches & their members are having panic attacks over that is beyond me (right-wing propaganda seems mostly to blame). The military issue is beyond me, too, as to why anyone would want to go abroad and kill people, but to each their own (I'm from the Vietnam generation and have a pretty jaundiced opinion on the military in general). But, if a gay or bi guy wants to serve, fine, I think he should be able to. Don't' see a dependency between the two issues, though.
Tom Westbrook
Minneapolis
@ Luke,
I must ask then why you mentioned Europe @ 7:55 which was before Silver made the comment about the irrevelency of Christianity in Europe?
Again, this is an issue being debated here in the U.S. so I stand by my comment.
Because i was saying that nowhere in the world that scenario has become a reality, so why in the US it should be different...? I've read a lot about the US gay rights movement, and about the progress being made in these recent years on the issue of marriage equality, and it seems to me that US gays, obviously, don't want to impose same-sex marriage to any Church. Instead i've seen US bigots trying to misrepresent gays' activism and lawsuits and marriage rulings to scare people, to make them believe that gays want special rights, that gays want to impose same-sex marriage to the priests, etc.
Bye for now... i'm probabily going out with my friends for dinner (here it is almost 18 o clock!).
Luke
I fail to understand why it's so important to gays for them to get married.
What do they want from those marriages?
The right to adopt children?
The ability to take advantage of inheritance laws, specifically, the tax exemption for a certain amount of assets passed along?
As far as I know, unmarried gay couples are less discriminated against now than ever before. For example, gay couples can appoint one another as medical proxies, right? They can buy houses together. And so on.
Do they want to FORCE churches to perform the religious marriage ceremonies?
Anyway, I'm at a bit of a loss on this issue of gay marriage.
If I understand correctly, Switzerland has a different protocol with marriage: a church ceremony means a religious marriage, a marriage not recognized by the state until a civil "ceremony" takes place.
"I fail to understand why it's so important to gays for them to get married."
It's important exactly in the same way that it is important to heteros who love each other and want to spend their lives together. Gays want the exact same equal protection under the laws as heteros have. It's that simple.
"What do they want from those marriages?
The right to adopt children?"
Gay couples already adopt children and even manage to have their own biological children as well--See Mary Cheney.
"As far as I know, unmarried gay couples are less discriminated against now than ever before."
But still denied equal protection under our Constitution, which is a HUGE and unacceptable discrimination for any American citizen who values the rights guaranteed therein.
"Do they want to FORCE churches to perform the religious marriage ceremonies?"
This has already been addressed here and everywhere. Not one gay person advocates forcing churches to perform religious rites for their marriages.
Not one!
Please don't keep repeating this, since, as all repeated misrepresentation do, it will become accepted truth.
There are religious institutions that marry gay couples freely and without prejudice. I'm sure those will be the religious institutions that gay couples will seek out if they wish to have a religious ceremony in addition to a civil one.
The issue here is not just "getting married" but the freedom to marry the person you love.
Barring gays from the possibility to legally marry the person they love is diminishing their dignity, violating their freedoms. It is state-imposed homophobia.
Just as every Church has the right to choose who to marry and who not to marry, gays have the right to choose whether to go to the City Hall (or to a Church that accepts to celebrate same-sex nuptials) and marry the person they love.
I don't know what the religious marriage rules are in Switzerland but here in Italy a Catholic Church marriage ceremony is a State-recognized marriage if some articles of our Civil Code are quoted and if the marriage is officially registered by the italian authorities. Most of the rules that govern a catholic marriage here in Italy are different from those of a civil marriage... this means that, for example, a catholic marriage can be declared void if one of the spouses has never sincerely believed in fidelity -civil marriage cannot be declared void for this reason.
I believe the whole purpose of this post was to answer the question of intent...
Repealing the DADT law will allow homosexuals to openly serve in our military branches. This poses a number of difficult issues, one being of trust and brotherhood among troops. Sorry, but it is the truth. Homosexuality is an odd act and makes people uncomfortable. Whether you want to be offended by that statement or not, it doesn't make it any less true. This prevents a full trust that troops need to have with one another in order to maintain a strong military force.
The second issue is intent. Is the intent of the repeal to further the homosexual agenda? Again, whether you want to admit it or not, there is an agenda within the homosexual community: many stories exist of homosexuals bringing lawsuits against companies who did not want to provide services for them because of a disagreement in belief systems. Is not a printing business allowed to decline a patron if said printing business disagrees with the content of the printing project? That is only one example. There have been many others where the homosexual group or patrons could have taken their business to different companies and received the service they were inquiring about, yet they chose not to.
