[OPF List] Prop 8

Gary Hunt hunt at outpost-of-freedom.com
Tue Aug 10 11:27:01 HST 2010

I will use queer. It was quite acceptable when I was young, and I will stick to the same. 

What is slang can become common usage. However, there are a number of words in our language that were common usage which have been labeled slang in an effort to remove them from use, or to recolor the image invoked by the word.

Political correctness is, in fact, a conditioning process whereby the nature of what was is translated into what those with influence would have us accept as, as is.


From: opf-bounces at oneamericanpatriot.com [mailto:opf-bounces at oneamericanpatriot.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 1:19 PM
To: Outpost Of Freedom
Subject: Re: [OPF List] Prop 8


Queer is also slang. If you want to use the correct term, try homosexual.



----- Original Message ----- 

From: Catherine <mailto:crina1 at earthlink.net>  Humphries 

To: Outpost Of Freedom <mailto:opf at oneamericanpatriot.com>  

Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 12:06 PM

Subject: Re: [OPF List] Prop 8




You make some very good points! And I agree with what you've stated. And from now on I will stop using the word "Gay."  I also have friends who are "Queer."   In fact, I suspect the young Mexican guy who cuts my hair is "queer."  He's so good at cutting hair that he could be in a big city making lots of money, but he was born/raised here in the Mahoning Valley, and loves his family, and doesn't want to move. He's so kind and respectful that I almost think of him as a nephew. ...No, I'm not Mexican, just kinda motherly.  :-) 



-----Original Message----- 
From: Gary Hunt 
Sent: Aug 10, 2010 2:55 PM 
To: 'Outpost Of Freedom' 
Subject: Re: [OPF List] Prop 8 


You are not being harsh, ay=t all. You are, however, accommodating them.

When they were queers, they understood their relationship with society. When we accommodating them by allowing a more acceptable moniker for their persuasion, Gay, we allowed a positive to be affixed to their behavior.

So, if you want to put things back into perspective, then do so. Try:

queer, aka faggot. 

Then, you may still be sympathetic, though not nearly as accommodating.

Queer is immoral behavior.

Gay is happy, carefree, etc.

faggot is in the dictionary

A final thought, in my lifetime I have had two friends, good friends, who were queer. They know that they are queer, and they accept that. Both have been helpful to me, in my life, when I needed help. I can consider them nothing less than good friends. They are, however, queer.


From: opf-bounces at oneamericanpatriot.com [mailto:opf-bounces at oneamericanpatriot.com] On Behalf Of Catherine Humphries
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 11:49 AM
To: Outpost Of Freedom
Subject: Re: [OPF List] Prop 8


I don't want to be harsh, but.. ALL of our out of control corrupt problems in America are because we have through the years accommodated the Left with little or no resistance... It was so much easier that way. 

My personal opinion about Gays aka Queers, are based on facts... There are some who were genuinely born that way, as with birth defects. Then there are others, who because of their wild life styles/actions and/or by choice become Gay aka Queer.  Only God knows, which is which.

I don't know what all Almighty God expects of those who were born that way, but Scripture clearly states (both in the Old Testament and New Testament that openly practicing blatant homosexuality as in Soddom and Gommorah, or openly in places like San Francisco is TERRIBLY WRONG, in fact it's considered HORRIFIC. .. And one VERY important point is stressed in Scripture about practicing homosexuality, and that is, it leads further and further into a reprobate mind.  

Based on what I know, I feel compassion for those who are truly Gay aka Queer. I hope however, all Gays would choose not to infringe upon God's commands, and not to in any way, denigrate the Sacrament of Marriage. 


-----Original Message----- 
From: Gary Hunt 
Sent: Aug 10, 2010 2:16 PM 
To: 'Outpost Of Freedom' 
Subject: Re: [OPF List] Prop 8 

As long as we persist in acquiescing to their "name change" from "queer" to "gay", we are accommodating them. 

Why don't we resort to calling them what they really are, "queer".

From: opf-bounces at oneamericanpatriot.com [mailto:opf-bounces at oneamericanpatriot.com] On Behalf Of Catherine Humphries
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 11:09 AM
To: Outpost Of Freedom
Subject: Re: [OPF List] Prop 8

Gays should have all the same legal rights as non Gays, but Gay "Marriage" is not only an abomination against the genuine teachings of Christ, but also an abomination against the teachings of many other religions.  Christ taught that Marriage is a sacred bond between man/woman. Therefore, no matter what the civil laws say, genuine Christians will not recognize that Gays are "Married", only that they are in a homosexual union, which is something the Gays they have chosen to do, and it's definitely an issue that's between them and their God, or god, whichever the case may be.     

