[OPF List] Prop 8

The Unrepentant Patriot theunrepentantpatriot at gmail.com
Wed Aug 11 06:17:07 HST 2010


The other day I heard The Mongrel/Bastard President say, in addressing an
obsequious crowd of United Auto Workers in Detroit, that we need to put the
"car" of our nation into "D" (for "Drive" -- i.e., "Democrat") rather than
"R" ("Reverse" -- i.e., "Republican") when we vote in November.

But when the car is stopped at the edge of a bottomless abyss, facing a
death plunge from which there is no hope of return or rescue, "Reverse" is
the more logical choice.

Indeed -- not all progress is a good thing.  It depends upon where you're
"progressing" to, and what better results standing pat, or even possibly a
reversion, might yield instead.



On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Gary Hunt <hunt at outpost-of-freedom.com>wrote:

>  Ginny,
>
> Some change is good. Other change is bad.
>
> We do a lot of things in the name of progress. But, what is progress? If
> you look to the definition, you will see that it is movement towards the
> completion of a goal.  That's fine, if we knew what the goal was. To claim
> progress, when you don't have any idea where you are going (though, some may
> know where they want us to be going), is foolish.
>
> A good example is that "progress" that has accumulated massive debt or has
> brought us into socialism, or, that progress that has changed the collective
> morality (that which we are speak of).
>
> Think back, each of the steps to these ends was described as progress.
>
> Personally, I don't want to progress unless I know what purpose the
> progress is directed toward.
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* opf-bounces at oneamericanpatriot.com [mailto:
> opf-bounces at oneamericanpatriot.com] *On Behalf Of *ginny blamire
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:46 AM
>
> *To:* Outpost Of Freedom
> *Subject:* Re: [OPF List] Prop 8
>
>
>
> guess I didn't clarify it..I was referring to those we're
>
> fighting a war against..(now) whether they're Afghan, Muslim;
>
> children of terriorists...was just comparing ..children raised in other
>
> area's of the world compared to being raised by gays/lesbians
>
>  ..or the norm Mom and Dad....as for children in this nation being
>
> abused or used as human bombs...many have been tortured,
>
> sexually molested, etc...that you and I know nothing about..
>
> I don't like watching two men kiss or two women..because that was not the
> way I was raised..(but we still had the gay/lesbians..who
>
> were hiding in closets)..Change..is what life and this world is all about;
> and unless we  are  willing to change..  we  will eventually decay.
>
>
>
> love, ginny
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:30 AM, The Unrepentant Patriot <
> theunrepentantpatriot at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm searching my brain here, trying to recall the last time a child from *
> any* home here in America *"wrap[ped] bombs around it's **body to be blown
> to hell and back and [took] hundreds with him"* as a result of treatment
> he received in the home (or at all, for that matter).
>
>
> Can you perhaps refresh my memory on that?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 10:23 PM, ginny blamire <gblamire at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Gary,
>
>
>
> we were not born yesterday, a child can be molested  in
>
> an un-loved home . or even a loved one;.with a father and   mother, be
> taught or used in many ways as far as sex is
>
> concerned; I've seen children reared in a gay and lesbian
>
> situation/family  that was just as right/normal as  if
>
> it was a man and woman relationship; my brother uses the
>
> word queer..I did when I was younger because it was what I
>
> heard mostly, just like the word whore, rather than prostitute..
>
> (I don't get embarrassed when  people use slang talk
>
> when describing words used during their time..I get peeved
>
> when  they keep repeating it..like the f word in movies)
>
> I, too was in service with them, my TI was a lesbian had two
>
> as room mates but they never  bothered me in any way;
>
> ....We who believe in a higher power also are taught that
>
> ALL of us were made in it's image/we're All his/her children
>
>
>
> Yes, I had rather see a child in a happy, safe home  loved
>
> with two  Mothers or two Fathers...as long as it's not abused.
>
>
>
> than have one whose parents wrap bombs around it's
>
> body to be blown to hell and back and take hundreds with him.
>
>
>
> love, ginny
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Gary Hunt <hunt at outpost-of-freedom.com>
> wrote:
>
> Ginny,
>
> Do you really believe that a child is better off in a home where he/she has
> two mommies or two daddies? Those informative years will condition the child
> to have an immoral regard to relationships between people, probably denying
> him/her with any hope of future happiness in a relationship.
>
> I've met people who were raised in orphanages (a long time ago). Most came
> out quite well, stable and moral. I think that a return to that form of
> child rearing would be far better than what you propose.
>
> One question that always arises, in my mind, when such a 'family' exists
> is, since the relationship is more devoted to sex than affection, is the
> child subject to the sexual fantasies of the 'parents'?
>
> Gary
>
>
>
> *From:* opf-bounces at oneamericanpatriot.com [mailto:
> opf-bounces at oneamericanpatriot.com] *On Behalf Of *ginny blamire
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 10, 2010 1:26 PM
>
>
> *To:* Outpost Of Freedom
> *Subject:* Re: [OPF List] Prop 8
>
>
>
> as always religious  beliefs against political; who wins?
>
> neither side............whether one marries or just lives together
>
> it's individual choices/ for we will all face judgement one way or other;
> what truly needs changing is the legal issues, such
>
> as Social Security benefits, Veterans,  etc that spouses
>
> have no trouble getting..but the gays/lesbians..should
>
> be able to say who they want to draw whatever benefits they have
>
> would go  to  their partner.
>
>
>
> We will always agree and disagree..there are several good points
>
> in legalizing gay/lesbians mariages..being able to adopt children;
>
> and God knows there are millions out there that need homes..
>
>
>
> jus like you can't pick what your race will be when born;
>
> you also do not have control over whom you'll fall in
>
> love with (I'm talking about Love..not bought love)..
>
>
>
> ;
>
> No one has the right to tell you who you can Love
>
>
>
> Faith, Hope and Love,  and the greatest of these  IS  LOVE
>
>
>
> we need to practice it more
>
>
>
> love, ginny
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:34 PM, The Unrepentant Patriot <
> theunrepentantpatriot at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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,
> Katie
>
>
> http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/04/the-prop-8-ruling-same-sex-marriage-wins-a-sweeping-legal-victo/
> *
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *
> 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.*
>
>
>
> *xox
>
> *
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> *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 clearviolation 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*
>
> *
> http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/04/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
>
> *http://reason.com/archives/2009/03/09/gay-marriage-vs-democracy*
>
>
>
> 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
>
> http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/100032299.html
>
> 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*
>
> *http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos*
>
> 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
> http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/mailman/listinfo/opf
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPF mailing list
> OPF at oneamericanpatriot.com
> http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/mailman/listinfo/opf
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPF mailing list
> OPF at oneamericanpatriot.com
> http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/mailman/listinfo/opf
>
>
>
>
> --
> *
>
> "Lessons not learned in blood are seldom remembered"
>
> *
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPF mailing list
> OPF at oneamericanpatriot.com
> http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/mailman/listinfo/opf
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPF mailing list
> OPF at oneamericanpatriot.com
> http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/mailman/listinfo/opf
>
>


-- 
*

"Lessons not learned in blood are seldom remembered"

*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/pipermail/opf/attachments/20100811/10035ce8/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the OPF mailing list