But back to the orignal intent: Once the law is repealed, the next step would be to demand housing and other benefits to the partners of the homosexual troops. The claim that they are not allowed to marry would be evidence used as to why it is unfair for them to be denied the same benefits as a heterosexual married couple serving in the military. This would then give an opening to demand traditional marriage rights to homosexuals.
So, it is not unreasonable to assume that the two elements do feed off of one another, no matter which side of the issue you stand upon. It is deductive reasoning at work.
The questions as to whether it should be allowed or not should be up to the people.
*And for the record, no one has been denied their Constitutional rights as "Marriage rights" are not mentioned in the Constitution.
Very well stated, Leslie. You said it better than I, and with less words.
I am aiming for clarity of thought here, not advocacy of one position over another.
Gays and lesbians are allowed to serve openly in the military almost everywhere in the modern world. Here in Italy, as well as in Spain, in Germany, in France, in the Uk, etc. Where i live this is completely a non-issue... both the Left and the Right recognize gays and lesbians in the military as an ordinary thing. Nobody considers their presence as a problem... i cannot understand why in the US the things would be different. Even if allowind gays and lesbians to serve openly would give momentum to the "homosexual agenda" (the equality agenda pushed forward by gay and lesbian groups) this should not be considered a problem, something to worry about... why equality should be considered a problem?? It would be something to be happy about, not to be angry for.
On the Constitution: the 14th amendment orders equal protection and due process. Equal protection and due process are violated when gays and lesbians are barred from enjoying the fundamental right to marry the person of their choice.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/transcript/ted-olson-debate-over-judicial-activism-and-same-sex-marriage
Luke
You are wrong on the constitutional issue, for the reasons I cited in the article. Military members have their constitutional rights violated every day.
You cite the militaries of Europe? Britain is the only serious army you cite, the rest are nothing but jobs programs.
Anyway, to bolster your case, Israel has also integrated gays into its military. That is a factual point that argues strongly for doing the same here. And that is the only real issue: Will this increase or decrease US military readiness? The jury is still out.
"This poses a number of difficult issues, one being of trust and brotherhood among troops."
This seems to be an issue for some non-military people, since the latest figures leaked from the Pentagon's recent study on the repeal of DADT revealed that an overwhelming majority of those who would be serving with gays have no problem with the repeal of DADT. None.
"Sorry, but it is the truth. Homosexuality is an odd act and makes people uncomfortable."
You need to qualify that statement. Homosexuality makes SOME people uncomfortable. So your statement isn't entirely true.
Again I would refer you to the recent Pentagon study that showed a majority of the military directly affected HAVE NO PROBLEM with the repeal of DADT.
As for the "oddity" of homosexuality--I would remind you that it's been around since Adam and Steve, hardly "odd." It is only now in a more enlightened age that we have come to accept this as another part of being human.
"This prevents a full trust that troops need to have with one another in order to maintain a strong military force."
No, not necessarily. I would refer you to the Israeli military that has accepted gays without any problems in maintaining a strong military force. Do you think our US military is less able to deal with this than other countries' military? Are we that weak?
"...there is an agenda within the homosexual community:"
And that "agenda" is equal rights. Let me substitute the word "Negro" for the word "homosexual" in your next statements:
"...many stories exist of NEGROES bringing lawsuits against companies who did not want to provide services for them because of a disagreement in belief systems. Is not a printing business allowed to decline a patron if said printing business disagrees with the content of the printing project? That is only one example. There have been many others where the NEGRO or patrons could have taken their business to different companies and received the service they were inquiring about, yet they chose not to."
This is a civil rights issue, nothing more. You see it as pushing an "agenda." Martin Luther King, Jr., pushed the agenda to give southern blacks their Constitutional rights. This is no different.
What gay people do in the privacy of their homes has nothing to do with equal protection under the law, nor with certain groups of people who have a personal repugnance to it.
Allowing gays full citizenship with regard to marrying the person of his/her choice and to serving his/her country without lying about who he/she is, is the decent American thing to do.
The fact that the constitutional rights of military members "are violated" very often doesn't mean that they must be ALWAYS violated, that every violation is right.
PS: you talk about the UK... in the UK gays and lesbians are allowed to serve openly. ;-)
Luke
@Luke:
"you talk about the UK... in the UK gays and lesbians are allowed to serve openly. ;-)"
That is another point in favor of lifting the ban.
As I stated previously, military effectiveness should be the only criteria.
thanks Silver..its complex but as always there is the hidden agenda........sigh.
