Far left loon's shameful logic in defense of same sex "marriage"
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Far left loon's shameful logic in defense of same sex "marriage"

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650

    Far left loon's shameful logic in defense of same sex "marriage"

    Anna Quindlen: The Loving Decision | Newsweek Voices - Anna Quindlen | Newsweek.com



    One of my favorite Supreme Court cases is Loving v. Virginia, and not just because it has a name that would delight any novelist. It's because it reminds me, when I'm downhearted, of the truth of the sentiment at the end of "Angels in America," Tony Kushner's brilliant play: "The world only spins forward."

    Here are the facts of the case, and if they leave you breathless with disbelief and rage it only proves Kushner's point, and mine: Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving got married in Washington, D.C. They went home to Virginia, there to be rousted out of their bed one night by police and charged with a felony. The felony was that Mildred was black and Richard was white and they were therefore guilty of miscegenation, which is a $10 word for bigotry. Virginia, like a number of other states, considered cross-racial matrimony a crime at the time.

    It turned out that it wasn't just the state that hated the idea of black people marrying white people. God was onboard, too, according to the trial judge, who wrote, "The fact that He separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." But the Supreme Court, which eventually heard the case, passed over the Almighty for the Constitution, which luckily has an equal-protection clause. "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man," the unanimous opinion striking down the couple's conviction said, "fundamental to our very existence and survival."

    That was in 1967.

    Fast-forward to Election Day 2008, and a flurry of state ballot propositions to outlaw gay marriage, all of which were successful. This is the latest wedge issue of the good-old-days crowd, supplanting abortion and immigration. They really put their backs into it this time around, galvanized by court decisions in three states ruling that it is discriminatory not to extend the right to marry to gay men and lesbians.

    The most high-profile of those rulings, and the most high-profile ballot proposal, came in California. A state court gave its imprimatur to same-sex marriage in June; the electorate reversed that decision on Nov. 4 with the passage of Proposition 8, which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. The opponents of gay marriage will tell you that the people have spoken. It's truer to say that money talks. The Mormons donated millions to the anti effort; the Knights of Columbus did, too. Like the judge who ruled in the Loving case, they said they were doing God's bidding. When I was a small child I always used to picture God on a cloud, with a beard. Now I picture God saying, "Why does all the worst stuff get done in my name?"

    Just informationally, this is how things are going to go from here on in: two steps forward, one step back. Courts will continue to rule in some jurisdictions that there is no good reason to forbid same-sex couples from marrying. Legislatures in two states, New York and New Jersey, could pass a measure guaranteeing the right to matrimony to all, and both states have governors who have said they would sign such legislation.
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,437
    It's nice that Quindlen is comparing the struggle of two participants in an honorable marriage to people who are biologically incompatible to be married to begin with.
    Silent Running, by Mike and the Mechanics

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by toreskha View Post
    It's nice that Quindlen is comparing the struggle of two participants in an honorable marriage to people who are biologically incompatible to be married to begin with.
    Furthermore, the people in the Loving Decision were genuinely in love. Gay people are just sick. Instead of trying to gain "social acceptance" of their degenerate lifestyles, they need treatment.
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

  5. #4
    This is a complex issue, and it took me a long while to figure it out to my personal satisfaction. Here is my reasoning:

    1) Marriage should not be a 'state/government' issue to begin with, other than the legal aspects which control property and estate issues. That is what it began with. In other words, it is intended to protect the spouse and children's rights.

    2) Anything a gay couple wants to protect (visitation rights, estate issues, etc) can be done legally right now, without 'marriage'. It is more difficult, and does not have the shortcut which marriage gives, but the legal means are all already available.

    3) Marriage--when viewed as the legal shortcut that it really is--needs to be limited, as it is intended as a reduction of complexity. If it is open to anyone and any group, what is next? I love my dog, so should I take the legal shortcut and marry him? I liked my best friend from High School, too. Then there was this girl in college...The complexity is not reduced, but increased by making it simple and easy for any relationship. And in each case, to end the legal relationship, I would have to go through a divorce! Not simple at all.

    I don't think that the socially approved shortcut is justified unless it is for a social reason: ie, the children. Children's well being IS something society as a whole has an interest in.

    I do think that what gay's want is societal approval of the relationship. I see no reason that society should approve as there are no aspects of the relationship that could adversely effect society (ie, children born out of wedlock, etc.)

    My two cents.
    Last edited by FreedomsAdvocate; 11-24-2008 at 01:50 AM. Reason: Clarification
    - FreedomsAdvocate
    Citizenship ought to be reserved for those who carry arms. - Aristotle
    My latest article on Associated Content

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomsAdvocate View Post
    This is a complex issue, and it took me a long while to figure it out to my personal satisfaction. Here is my reasoning:

    1) Marriage should not be a 'state/government' issue to begin with, other than the legal aspects which control property and estate issues. That is what it began with. In other words, it is intended to protect the spouse and children's rights.

    2) Anything a gay couple wants to protect (visitation rights, estate issues, etc) can be done legally right now, without 'marriage'. It is more difficult, and does not have the shortcut which marriage gives, but the legal means are all already available.

    3) Marriage--when viewed as the legal shortcut that it really is--needs to be limited, as it is intended as a reduction of complexity. If it is open to anyone and any group, what is next? I love my dog, so should I take the legal shortcut and marry him? I liked my best friend from High School, too. Then there was this girl in college...The complexity is not reduced, but increased by making it simple and easy for any relationship. And in each case, to end the legal relationship, I would have to go through a divorce! Not simple at all.

    I don't think that the socially approved shortcut is justified unless it is for a social reason: ie, the children. Children's well being IS something society as a whole has an interest in.

    I do think that what gay's want is societal approval of the relationship. I see no reason that society should approve as there are no aspects of the relationship that could adversely effect society (ie, children born out of wedlock, etc.)

    My two cents.
    Looking at it strictly from a libertarian point of view I could see why it benefits no one to tell them what to do. Nevertheless, marriage is between a man and a woman only; not two men or two women. Let gays have their unions, as long as they're called something other than marriage.

    Also, nobody is going to convince me that there isn't anything abnormal or sinful about homosexuality. A simple look at the anatomies of men and women should lead any clear thinking person to conclude that same sex relationships are unnatural.
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast