[OPF List] Prop 8

ginny blamire gblamire at gmail.com
Wed Aug 11 09:18:52 HST 2010


Yes, we seem to still disagree, for I believe they are as brave as the next
person, even in war....but we shall honor each other's feelings and beliefs
and still be friends........
take care
love, ginny


On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Gary Hunt <hunt at outpost-of-freedom.com>wrote:

>  Ginny,
>
> I have no problem with queers, though I believe that they should stay in
> the closet.
>
> I don't  know if you have noticed, or not, but I have seen a few articles,
> lately, that seem to demonstrate that if the Church speaks against queers,
> they get blaster by the courts and the press.
>
> Though I don't agree that they should be stoned (Archaic punishment), I do
> believe that they should not be privileged, in any way. And, I do question
> the emotional stability of those in the service. Based upon my friendships,
> I would say that they cannot stand a lot of emotional pressure. Not good to
> share a foxhole with.
>
> So, with that, we can leave our differences intact.
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* opf-bounces at oneamericanpatriot.com [mailto:
> opf-bounces at oneamericanpatriot.com] *On Behalf Of *ginny blamire
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 11, 2010 11:23 AM
>
> *To:* Outpost Of Freedom
> *Subject:* Re: [OPF List] Prop 8
>
>
>
> As said  My Friend,
>
> We have our differences of opinon for many reasons (the way
>
> were raised and things taught) and what we've experienced
>
> in our lives personally, and our beliefs/whether religious or spiritual.
>
> I believe the good book (can't remember what chapter) says somthing
>
> about the same sex lying together..can't rightly remember exact
>
> words), but  I tend to feel that's up to the individual, many try to tell
>
> us what to believe and in whom (the different churches..there
>
> by-laws or how they interpret the bible ; their preachers, priests
>
> etc).  Our governing bodies have slipped from their foundation;
>
> our leaders; interpreters...etc..they have stopped working for the
>
> good of the people....gay/lesbian rights/  you're trying to mix religion
> with politics......and this is another area government has over
> stepped...........get back to politics...leave people's personal life
>
> alone...(unless one has broken the law..killed, stolen, abuse,
>
> raped, etc....I'm not a lesbian ..but I do know ;  as I  I have both
>
> in my family (not my children ; relatives.) that some are
>
> born that way.........did they ask to be born like that..aren't
>
> we glad we aren't........we can fight for what we believe in..
>
> if we're right..that is good..if not we pay the price.
>
>
>
> love, ginny
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>  Ginny,
>
> I tend to be a bit more obsessed with this life than the next. I have
> children and grandchildren, as do you.
>
> The problem is that we have come to let the government pick the course
> rather than it flowing from the people. I would be more inclined to that
> progress if it wasn't dictated. But, as I explained, when the government
> gets behind Verbicide (the change in the definition of a word), and
> political correctness (outlawing that which is our right), in the name of
> progress, I have nothing but distain for the results, for, whether good or
> bad, they were shoved down our throats.
>
> Similarly, for what may happen when I die, do I abide by the government
> (Gay is Good), or, by the moral foundation (if a man sleepeth with a man, as
> if he were a women, he shall be stoned to death), I think that I will
> maintain the morality I was raised with, not what the government gave me.
>
>
>
> *From:* opf-bounces at oneamericanpatriot.com [mailto:
> opf-bounces at oneamericanpatriot.com] *On Behalf Of *ginny blamire
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 11, 2010 9:17 AM
>
>
> *To:* Outpost Of Freedom
> *Subject:* Re: [OPF List] Prop 8
>
>
>
>
>
> Gary My dear,
>
>
>
> We can look at it your way or we can look at it mine...change has always
> had it's good
>
> and bad and will continure to do so;  what lies ahead is not for us to know
> no matter
>
> how well planned by others; for we learn in life that whatever comes
> there's always
>
> a way out...much has changed that I don't like...but when I think about
> change;
>
> it brings me back to what's really important.....where do I go from this
> life..
>
>
>
> take care my friend......for no matter what lies ahead....we'll be given
> choices..
>
> whether they be good or bad will depend on how we choose to live with it..
>
>
>
> love, ginny
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/pipermail/opf/attachments/20100811/58713b56/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the OPF mailing list