// Homosexuality is an odd act and makes people uncomfortable.//
Exactly ... not to mention it is a disgusting, perverted, unhealthy behavior. My honest appraisal of this entire novella is that repealing DADT is just another step attempting to normalize queer behavior. These people are not ‘gay’ … they are queer, which means odd. They are odd. The only species that do such things are humans. This is not what God intended … so yes, it is very odd.
Someone wrote, "Homosexuality makes SOME people uncomfortable. So your statement isn't entirely true.” I disagree. It makes MOST people uncomfortable. The only people who are comfortable with perversion are brainless leftists and homosexual themselves, always looking for ways to justify this behavior and convince others they are normal.
They are not normal. Personally, I don’t care what people do in the privacy of their own homes. I’m perfectly content to allow sexual orientation remain a personal, private thing. In this context, DADT makes perfect sense. Why does the government have to know anyone’s sexual preference? Why would anyone wish to broadcast the fact that they are perverts?
No one here has addressed the fact that a MAJORITY of our military men and women, according to a recent Pentagon report do NOT have a problem, nor do they find "disgusting."
A MAJORITY of our serving men and women do not agree with S.H.'s opinion.
"Brainless leftests?" Actually the "brainless leftests" are the very people who marched for Civil Rights and the overturn of Loving vs. Virginia.
Those who did not, history has proven, were the "brainless" ones.
What S.H. and others like him see as a homosexual agenda, in reality is their inability to see this issue in human rights terms because of their inherent bigotry toward gays.
Luckily this country has always ruled in favor of enorcing rights set out in our Constitution, and it will do so in this case. And it will do so in repealing the dishonorable practice that is DADT--requiring military men and women to lie about who they are. How any here believe it is an honorable practice to deliberately lie about who you are is a mystery to me.
BTW, S.H., you will live to see this country accept gay marriage and the repeal of DADT--it is a fact that only old people and those who are homophobic (for reasons only they can know) are the ones have this pathalogical fear of our homosexual citizens becoming full members of our society.
This attitute was the exact attitute this sort of person had when African-Americans sought their Constitutional equal rights and when miscegenation laws were overturned.
Your facts are cleverly skewed, which is typical. The people who propogated hatred toward people of color were those associated with the Democratic Party and the Progressive Movement. Now it is true that Democrats marched for civil rights, and then have done all they can to keep blacks and other people of color enslaved to government dependency. Quite a record, but I'm not sure whey anyone would be proud of it.
These are the same people who think only a village can raise a child ... ever reaching out for the communist utopia. These are the same individuals who adore Margaret Sanger and Rachel Carson, who are the murderers of colored children. That's your left ... and yes, they are brainless. And evil.
Now these same people want us to believe being queer is normal, and being normal is queer ... It may work for some, not me.
"Your facts are cleverly skewed, which is typical. The people who propogated hatred toward people of color were those associated with the Democratic Party and the Progressive Movement."
This is a twisting of history that shows the writer to be more in love with his prejudices than with facts.
There were two kinds of Democrats in the 1860s, Progressive (abolistionists-mostly northerners) and CONSERVATIVE (pro-slavery southerners. The same was true of the newly formed Republican Party.
To say that Progressives were against the Civil Rights Act is absurd on the face of it. It
was the CONSERVATIVE Democrats in the south who fought and fractured their party (forming the Dixiecrats) over Civil Rights issues.
Once it was past by a Democratic president, Lyndon Johnson, the souther CONSERVATIVE Democrats abandoned the Democratic Party and never returned. These are historic facts. Your comments are not.
The rest of your remarks about gays I'll leave for others to read and draw their own conclusions about your problem with the gay community.
The rest of your angry rant is nothing more than eliminationist rhetoric unworthy of rebuttal.
But it is interesting to note that historically, the Nazis used the same sort of language to demonizae the Jews, calling them "murders," "brainless," and "evil."
In addition to their vilification of Jews, the Nazis persecuted homosexuals:
"In the 1920s, homosexual people in Germany, particularly in Berlin, enjoyed a higher level of freedom and acceptance than anywhere else in the world. However, upon the rise of Adolf Hitler, gay men and, to a lesser extent, lesbians, were two of the numerous groups targeted by the Nazi Party and were ultimately among Holocaust victims. Beginning in 1933, gay organizations were banned, scholarly books about homosexuality, and sexuality in general,[which?] were burned,[when?] and homosexuals within the Nazi Party itself were murdered.[who?] The Gestapo compiled lists of homosexuals, who were compelled to sexually conform to the "German norm."