-----Original Message----- 
From: The Unrepentant Patriot 
Sent: Aug 10, 2010 1:34 PM 
To: opf at oneamericanpatriot.com 
Subject: [OPF List] Prop 8 

Following is an exchange on the subject of Proposition 8 I recently engaged in with my darling niece, a very sweet but also very young, very idealistic, and woefully misinformed liberal mouthpiece.  I offer this exchange in sequential order to make it easier for you all to read.  Please feel free to offer me your thoughts and feedback.

Her messages are in blue; mine are in black.

Incidentally, my niece is not gay; she simply has no concept of American civics, and in fact I don't think she even realizes that there's this document called the Constitution.


On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 6:20 PM, <K> wrote:

Hey Everyone!

Please copy and paste the link below to check out a wonderful article about the overturning of prop 8 in California.

Marriage is a civil right.
Thank you California for finally seeing the light!
The rest of the USA: Here we come!!!

My heart is so full and happy it might burst.

Love to you all,



From: The Unrepentant Patriot 
To: <K>
Sent: Thu, Aug 5, 2010 6:40 pm
Subject: Re: OH HAPPY DAY!

Where do you get that marriage is a civil right?


On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 1:11 AM, <K> wrote:

Civil Rights: the rights to full legal, social, and economic equality.

"Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.

The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. Passages read as follows:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage. As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority:

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ...

The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations  [or more currently discriminations against sexual orientation]. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
While the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on same-sex marriage, it is unlikely that it would overturn the foundational premise that marriage is a civil right."

In 1967 it was about racial discrimination. We now have thousands upon thousands of happily wed interracial couples. I hope soon I will be able to say the same for gay and lesbian couples.



From: The Unrepentant Patriot 
To: <K>
Sent: Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:14 pm
Subject: Re: OH HAPPY DAY!

Please excuse my tardiness in responding.  I had my 5-year-old daughter all weekend, and that always seems to preclude any other activity involving brain function.

I have chosen to copy my Yahoo group and others on this response, and I invite them to offer any additional thoughts they may have on this issue. 

First off, let me say this: I have no serious personal problem with homosexuals marrying each other.  If that's what they want to do, and they can find someone to do the deed for them (a church, a minister, a priest, a druid, a faith healer, a justice of the peace, the captain of a ship......the choices are endless, and indeed have been all along), then frankly, it's between all of them and God.  I'm not the one to whom they are ultimately accountable.  The only real potential harm I see coming from the exercise of this privilege (note: not "right") pertains to themselves and the people they choose to embroil in it, unless of course there is some extension of the deed to include compelling an individual or institution to honor the union and conduct the ceremony in violation of their rights of conscience, which would clearly be an abridgment of First Amendment protections (and that is indeed a very great danger in this, as government has an historical tendency to transgress by the mile when offered the inch).  I do, however, have a very great problem with a small group of people, or in this case, one single person (a federal judge), telling the majority of the voters in a sovereign state that they cannot have their will manifested and respected in the manner prescribed by our form of government, when that will clearly does not traduce the essential dictates of the Constitution upon which that government is based.

A number of people involved in this discussion are obviously sadly misinformed about this issue in particular and about the civics of the American Republic in general, so let's see if we can analyze this rationally and intelligently, from an unbiased Constitutional perspective based upon the notions of individual liberty embodied in the foundational tenets of our societal model, and without the shrill, inane histrionics that are apparently unavoidable from the Leftist-Progressive viewpoint. 

Begin the civics lesson: 

First of all, let's take a look at the exact verbiage of Proposition 8, which if adopted would amend the Constitution of the State of California.  It consists in its entirety of fourteen words, as follows: 

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." 

