Sunday, March 31, 2013

On the "Gay Marriage" court battles

I honestly don't see how redefining a word which has held the same meaning since the beginning of recorded history is a 'civil right', bogus semantic examples to claim otherwise notwithstanding.

Nor do I see why redefining the word is necessary in light of the other legal vehicles available to same sex couples. There are civil unions, domestic partnerships, or they could even come up with a new word that sounds cooler and doesn't create controversy by hijacking an institution that is considered ancient and sacred by many in our society. 

If anyone is showing "bigotry" here, it is those with the dogma that same-sex relationships deserve the *exact* same status as a marriage, whatever status they may merit, and I do understand that they deserve a legal status and legal protection, which the state of  California has already well established with its domestic partnership laws.

Marriage has been the primary building block of human society for thousands of years, and is closely tied to human reproduction. Same sex relationships, however loving they may be, are fundamentally different in that respect, and parents who simply want their children to grow up and produce grandchildren don't view same sex relationships as the equivalent of marriage, nor, frankly, does mother nature. 

Parents who don't want the "gay rights" crowd circumventing what they teach their children about sexuality at home don't view it as equivalent, nor do parents who raise their children in a religious manner. 

If the goal is to achieve legal status for same-sex couples, this could have already been done if we weren't just fighting over ownership of a word. 

If the goal is to rub the gay lifestyle in the faces of people who don't agree with it, and in the faces of the religious community from which the concept of "marriage" flows, then this fight will probably continue for quite some time.

And let's just get something out of the way right now. I support the traditional definition of marriage, but it has nothing to do with hatred for anyone, contrary to leftist Commiecrat propaganda. This is a free country, and people should be able to live however they choose, up to the point that it infringes on others. 
I only oppose the agenda of the gay rights political lobby when they begin to trample on the rights of others, such as by forcing people to publicly agree with lifestyles they privately disagree with, circumventing what parents teach their children about sexuality at home with "gay" curriculum in public schools, or hijacking an ancient, sacred institution such as marriage in an effort to force society at large to their viewpoint.
But even if you DO think homosexual relationships deserve the *exact* same legal status as a marriage, then such matters are to be hashed out in the legislatures, not imposed by tyrants in black robes.

The Constitution is utterly silent on this matter. There is NO reference to sexual orientation whatsoever in the Constitution. Not even so much as "I'm a little bi-curious..."

However, the Tenth Amendment tells us that the powers not delegated to the United States federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. That means this needs to be hashed out in the legislatures, not subject to Roe-style hijacking. But such is the smug arrogance by the Commiecrat Left: 
Notice that the “inevitability” argument for gay marriage is coming from Beltway elites who want judges to decide the issue. Why are they waiting at the back doors of court houses so anxiously if public support for it is so strong? Why do they try and shut down debate so quickly by branding their opponents the moral equivalent of racists if their case is so manifestly clear? 
The bullying belies their confident pronouncements. Were the people on their side, they wouldn’t need to doctor “social science”to justify their propaganda. They wouldn’t need to use judicial activists to undo democratic results. They wouldn’t need to ignore the written Constitution in favor of a “living” one. 
At Tuesday’s Supreme Court hearing, Justice Samuel Alito, trying to calm the elite herd down, noted that cell phones have been around longer than gay marriage laws. Justice Scalia asked Ted Olson, the lawyer who seeks to overturn Proposition 8, when gay marriage crept into the Constitution as a right: “We don’t prescribe law for the future. We decide what the law is. I’m curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868? When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?” 
Olson couldn’t give a date, to which Scalia replied: “Well, how am I supposed to know how to decide a case, then, if you can’t give me a date when the Constitution changes?”
This exchange highlights what a sham these cases are, and explains why gay-marriage activists don’t want a prolonged debate but a Roe-style judicial coup.


No comments: