The Nation's Pulse
Gay Rights, Gay Rage
California protests expose the folly of “rights talk.”
Before he was purged from the bench, former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore made a remarkable and lamentably unappreciated contribution to American jurisprudence.
Concurring in the 2002 case of Ex Parte H.H., a custody dispute involving a lesbian mother, Moore demonstrated that homosexuality had no protected status in the Anglo-American common-law tradition, that indeed such behavior had been proscribed for centuries as “a crime against nature,” and that Alabama courts had consistently condemned homosexual acts as “illegal under the laws of this state and immoral in the eyes of most of its citizens.”
One does not have to share this abhorrence of homosexuality to agree that Moore’s concurrence — copiously studded with court precedents and citations of Blackstone’s Commentaries, 16th-century British jurist Sir Christopher Wray and even the Justinian Code — accurately summarized the legal foundation of the case against gay rights.
Moore’s 7,000-word treatise came to mind last week when gay activists began targeting sponsors of Proposition 8, the successful ballot initiative that amended the California state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. Taking to the streets in furious indignation, activists created an “enemies list” of those who had contributed to support the measure, targeting them for boycotts and protests.
The elderly co-owner of a Mexican restaurant, who had given $100 to support the referendum, was driven to tears as she confronted “60 members of Los Angeles’ LGBT community” who demanded an apology and an equal contribution to a proposed effort to repeal the referendum.
That incident reminded Diana West of the Soviet show trials of the 1930s, but it reminded me of Roy Moore, because of the angry insistence of gay activists that opponents of same-sex marriage are depriving them of their rights — “rights” that Moore showed to be utterly alien to our nation’s legal tradition.
One activist who helped compile the enemies list told Time magazine: “My goal was to make it socially unacceptable to give huge amounts of money to take away the rights of one particular group, a minority group.” Of course, the restaurant owner’s $100 contribution to the “Yes on 8” cause was not “huge,” but the principle is the same.
As the California activists spewed their fury — allegedly vandalizing Mormon temples, making terroristic threats toward Catholics, and hurling racial epithets at African-Americans (who voted 3-to-1 in favor of Prop 8, according to exit polls) — their vitriolic rage highlighted how the progressive rhetoric of “rights” undermines and destabilizes political consensus.
The late historian Christopher Lasch was the first to identify (and Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon later examined in depth) how “rights talk” insinuated itself into American culture as a dominant mode of political discourse in the decades following World War II. Because Americans are taught to think of “rights” as something sacred in our civic religion, those accused of violating “rights” are easily demonized, while those who advocate “rights” are sanctified.
Seizing on the triumphant narrative of the black civil-rights movement, liberals adopted the habit of framing political debates in terms of minority “rights” versus majority “discrimination.” That this tactic involves a species of moral and emotional blackmail should be obvious. To disagree with a liberal, to oppose his latest policy proposal, is to invite comparisons to Bull Connor and Orval Faubus, so long as the liberal can make “rights” the basis of his argument. (Witness, for example, how Keith Olbermann addressed himself to Proposition 8 supporters, casting their position as morally equivalent to segregation and slavery.)
“Rights talk” allowed liberals a means of preemptively delegitimizing their opponents and thereby to avoid arguing about policy in terms of necessity, utility and efficacy. If all legal and political conflicts are about “rights,” there is no need to argue about the specific consequences of laws and policies. Merely determine which side of the controversy represents “rights” and the debate ends there.
The gay rage in California can be traced directly to the Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision, which voided a Texas sodomy law because, as Justice Anthony Kennedy declared, “our laws and traditions in the past half century…show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex.”
The Lawrence ruling was the culmination of what Justice Antonin Scalia called “a 17-year crusade” to overturn the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick decision (which had upheld Georgia’s sodomy statute) and, as Scalia noted in his dissent, the Court’s “emerging awareness” argument was a disingenuous way to avoid actually declaring a “fundamental right” to sodomy. The legal effect was the same, however, and Lawrence was repeatedly cited in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision five months later mandating the legalization of gay marriage in that state.
If homosexuality is a right, and denying legal recognition to same-sex marriage is a violation of that right, then the rage of gay activists against their opponents is entirely justified. Proposition 8 does not deny tolerance, safety and freedom to gays and lesbians, whose right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is as secure in California as anywhere in the world.