Why is this significant?  Because, as you can see for yourself, this amendment would do absolutely nothing to prevent same-sex partners from marrying one another.  Same-sex couples have been able to have a marriage ceremony performed in California all along (assuming they could find someone to perform the ceremony, which isn't difficult at all in the Land of Fruits and Nuts), and they would still have that right after the adoption of the amendment.  The amendment is simply a textbook example of the citizens of a sovereign state exercising their right to government of the people, by the people, and for the people, wherein they voted by a clear majority to determine what their government would and would not recognize as legitimate, in full consonance with the tenets of a constitutional republic, the United States Constitution, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments thereto, and the essence of federalism.  The Loving v. Virginia decision (which you cited as an example to support your adulation for Judge Walker's ruling) addressed a completely different calculus: It overturned a Virginia law that made it illegal, and subject to criminal prosecution and imprisonment, to marry someone of another race.  In that case, the defendants, Richard and Mildred Loving, were caught sleeping in their bed by a group of police officers who had invaded their home in the hopes of finding them in an act of sex (another crime). In their defense, Mrs. Loving pointed to a marriage certificate on the wall in their bedroom; rather than defending them, it became the evidence the police needed for a criminal charge, because it proved they had been married in another state. Specifically, they were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified "miscegenation" as a felony, punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years. The Lovings eventually pleaded guilty and were sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended for 25 years on condition that the couple leave the state of Virginia.  Now that action by the State of Virginia was a clear violation of "civil rights" (a term which in itself is a very dangerous misnomer, since "civil" rights are rights that are granted at the pleasure of government and which can therefore be rescinded by government at its whim, as opposed to "natural" rights, which are rights granted by God to all men and women equally, and therefore not subject to the caprices of governments of men) in that it denied people a natural right -- namely Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (imprisonment will do that to you every time) -- as a consequence of the elective exercise of a privilege (marriage) available to all people.  There is an enormous difference between, on the one hand, the government legally debarring someone from doing something, and on the other, simply asserting that society will not offer its recognition and approval of an act or a choice.  Although everyone may consider himself to have the "right" to do one thing or another, and may indeed be correct in making that assertion, no one ever has the "right" to someone else's approval, and that is precisely what the citizens of California said, in no uncertain terms, when more than 7 million of them voted in favor of the proposition.

Marriage is not a “right”, as enumerated in the Constitution or otherwise, but rather a “rite”: It is a societal institution and arrangement that for thousands of years has been uniformly celebrated by societies as the union of a man and a woman, for the purpose of bearing children to perpetuate humankind.  The reason government has elected to offer recognition, by way of laws and otherwise, of the institution of marriage, is because of its desire to promote that which leads to the propagation and expansion of society through procreation -- something only possible from the joining of the male sperm and the female egg -- in an environment more likely than simple wanton and boundless copulation to promote the peace and stability of that enterprise.  When a man and a woman marry, they are not exercising a right; they are participating in a rite in order to gain and enjoy the recognition and approval of society in affirmation of their union.  

I think the widely-published and highly-respected black author and political philosopher Thomas Sowell said it best in a recent article on this very subject, so I’ll quote him here:

“Over [the] centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise in unions between a man and a woman.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that law has not been based on logic but on experience. To apply a mountain of laws based specifically on experience with relations between a man and a woman to a different relationship where sex differences are not involved would be like applying the rules of baseball to football.

The argument that current marriage laws ‘discriminate’ against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior.

All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior. What other purpose does law have?

While people may be treated the same, all their behaviors are not. Laws that forbid bicycles from being ridden on freeways obviously have a different effect on people who have bicycles but no cars.

But this is not discrimination against a person. The cyclist who gets into a car is just as free to drive on the freeway as anybody else.

The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry. Many gays have already married people of the opposite sex. Conversely, heterosexuals who might want to marry someone of the same sex in order to make some point will be forbidden to do so, just as gays are.

The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined — and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?

Despite heavy television advertising in California for “gay marriage,” showing blacks being set upon by police dogs during civil-rights marches, and implying that homosexuals face the same discrimination today, the analogy is completely false.

Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus because they were black. They were doing exactly what white people were doing — riding a bus. That is what made it racial discrimination.

Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation.

Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else's business. Now they are asserting a right to other people's approval, which is wholly different.

None of us has a right to other people's approval.”