Congratulations, whoever you are, for so closely aligning yourself with how Germany viewed gays and lesbians in the 1930s.
"It ends; it never ends." --Naomi Feigleson Chase
BTW, SH: "The only species that do such things are humans. This is not what God intended … so yes, it is very odd."
Wrong again. Scientific studies of various animals show male on male and female on femal sex. I give you bonobos for just one example, but there are many more.
As for "not what God intended,"Don't people like you believe that God creates life?
If God creates life, He creates homosexuals. God creates homosexuals. Homosexuals are attracted to their own sex; therefore they, being created in this manner by God, are doing exactly what He intended.
If homosexuality were such an abomination to God, why isn't there
a commandment against it? He took the time to make a commandment against taking His name in vain, didn't He? Also, Jesus Christ, who I'm told came to earth to clarify the OT, says not one word-NOTHING-about homosexuality being evil or anything.
Don't you think Jesus would have had something to say on it were it so important?
It's painfully clear that your pronouncements on homosexuality are a reflection of misinformation and fear.
It's needn't be that way.
I have no problem with the LGBT community having all of the same rights as the rest of us, including being in the service. But it doesn't often get mentioned that gays DO have the right to marry. That right is not being infringed. They are perfectly free to marry, marriage being a union between a man and a woman.
They don't want marriage; They want to change the definition of the word marriage. None of us, no community, nor the government, has the right to change the definition of marriage. I agree with Elton John that they should be happy with their own form of union while the heteros enjoy their time-tested one without being vilified for wanting it to remain defined as it is.
I'm going to address a comment made earlier that no gays are trying to force churches to perform marriage ceremonies for them in America or elsewhere. That is simply not true. I have seen it for myself, here in Salt Lake City, that some in the gay community are trying to force their way into Mormon temples to get sealings. They necessarily fail, citing discrimination, and start calling religion hate speech and bigotry for stating that the family unit is central to God's plan on earth and in eternity and that procreation is essential to that plan. Logically, then, any parental unit that doesn't comprise of the two sexes in eternity cannot have futurity or eternal progress via eternal posterity. That's essential to understand about the Mormon stance on families, but some people are still attacking the Mormons for not allowing gay eternal marriages in their temples. If those who are asking for it knew what they were asking for they wouldn't dare ask for it, and if they got it they would be miserable for eternity: unable to progress and unattracted to their eternal mates, hence why it is out of love and not hate that it is not allowed. The Mormons very much support equal rights for gays on all other issues, and are very vocal about it. It just never receives much publicity.
The problem is that, even here, as the commentators state that it's paranoid to think that gays will demand church weddings, they call religion hate, bigotry, etc., the very things that gays could sue a church for. The problem is less that gays want equal rights, and more that some of the more vocal among them want to expunge the world of religion through blatant attacks on the 1st amendment via decency laws, and attacks on our rule of equal treatment under the law via hate-crimes laws which create protected classes of people to be treated differently than the rest.
P.S. to answer Shaw's question, adultery is any form of sexual behavior which is not performed within a marriage, including homosexual sex. Attractions are not sins, but the act of sex outside of marriage is expressly condemned in both the Old and New Testament, being called "adultery."
I hope that answers your question. :o)
Opposition to marriage equality has nothing to do with religious freedom.
Here is something that was inside Maine 2009 marriage equality law:
Sec. 5. 19-A MRSA §655, sub-§3 is enacted to read: 3. Affirmation of religious freedom. This Part does not authorize any court or other state or local governmental body, entity, agency or commission to compel, prevent or interfere in any way with any religious institution's religious doctrine, policy, teaching or solemnization of marriage within that particular religious faith's tradition as guaranteed by the Maine Constitution, Article 1, Section 3 or the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. A person authorized to join persons in marriage and who fails or refuses to join persons in marriage is not subject to any fine or other penalty for such failure or refusal.
(Maine's marriage equality law has been boycotted by anti-gay "christian" organizations and cancelled via referendum)
Here is what was written in the 2008 California Supreme Court marriage equality ruling (In Re Marriage Cases):
Finally, affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs. [page 117]
(The ruling was boycotted by anti-gay "christians" and was overruled via constitutional amendment approved via referendum)
PS: saying that gays already have their freedom to marry fully respected, citing the fact that they could marry a person of the opposite sex, is like saying that decades ago african americans already had their freedom to marry fully respected because they were able to marry a person of their race.
It's so simple to understand ...
Bye
Luke
I'm sure black people just love it when well-meaning liberals compare being black with being gay...
The language in that Maine law is bogus, because it pretends to codify into law what is already a fundamental right and enshrined in the constitution.