Tolerance, safety and freedom are not the same as equality, however, and equality is the freight that liberals seek to smuggle into arguments via “rights talk.” Gay activists do not construe their “rights” in terms of liberty, but in terms of radical and absolute equality. They insist that same-sex relationships are identical to — entirely analogous to and fungible with — traditional marriage.
About the Author
Robert Stacy McCain is co-author (with Lynn Vincent) of Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party (Nelson Current). He blogs at The Other McCain.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (54) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Robert Stacy McCain
More Articles From The Nation's Pulse
http://spectator.org/archives/2008/11/17/gay-rights-gay-rage
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
wade| 11.17.08 @ 8:58AM
A group of guys are playing football on a football field and a guy shows up with his bat, glove and baseball and saysm "I want to play too."
"OK" says the football group. "The field is open to play."
"But I want to play with my bat, glove and baseball!" says the guy.
"Well", says the group, "We're playing FOOTBALL here and you have baseball stuff!"
"But I like BASEBALL!" says the guy. "I don't like all that tackling and stuff and besides, to me it's a lot more fun hitting the ball and catching it with the glove."
"But we're playing FOOTBALL here!" says the group. There are BASEBALL players playing next door on the baseball field. If you want to play BASEBALL you will need to go over there." Says the group.
"Well, those are my playing buddies over at the BASEBALL field but we all want to come over here on the FOOTBALL field and play BASEBALL with you all. But we want to call our game FOOTBALL as well and we want to play on this field. We can change the field up some and play our game here. But we will call it FOOTBALL." says the guy.
"No" says the group of football players. "This game has been around for decades upon decades and it has been called FOOTBALL. We don't care if you like BASEBALL better. In fact, after our games today, let's all go out for a beer afterward. But if you want to play BASEBALL then you will need to call it baseball and not come and try to hijack our game. Football has proven throughout history that it is an entertaining game and just because you have a group that wants to call BASEBALL a game of FOOTBALL that does not mean we must allow you to do it." said the group.
"Well, then I will sue you and my group will come over and demonstrate on your field and keep you from playing here. We will also organize a boycott of all the sponsors of football. We will harass the city officials who allow you to play on this field and intimidate them if they will not change the name of this field and call our game of BASEBALL........FOOTBALL."
"OK" says the group. "Gosh we are sorry we even challenged you. We didn't mean to discriminate. Please...come and use our field and of course we will change the game for you."
Sound familiar???
C. S. P. Schofield| 11.17.08 @ 9:12AM
Robert Stacy McCain's points are well made, but they seem over-reasoned to me. I think what we have here is a case of "Never explain by philosophical differences what can adequately be explained by delusion". The Politically Gay - and by extension the Political Far Left - suffers from two delusions in particular that apply to this instance.
1) They believe that because people have stopped talking in public about cross-faith and cross-race marriages, these are no longer the subject of any prejudice at all. If one told them that there were many marriages where Granny firmly believes that her granddaughter is a bastard because her daughter wasn't married in the right kind of church/synagog the Left would be shocked, and if one took them by the hand to examples in their own families (which exist, never doubt it!) they would be horrified. Because they believed this kind of 'bigotry' no longer existed, they thought thought that society was ready for Gay Marriage too. Now they are outraged that their pretty dream was false.
2) The Political Left in general and the Politically Gay in particular seriously believe that the endless games of Shock the Squares that they play have no negative impact on public opinion, and actually help foster acceptance. This is obvious hogwash, but they firmly believe it, and having this delusion dispelled by the passage of Proposition 8 must have been particularly painful, as it calls into question much of their program, their self-congratulation, and their self-image.
To say that they hold a different concept of Human Rights from the rest of us dignifies their idiocy beyond its merits. They are delusional. They have always been delusional, because their prime delusion is that they are smarter than the common man and thus deserve to tell him what to do and how to think. The European Aristocracy once believed much the same swill, on somewhat better grounds.
J David| 11.17.08 @ 10:06AM
Very well said, Mr McCain! If I had any money in money in my account I'd go over to the "The Other McCain" right now and hit the tip jar...