Now, with respect to this particular judge's ruling in this case, it was abundantly clear from the outset that he, himself a known homosexual, intended to debase the case by making it a simple referendum on marriage itself, rather than dispensing his proper duty to judge and rule based upon the laws of California and the United States as they devolve from the constitutions of both those bodies.  As such, I think it's safe to assume that after his ruling goes to the 9th Circuit (and is undoubtedly affirmed by that little cabal of Marxists), the SCOTUS will eventually rule 5-4 to overturn it and affirm the rightful Constitutional imperative of the citizens of California to determine at the ballot box the course and complexion of their own governance.  However, I do think it's important and instructive to consider a few things about Judge Walker and his deliberative process in this matter, so for your contemplation I offer the following analyses of just that from a few respected sources:

Extreme Judicial Activism on Marriage


Posted By Chuck Donovan On August 4, 2010 @ 6:04 pm In Family and Religion

Today’s decision by a federal district judge in San Francisco striking down state constitutional protections for marriage and inventing a spurious federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage is an example of extreme judicial activism.  Moreover, it is an affront to the millions of California voters who approved Proposition 8 in 2008 after months of vigorous public debate.

Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.  The people of California, and the United States, have made clear in numerous ways that they have not consented to the redefinition of marriage.  For the past two decades they have considered the arguments advanced by some for overturning marriage as it has been understood in our country.  In state after state — 45 in all – they have chosen to reaffirm the meaning of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.  They have done so because they understand that establishing same-sex marriage would transform the institution into a set of private interests rather than buttress it as a multi-generational reality binding mothers, fathers and their children biologically, socially and legally.

>From the beginning of this litigation we have pointed out Judge Vaughn Walker’s trail of activist rulings, from his inappropriate decision to convert a legal proceeding into a show trial, to his failure to follow legal procedure in ordering live video streaming of the trial.  Fortunately, Judge Walker’s abrogation of the rule of law on the latter issue was swiftly rebuffed by the Supreme Court last January when it vacated his decision to broadcast the trial.

Judge Walker’s ruling today similarly abrogates the rule of law.  Marriage has enjoyed unique status because unions of husband and wife are, in fact, unique, and because they uniquely serve the common good in ways that same-sex combinations simply cannot.  We are confident the Supreme Court will reject Judge Walker’s view that the people of California cannot protect the meaning of marriage in their state constitution.

We join our voices with the clear decisions rendered by large margins in the vast majority of the states, and in every state where a popular vote has been held over the past two decades.  It is time for the American people to stand up in support of their right to protect marriage.  Judicial tyranny on the question of marriage must not be allowed to succeed.

Gay Marriage vs. Democracy

Why the people of California should determine the definition of marriage

Steve Chapman | March 9, 2009


You can catch a lot more flies with honey than vinegar, the adage goes. But advocates of same-sex marriage have a deal for the citizens of California: all the vinegar they can drink.

Those citizens don't believe gays should be allowed to unite under the name of marriage. In 2000, more than 61 percent of voters supported a ballot measure barring such unions. That didn't mean the voters get their way. Last summer, the state Supreme Court struck the law down on the ground that it violated the California Constitution by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

But Californians were not content to let the court substitute its judgment for theirs. In November, they approved Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage, with a 52 percent majority. If the constitution required recognition of same-sex marriage, the people decided, the constitution needed correcting.

That should have been the end of the legal battle and the beginning of a political one, where gay rights have excellent prospects. After all, they have made steady progress on the issue, expanding their support from 39 percent of voters to 48 percent in just eight years. Given the trend, their chances of persuading a majority in the next few years look good—if they were to focus on persuading the majority.

But this is a tedious and time-consuming task compared to trying to get the state Supreme Court to nullify the will of the people. So opponents of Proposition 8 chose the latter option after their defeat.

And for what end? Not so that gays can have the full package of rights and duties that go with the institution of matrimony. They already have those—insofar as the state of California can provide them—thanks to a domestic partnership law that duplicates everything about marriage except the name. This is not a fight over fundamental equality. It's a fight over nomenclature.

On Thursday, the fight went back to the Supreme Court in San Francisco, where state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown insisted that the people of California, who created the constitution, don't have the power to change it as they tried to do this time. He argued that it protects pre-existing inalienable rights, including the right to marry, and that an inalienable right "cannot be taken away by a popular vote."

But inalienable rights are empty concepts without legal protection—which in this case they enjoy only because of a constitution approved by the people. If those people had wanted to deny themselves the power to repeal rights protected by the state constitution, they could have included a provision to do that. They didn't.

Instead, they erred on the side of making it easy to amend their charter. Any limits on that power, beyond those imposed by the federal constitution, exist only in the mind of legal fantasists.

It was one thing to demand that the state Supreme Court overrule the will of the people once, and on a mere law. It's quite another to ask it to repudiate their verdict again, after they had decided to alter the constitution precisely to reverse a decision of the Supreme Court.