A man doesn't grant the right of religious conscious, God does.
"I'm sure black people just love it when well-meaning liberals compare being black with being gay..."
Gay people are denied equal rights because of who they are. Gay people have been murdered because of who they are. Just like African-Americans were treated.
So bringing in the example of how African-Americans were discriminated against is not in any way an insult. It is an example of how this country treats its minorities.
How is it an insult to be compared with gay people?
Only someone who sees gays and lesbians as second-class or icky humans would think it an insult.
"A man doesn't grant the right of religious conscious, God does."
Our laws are NOT based on anyone's god. There are no god-given laws in the Constitution.
But in any case, Maine's equality law was written because of hysterics who actually have said that allowing gay marriage would mean forcing religious organizations to marry them.
Marry has more than one definition--it isn't just a religious term.
@ Silverfiddle...
I don't care if someone else likes that fact or not. What matters to me is that it's a fact.
By the way... You should read the amicus briefs that NAACP California and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund submitted to the California Supreme Court on this issue (In re Marriage cases).
Here is what the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund wrote to the Court:
There is no reason for this Court to treat marriage between persons of the same sex any differently than it treated interracial marriages in Perez. Although the historical experiences in this country of African Americans, on the one hand, and lesbians and gay men, on the other, are in many important ways quite different, the legal questions raised here are analogous to those raised in Perez and Loving. The state law at issue here, like the laws struck down in those cases, restricts an individual's right to marry the person of his or her choice.
[pages 3 and 4]
This Court found it to be of no significance to the constitutional analysis that all non-white people were treated equally in that they were prohibited from marrying whites, and vice-versa. The United States Supreme Court in Loving reached the same result. The Loving Court rejected the "notion that the mere 'equal application' of a statute containing racial classification is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment's proscription of all invidious racial discrimination."
The issue in the contexts of both interracial marriage and marriage for same-sex couples is whether the persons who wish to marry are permitted -or not permitted- to exercise the right to marry based on characteristics of those persons.
[pages 6 and 7]
(Perez was the California Supreme Court decision striking down the State's ban on interracial marriages, and Loving was the US Supreme Court decision striking down all the bans on interracial marriages in the US)
Shaw:
Our constitutional republic is founded upon natural law.
Removed "God" and insert "Our natural rights."
Amicus curiae are well-articulated points of view designed to convince a magistrate of its worthiness. It is not the only point of view, however. Now for those who think that citizens have a right to serve in the military, this simply isn’t true. Individuals deemed mentally inept may not serve, and I think common sense would suggest that a man who allows another man to insert his penis into his rectum in the name of true love has a serious mental issue. A bed wetter may not serve. People who walk in their sleep may not serve. People convicted of felonies or demonstrate a pattern of misconduct through misdemeanors can (and should be) excluded. Drug users are prohibited from joining the military, as well as those having carnal knowledge with sheep.
“it is a fact that only old people and those who are homophobic (for reasons only they can know) are the ones have this pathalogical fear of our homosexual citizens becoming full members of our society”
It is clear that Shaw has proven herself to be the perfect progressive (and she may also have homosexual tendencies --which may explain why she can’t have a level debate about the topic without throwing out insults, perhaps the truth strikes too close to home.)
“But it is interesting to note that historically, the Nazis used the same sort of language to demonizae the Jews, calling them "murders," "brainless," and "evil." “
This is not only a ridiculous effort to draw a comparison, it is insulting to the people who suffered under Nazi rule. You progressives love to use Nazis as an example when trying to equate it to something said by a conservative, yet progressives are the closest beings to exampling Nazi rule than anyone. Stop being ridiculous and stop twisting history to suit your own purpose.
“If homosexuality were such an abomination to God, why isn't there
a commandment against it?” Countless references exist in the Bible against sodomy, of men leaving the natural use of a woman and turning to other men, of sexual deviance, which God did not tolerate for long… All you have to do is read a bit.
But you have lost the whole intention of the post anyway. You turn to attack rather than to logically debate in a mature manner. So I fear, any ‘rebuttle’ to your comments is useless. Who holds the intolerant attitude here? Look in the mirror.
Hayden superciliously pronounces that I'm unable to engage in a discussion in a mature manner just after Hayden implies that I may have homosexual tendencies myself.
Hayden, has anyone ever told you how adorable you are?
Well allow me. You are adorable.
And I'm not going to share my sexual experiences--countless and varied though they may be--unless you promise to tell me about yours.
Wink. Wink.
My Point Proven.
Post a Comment