How could any argument be " too well reasoned"? But this one, despite the wealth of FACTS, seemed to be more "stream of consciousness"...
No country/culture in the history of the world has ever survived the normalization of homosexuality into its society, for "plain-as-the-nose-on- your- face" reasons, and especially in a culture where women have nearly erased a masculine role in the culture, and practically outlawed it, as ours has.
J Davis| 11.17.08 @ 10:14AM
The problem is, once you start re-defining marriage, in two easy steps it becomes non-existant.
Once same-sex marriage is legalized, the next large group wanting recognition are polygamists. And multiple marriage is much easier to justify that same-sex marriage.
This being the US, women also would have the right to have multiple marriages (polyandry).
So, everyone (of legal age - and how long will that last?) would be allowed to be married to as many people of any sex as they wanted. Ignoring the moral aspects, how in the world would inheritance, legal next-of-kin, parental rights, job benefits, etc. work in such a situation?
Mrbill| 11.17.08 @ 10:29AM
Its a little of both! Common sense on our part and absolute loonacy on theirs.
Tim| 11.17.08 @ 10:47AM
"Black Listing" Now where have we heard this before? This is so Nazi and Stalinish.
This extreme anti democratic loone behavior would stop if more rationally minded folks from the Gay Community would publically and forcefully condem the actions of this Radical Act Up crowd.
Some of you may recall the days when radical gays would routinely walk into a church and disrupt mass or service by throwing condoms at church goers.
Talk about your civil rights being trashed.
This fringe behavior is no different than religious ultra conservatives that would love to see Gays burned at the stake or castrated in the public square.
So enough with the bullshit already.
By the way, not only would legal Gay Marriage open the door to Polygimy but to legal pedifiles as well.
You say no, oh really, go tell that to the ancient Romans and Greeks and some fringe third world cultures.
There would be no end to what would have to be allowed under the everything is legal mantra.
Again I say, the only logical compromise is "Domestic Partners."
Giving the gay community the same rights as anyone else except the title of Marriage addresses the matter completely IMHO.
Dave M.| 11.17.08 @ 11:55AM
The author is incorrect when he says "it seems common-sense resistance can only be justified by resort to religious faith . . . ." Common-sense resistance lies most strongly in the principles of Darwinian-Evolution. Gay coupling is anathema to the preservation of the human species. Lesbian coupling cannot conceive a child, thus, neither partner can replace itself. Male coupling is even more harmful, in fact it is destructive. Male sodomy leads to, inter alia, HIV and AIDs thereby killing humans, threatening our blood supply, and costing society billions (trillions?) of dollars in healthcare costs. Not only is gay coupling not equal, it is harmful to our very survival. Promoting this behavior is suicide.
Don L| 11.17.08 @ 12:57PM
Does this mean that in evaluating gay rights laws we wont hear much about stare decisis, case law or foreign law as a basis for decision? I suspect the movement we'll come back to rely upon creating emminations from some kind of perverse penumbras.
Barry S.| 11.17.08 @ 1:00PM
For many Americans, marriage is, and will always be, a religious affirmation of vows before God by a man and a woman, surrounded by contractual obligations set forth by law. It is not a contractual obligation surrounded by a religious affirmation.
Neither the Torah, the Koran nor the Bible speaks of marriage in any other context than between a man and a woman.
There is, however, a great need for equality for the contractual obligations of a couple, whether it be a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple. Under the law, it would be far easier to recognize this through civil unions, whereby ownership rights, estate management, benefits rights and even taxation could be easily dealt with.
We live in a world where we are willing to remove the Pledge of Allegiance from our schools, because we fear that its recital may offend those non-believers of God. Calling for Gay Marriage, equally offends a majority of people who believe, rightfully so, that marriage is and remains a holy affirmation. The dilemma we face as a nation is that we need to respect the biblical ethos that teaches us that God loves and affirms the full humanity of each human being, while respecting foremost the laws of God.
Chuck| 11.17.08 @ 1:28PM
I find it interesting the concern that gay activists are indulging in Stalinist tactics by targeting opponents.
I used to be a Republican of the Fiscal Conservative breed. Which meant that I wanted government to spend as little of my money as possible and otherwise butt-the-hell-out of my life. Now I'm targeted as a "RINO" and am driven out of the Republican Party because I don't support the government's right to inspect my bedroom. Stalinist indeed.