The justices apparently were not enchanted by the invitation. "We would like to hear from you why the court can willy-nilly disregard the will of the people to change the constitution," Justice Joyce Kennard told the lawyers urging the invalidation of Proposition 8.

Kennard, it should be noted, was among the justices who voted last year to legalize same-sex marriage. So did Chief Justice Ronald George, who Thursday suggested that the current method of amendment "is the system we have to live with until and unless it is changed."

The nice thing about the referendum option is that once gay-marriage supporters constitute a majority, they can promptly amend the constitution to their liking—as I hope they do. But it is hard to win voters to your side while telling them they have no legitimate say on the issue.

Like it or not, the California Constitution notes a basic truth in a democratic society: "All political power is inherent in the people." Advocates of same-sex marriage might do better by treating those people not as opponents to be defeated but as allies to be won.

It's not about couples and love. The marriage ruling is all about you.

By Patrick McIlheran of the Journal Sentinel


Aug. 5, 2010 12:15 p.m.

Let's look at how the gay-marriage thing in California has unfolded so far:

The state’s Supreme Court in 2008, on a one-vote margin, decides to redefine marriage to dump one key parameter that had always and everywhere in human history been part of marriage: that it be between complementary sexes, not identical ones.

Within months, the voters of the state overrule the court, amending their constitution to say that, no, you can’t redefine basic social institutions against the will of the people. The losers sue the state.

And Wednesday, a federal judge – a judge, as in one – overrules the people, ruling, among other things, that “gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.” It doesn’t?

Gay “marriage” advocates cheered, of course, saying it’s a great advance for equality. Ask yourself, however, this: What changed, precisely, because of the decision (presume, for a moment, that all appeals courts agree with Judge Vaughn Walker).

Does this, as gay “marriage” advocates often say, remove some impediment to their preferred relationships?

No, it doesn’t. The fight isn’t about the freedom to love, since the law says nothing (nor should it) about who can love whom, a fundamentally private matter.

Does this change practicalities, such as the right to co-own a house or leave legacies to a gay lover?

No, it does not. Even in places that, like Wisconsin, have not redefined marriage, one may make wills, mortgages, adoptions, benefits arrangements and the like with whom one wants. For its part, California had civil unions carrying all the  benefits of marriage.

Does this alter the ability to a couple to tell each other they’ll be faithful unto death, of one flesh, as married couples (ideally) do?

No. People have always been able to say and mean whatever they wish to each other. Again, the law has no say in such private matters.

Does this allow gay couples to be regarded as if they were married by friends? Does it allow acquaintances to think of long-time lovers as being married?

Again, no. People have long done this, and some churches have long been blessing such couples. That’s their right, of course. They require no judge to do so.

Does this mean that everyone else, including especially perfect strangers, must also now grant gay relationships the same unique and special public respect that until now society has always and everywhere reserved for married couples?

Yes, it does. That’s what the decision was exactly about: Commanding society to view homosexual relationships with a favor that society has been unwilling to grant.

Don’t take my word: As the New York Times explained it, gay-rights activists have increasingly sought same-sex marriage not simply to “lessen discrimination” but also as “an emotional indicator of legitimacy.” The paper quoted one activist as saying that to not redefined marriage “is to deny respect for the essence of who we are as gay people.”

Which is why the state’s civil unions, which conferred the practical benefits of marriage, weren’t enough: They sealed the relationship privately, while only marriage itself could mandate public approbation.

Gay-marriage backers constantly mock an idea they cannot grasp, that redefining marriage will damage it. What – they say – suddenly you’ll love your wife less? Obviously not, but as established a few paragraphs back, marriage isn’t a private affair. Its strength as a social institution – as the relationship at the core of the family – has certainly been damaged, too, by the explosion in divorce, but that’s no reason, either, to euthanize the whole thing.

The reason gay “marriage” damages marriage is not because it changes individual couple’s relationships but because it commands us all to accord as much respect to homosexual relations as society always has done to genuine marriage. Insofar as many people, by their own varied moral reasoning, freely choose to see homosexual relationships as somehow disordered, they will respond to this mandate, then, by according less respect to traditional marriage.

Early research shows this is how it actually works, just as easy divorce, while not necessarily changing any individual couple’s relationship, nonetheless reduces the social expectation that marriage is permanent. If marriage often amounts to a temporary thing, then people see it so even when it comes to couples who seek permanence.

