Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 18 Jul 2004 05:45:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1443 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
The amendment, as proposed, would have stripped
individual states of their right to define marriage. If the amendment had
forbidden the Federal government from creating a nationwide definition of
marriage, then it would have been on much stronger footing, historically
speaking.
|
But don’t you see that that is the crux of the matter. The Left has
forced the issue-- now the only solution is an “all or nothing” one. The
activists couldn’t just leave well enough alone.
|
Let’s establish henceforth that any time a debater uses “activist judges” as
a means to trump an argument, then the debater has forfeited the argument.
|
“Activist judge” = “Hitler”? This is big, Dave! I think you are
underestimating the arguments against legislating from the bench. I’m curious--
how would you respond to an act of congress that went something like this: “The
courts are not to rule on matters that have to do with the definition of
marriage.” This whole thing is about a power struggle between two branches of
government-- one that is elected, and one that acts with impunity.
| |
The Left has *not* forced the issue. One state’s judiciary has rightly
identified the laws of that state to be contrary to the Constitution, and
that judiciary has removed an impediment to equal protection under the law.
|
We disagree. Every person has the right to marry anyone of the opposite sex.
How more equal can you get? Or are you suggesting that the States discriminate
based on sex, religion, or sexual preference? It cuts both ways...
| |
The Right has forced this issue to waste 3+ legislative days, apparently with
the intent (failed) of creating a wedge issue.
|
Mayors issuing gay marriage licenses started this thing. You know that that is
the first step to forcing other states to recognize those marriages under the
14th Amendment. Sorry, this was very deliberately begun by the Left.
| |
The removal of a faulty law is not activism but wisdom.
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
The real perversion is the attempts by the Left to redefine marriage.
|
Actually, the real perversion is the attempt by the Right to redefine
Campaign 2004 as a crusade for the soul of America.
|
Really now. You know that’s not what it’s about. But I do think it is
about protecting the future of America as we know it.
|
How so? Explain to me in very precise terms how homosexual marriage
threatens the future of America. If you’d claim that it will change the
fundamental structure of our culture, then you’ve opened up the argument to
include women’s suffrage and the abolition of slavery, both of which changed
the fundamental structure of our culture.
|
First off, I’m sure that there are a lot of women and blacks who would be
offended by your outrageous analogy. That aside, what I am talking about has
nothing per se to do with homosexual marriage, but the redefing of the
institution of marriage. This is not a gay issue. If marriage is defined
other than as the union of 1 man and 1 women, it will in essence cease to exist.
The institution will be diluted to include any union a person could imagine,
and there are a lot of idiots out there with wild imaginations. This redefining
issue is a Pandora’s box that could crumble the basis on which our society is
based.
| |
| |
| |
If we’re really interested in protecting marriage by Constitutional
amendment, then why was no mention made of the penalties for heterosexual
infidelity or spousal abuse?
|
Irrelevant.
|
Why? Where is the defense of marriage, if the essence of marriage is not
being defended? If you claim that it is irrelevant. then you must
demonstrate the reasons that it is irrelevant. How does this amendment
differ from anti-miscegenation laws?
|
Again, we are talking about protecting the definition of marriage, not the
quality of particular marriages.
| |
| |
| |
Don’t these present a much greater danger to
Our Oldest Institution than homosexuals?
|
Of course not. These have always existed. They are not even in the same
ballpark as a destructive result of a total redefinition.
|
So, the willful disregard for one’s marital vows, coupled with the subsequent
harm to the marriage, the partners in that marriage, and any children of that
marriage, are not destructive to the institution?
|
No, it is destructive to the persons involved.
| |
And it’s not a total redefinition; it’s the existing definition minus a
biogoted restriction against a certain subset of the population.
|
“A certain subset of the population”? Which subset would that be? Just remember
that anytime you define something, you have by definition discriminated
something from something else and set it apart.
| |
| |
| |
And it’s not an “apples and
oranges” issue; either we intend the amendment to protect marriage, or we
do not.
|
Protect the definition of marriage, not the quality of the institution.
Let me ask you, Dave! If you are against defining marriage as the union of
1 man and 1 woman, how would you specifically define it?
|
For the moment, let’s leave aside issues of polygamy, which I’ll address
shortly.
I find the
definition provided by NOLO to be quite useful:
The legal union of two people.
|
The presupposition that a man and a women are equal is a complete and total
lie. Men and women are not equal! They have equal rights, but they are
not just “people” with interchangable sexual organs. To deny this profound
truth is amazingly twisted and disingenuous, merely to serve a political agenda.
There is no other explanation for its complete stupidity.
| |
Once a couple is married, their rights and
responsibilities toward one another concerning property and support are
defined by the laws of the state in which they live. A marriage can only be
terminated by a court granting a divorce or annulment. Compare common law
marriage.
Note that this definition makes no mention of gender, no appeals to
centuries-old tradition, nor invocation of any “union before God.” It’s
identified as a purely legal contract which, in terms of secular law, is all
that marriage is or should be.
Now, re: polygamy. The NOLO definition identifies marriage as a two-party
union, but the two-party limit seems basically arbitrary to me (as I’ve
argued before). Alarmists claim that the acceptance of gay marriage will
lead to all kinds of abominable unions, but I’ve never seen a convincing
argument that this is truly the case or why, exactly, polygamy should be
disallowed.
|
Polygamy aside, what about unions of brothers and brothers and sisters and
horses, etc? These are extreme examples, but the point is: once you remove the
1 man and 1 women definition of marriage, you open it to include everything,
because you have now become beholden to any kook who wants marriage defined
their way, because otherwise you would be discriminating against their
views. Even your NOLO definition is as completely inadequate as the 1 man 1
women definition. You are merely trading one discriminated group for another.
The fact is that there will always be a group that gets discriminated against;
it is inevitable. It is best to leave the time-tested institution of marriage
as it is alone.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