Social Conservativism will relegate the Republicans to a permanent minority. Fiscal and National Security Conservatives are fed up.
STOP TRYING TO RUN EVERYONE'S LIFE. Run basic government services and nothing else.
People can think for themselves, make their own decisions and be responsible for the outcomes. The government cannot run my life better than I can.
P.S.: Just for the record; I'm straight and have never had sex outside of marriage. Which means I'm morally more pure than most of the people posting here - not that it's really any of your business.
lara| 11.17.08 @ 2:09PM
Chuck is morally more pure than me, stipulated without argument from me, I gladly let you wear the most "pure" hat. That being said, How do we refuse homosexual marriages? as far as I an tell a marriage agreement is a partnership agreement as deifned by each state. To limit such a contract to one man and one woman is silly and makes no sense. How many partners can a law firm have? As many as they want. I don't think a marriage license is anything but a piece of paper that makes you legal partners. I don't care if you give them out to everyone. I believe the propensity to gay behaviour comes from you DNA and you really cannot change it. You are born as male our female but maybe sometings they get mixed up and children are born with an attraction to same-sex, Who cares? Let the homos be and I think you have to let them marry or violate the equal protection clause. good luck with that issues. I don't get it, don't understand whay anyone cares whom, who or what somebody else marries.
There must be a reason all of these nosy people can't just keep track with who they slept with and ignore the rest of us.
Bob Maistros | 11.17.08 @ 2:21PM
Mr. McCain has it right here. The problem with the concept of "gay marriage" is the proliferation of the concept of "rights" to cover behavior that is simply "wrong." To put it another way, "wrongs" have become "rights." (And conversely, "rights" ... like freedom of speech and religion ... have become "wrongs.")
There is very simply no "right" under natural law to behavior that is evil or even dangerous in nature. The Founding Fathers could never have conceived of such a notion. But removing all concept of right and wrong from the debate destroys society's ability to make these judgments.
Homosexual "marriage" is not only wrong from a moral standpoint, but dangerous from a policy standpoint, as I cover in a blog entry at http://bobmaistros.com/?p=117.
We need more Roy Moores on the bench.
Don Carlson| 11.17.08 @ 3:06PM
Who do I contact to have my name added to the Gay Enemies List?
Don Carlson| 11.17.08 @ 3:16PM
I would suppose that these mobs of threatening people view themselves as following in the steps of Martin Luther King, Jr., but they are acting as terrorists, not protesters. This mob arrogance is tolerated at the risk, again, of our civil society and our civil rights---without order there are no rights. The militant gay population has invited condemnation and should be discriminated against on the basis of their uncivil behavior, their violence and threats of violence against oithers, and their righteous despising of all that is different from themselves. These people have taken the view that everyone who disagrees with them is to be beaten, figuratively or actually, into submission, and they should reap the rewards of that arrogance.
Bob| 11.17.08 @ 4:44PM
There are two definitions of marriage -- one is a civil contract which confers joint rights and the other is a religious ceremony. If you are willing to accept the civil proposition that gays can have the same civil rights through domestic partnerships, then there is no fundamental difference between that an a civil marriage. Not calling it a "marriage" can only be seen as correct by fools. You have a choice, either don't allow any domestic partnerships between gays or allow them and call it a marriage. Personally, I'm with Chuck and a libertarian on this issue. Homosexuality is genetically set in the vast majority of cases and if they want to have a civil contract/marriage between them, so be it.
Thomist| 11.17.08 @ 4:45PM
A large part of the problem is people seem to have forgotten what marriage is really about. Children. Marriage exists fundamentally to produce the best possible environment for the conception and raising of children. That's why the government cares so much about it, and that is why religions care so much about it.
Unfortunately our popular culture in addition to the widespread use of contraception has resulted in the separation of the idea of marriage and sex from its natural result, children.
Gay "marriage" should never be allowed precisely because it is an infertile arrangement. Public recognition of their unions by gays is sought partly because they are jealous of the special consideration rightly given to families, but primarily because their personal doubts and insecurities about their lifestyle drive them to seek official affirmation.