If this is so (and I think the evidence shows it is), then Judge Walker’s decision will have won for gay couples an “emotional indicator” of a "legitimacy" that will rapidly diminish to meaninglessness.

Meanwhile: Paul Mirengoff sees collateral damage:

“Judge Walker's decision is the fruit of a lengthy process through which an eilite within the legal profession has worked tirelessly in an effort to blur, hopelessly, the distinction between the law and personal preferences of that elite. If the decision stands, its main impact will be a diminution, probably past the tipping point, of public confidence in the law and the courts.”

And: Orin Kerr at Volokh sees Walker as having missed entirely the rationality is society not wanting to have too-rapid change imposed on it.

And: Kathryn Jean Lopez talks to Dan Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, who tells of the violence and hate that defenders of traditional marriage have encountered. He outlines what’s at stake:

“Gay marriage has consequences. The goal of this movement is to use the law to reshape the culture so that disagreement with their views on sex and marriage gets stigmatized and repressed like bigotry. Children will be taught, whether parents like it or not, that traditional faith communities’ views on marriage are based on hatred and bigotry. In the new America they are attempting to build, core civil rights will be sacrificed for imaginary ones that will then be used to exclude most religious people and institutions from the public square. We are already seeing the beginnings of this great purge in the academy, and it will march from there through professional licensing and institutions in ways that will affect a great many people.”

Sense and Nonsense on Anti-Prop 8 Ruling


By Ed Whelan

Posted on August 09, 2010 10:56 AM

Yesterday’s San Francisco Chronicle featured an excellent op-ed by law professor Nelson Lund, “Prop. 8 judge makes strange charge.”  An extended excerpt:

Until very recently, same-sex marriage was unknown in human history, and it is opposed today by many progressive leaders, like [President] Obama and [Hillary] Clinton. Can this be explained only by irrational prejudice or religious zeal? No. Only unions between men and women are capable of producing offspring, and every civilization has recognized that responsible procreation is critical to its survival. After the desire for self-preservation, sexual passion is probably the most powerful drive in human nature. Heterosexual intercourse naturally produces children, sometimes unintentionally and only after nine months.

Without marriage, men often would be uncertain about paternity or indifferent to it. If left unchecked, many men would have little incentive to invest in the rearing of their offspring, and the ensuing irresponsibility would have made the development of civilization impossible.

The fundamental purpose of marriage is to encourage biological parents, especially fathers, to take responsibility for their children. Because this institution responds to a phenomenon uniquely created by heterosexual intercourse, the meaning of marriage has always been inseparable from the problem it addresses.

Homosexual relationships (and lots of others as well), have nothing to do with the purpose of marriage, which is why marriage does not extend to them. Constitutional doctrine requires only one conceivable rational reason for a law, and the traditional definition of marriage easily meets that test.

Also yesterday, plaintiffs’ lawyer Ted Olson, in a long interview on “Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace,” did little more than repeat, over and over and over, variants of the question-begging propositions that “We do not put the Bill of Rights to a vote” and that “the right to marriage is a fundamental right.”  As to just how it is that the Bill of Rights might be thought to create a right to same-sex marriage, or that the Supreme Court’s previous holdings on marriage might be thought to extend to this previously unimagined novelty, or that anyone purporting to be a conservative on matters of constitutional interpretation could take the position that Olson is taking, Olson offers little or no clue.  Evidently, his powers of persuasion haven’t been honed by arguing to a judge whose overwhelming bias was evident from the beginning. 

One line of questioning that I wish Wallace had asked Olson:  Why didn’t you speak out against Prop 8 during the 2008 campaign, when California voters were deciding how to vote on it?  Why doesn’t your failure to have done so properly invite the suspicion that your anti-Prop 8 lawsuit is driven as much by your ego and vanity as by your newly declared convictions?


So having said all this, I would welcome any kind of facts-based, Constitutionally-grounded, cogent, rational rejoinder you might wish to offer, but I'm by no means interested in a hysterical, emotionally-rooted response or argument.  All I am interested in is advancing the rule of law and the Constitution, and judicial and governmental actions that are adherent thereto.

But hey, what do I know?  I'm just a dumb-ass jet pilot.

May God save our Republic, 

Bruce McGehee 

"Human by birth; jet pilot by the grace of DoD" 


"Lessons not learned in blood are seldom remembered"


OPF mailing list
OPF at oneamericanpatriot.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/pipermail/opf/attachments/20100810/8cd11696/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the OPF mailing list