Bob| 11.17.08 @ 5:38PM
Thomist - you need to do some research on marriage. It was originally NOT religious in nature and was a way to establish bloodlines and assign property rights. Most marriages were arranged and romance had little to do with it. It didn't become a religious ceremony, as far as I can tell, until the 1500's. Given that the origins of marriage were civil, not religious, it negates your argument.
Besides, in ancient Hebrew texts, men married multiple women. Again, it was a matter of property. Propagation was to create heirs and workers since the economies were agrarian.
Anti-Chuck| 11.17.08 @ 5:46PM
What a jaw-dropping load of hypocrisy! The sodomites and their lackeys are always whining that we're "intruding in their bedrooms" and then demanding that government affirm and endorse their fake marriages, just so they can intrude on our rights to freedom of religion and expression.
If these faux libertarians like Chuck were really about keeping government out of our lives, they'd call for the privatization of marriage and the abolition of government schooling. They don't advocate for either of these laudable causes because they want the very opposite: to force their sicko agenda into our churches and our workplaces with their fake marriage contracts and to force our children into their indoctrination centers (i.e. "public schools") with their evil compulsory schooling laws.
You've blown your cover, Chucky! Nobody here is falling for your ruse about being some kind of libertarian. You're just another libtard.
Bob| 11.17.08 @ 7:02PM
Anti-Chuck -- yours is a fake argument akin to the justification of intelligent design. No one is intruding on your religion. You don't have to marry someone of the same sex. IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU unless you're so homophobic that you'll need psychiatric care.
Marriage, even in biblical times, was needed for civil purposes, i.e., blood lines/property distribution, working the land, etc. From a logic standpoint, there is no difference between civil marriage and domestic partnerships.
Aren't you intruding on the lives of atheists?
ruth| 11.17.08 @ 7:44PM
Christians are the huge majority in this country--majority rules! This isn't just about marriage. Once homosexual marriage is legalized acceptance of it will have to be taught in schools--even kindergarten! Also, Pastors preaching from pulpits will be brought up on hate-speech charges if they speak out against homosexuality. Freedom of Religion? Don't think so. This is already happening in Canada.
RJ STRITTMATTER | 11.17.08 @ 7:53PM
For those of you who choose to rant about how 'the gays' are using "Stalinist tactics" against their opponents - organizations like the American Family Association and Family Research Council use the exact same tactics agains gay-friendly businesses and organizations. Just last month the AFA pressured McDonald's to resign there association with the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce through intimidation and threats of boycott.
"What is good for the goose is good for the gander," as it were.
LaVallette| 11.17.08 @ 8:24PM
Nature and Physics have decreed that it takes a screw and a nut to make a bolt. Regardless of how hard they try, two screws cant make a bolt and neither can two nuts. Each couple is of no absolute use on thus they are "sterile". QED.
Thomas Aquinas| 11.17.08 @ 8:42PM
"You don't have to marry someone of the same sex. IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU unless you're so homophobic that you'll need psychiatric care."
Matthew Shepherd being murdered didn't affect me either. Does that make it right?
Also, once same-sex marriage is permitted, then objections to it will be seen by the state as equivalent to bigotry. This means that parents who object to teaching it in public schools, or adoption agencies that refuse same-sex couples, will be punished.
Marriage is a public institution entered into by private individuals. For this reason, however marriage is defined by the state defines marriage for everybody. There's no way around it. If gender is irrelevant, then there is no such thing as husband or wife. If marriage is not pre-political, then no one in principle can have children unless the state declares it as such. So, if you and your wife have a baby, it is only yours because the state says so, since the naturalness of your union is not relevant to determining its correctness.
What makes same-sex marriage so frightening is that it pretty much ends the idea that there is anything between me and the state.
Mo| 11.17.08 @ 8:44PM
Homosexual people stand for tolerance.
And by golly, they will make you tolerate their lifestyle by force and by violence, if necessary!
RJ STRITTMATTER | 11.17.08 @ 10:24PM
ruth - if you study the writings of our founding fathers, you will notice that one of the purposes of the constitution is to protect unpopular minorities from majority/mob rule.
LaVallette - then I assume you feel that fertility testing should be a prerequisite for the issuance of a marriage license?
ruth| 11.17.08 @ 10:25PM
Exactly. They will force you to accept their life-style by force of law. You differ? It's a hate crime punishable by the state.
ruth| 11.17.08 @ 10:31PM
You're right, RJS, and you on the left have abused these protections so greatly that now we have 'tyranny of the minority'. We need protection for the majority from your mob rule.
Alan Brooks| 11.17.08 @ 11:11PM
From a radic-lib family, I used to be pro gay marriage, but don't care either way anymore.
Sex and marriage used to be interesting to me, now it is all boring.
Revolutions can take the fizz out of life, can't they?
ruth| 11.17.08 @ 11:19PM
Dude, get a physical, you're depressed!
Alan Brooks| 11.17.08 @ 11:23PM
Gay marriage isn't shocking or threatening anymore, it is terribly dull. When i was a child in the early- mid '60s, marriage and sex were still mysterious, exciting; now there's no mystery left.
Hush this cry of progress 'til a thousand years have past!
Alan Brooks| 11.17.08 @ 11:28PM
Depressed? it's not the physical aspect of sex that depresses me, Ruth. Don't you get it?
But you wont listen, will you?
ruth| 11.17.08 @ 11:51PM
Freak
aLAN bROOKS| 11.17.08 @ 11:56PM
I'm sorry, I'm just uptight. SQUARESVILLE. Like those goose-steppers in Tuscaloosa who don't want poor innocent little gays in Hollywood to get married.
I should be modern, Ruth, and get with it! Will get the doc to write me scrip for some viagra or cialis...
ruth| 11.17.08 @ 11:59PM
You probably inject both. Does it help? Probably not.
Alan Brooks| 11.18.08 @ 12:34AM
Ruth,
If I'm a Freak in today's world, good thing.
I'm Against It. whatever it is.
ruth| 11.18.08 @ 12:54AM
You're nuts, but you make me laugh. Good night.
ruth| 11.18.08 @ 12:59AM
existential crisis.
John B| 11.18.08 @ 5:46AM
Tim says, "This fringe behavior is no different than religious ultra conservatives that would love to see Gays burned at the stake or castrated in the public square." - I wasn't aware that Gays were burned or castrated in public in the USA. You obviously know something the rest of us don't. Or are you trying to equate what you believe some people may be thinking what the outrageous behaviour of Gays?
Matty V| 11.18.08 @ 10:25AM
In response to “Gay Rights, Gay Rage,” I have to say that gays protesting and boycotting institutions who supported banning marriage hardly contains the “rage” you claim it is, and while the owner of a restaurant ending up in tears may appeal to your sensitive side, by no means does it actually make the protestors' actions extreme.
Shortly, when civil rights are brought into the conversation, it is mostly referring to the civil justices that GLBT couples are denied. In a medical emergency, the partner cannot make decisions for the sick. Instead an attempt to contact the (often estranged) parents is made, who then may even exclude the partner from the room. In matters of estate, a “partner” doesn’t have the same rights as a “spouse” and can lose property to surviving family. There is clearly a rights disparity.
Sara| 11.18.08 @ 11:55AM
Liberals bully those who disagree with them into silence and then delude themselves the lack of objection to their social engineering and amorality means approval. In the ballot box liberals have no power to harm the voters so people express their opposition freely. It is called the silent majority.
It shocks and enrages liberals every time they rediscover that they really don't have power over people's souls and minds. Liberals don't win debates; they make demands backed by punishment for public disagreement.
Lester Spratt| 11.18.08 @ 3:31PM
Gays do not really care about marriage. Very few take advantage of it in states where it has been legal. Most of the legal partner-type rights they supposedly seek are already available through wills, powers of attorney, etc. What gays really want is to force the rest of us to accept them as normal, to approve of homosexuality. Sorry, can't do it.
ruth| 11.18.08 @ 4:03PM
The California Supreme Court jumped the shark. Everyone is awake now and aware of the Gays' agenda. They will use the schools to indoctrinate our children, and freedom of religion will be under assault.
RJ STRITTMATTER | 11.19.08 @ 1:07AM
ruth - Freedom of Religion implies Freedom FROM Religion.
Greg| 11.19.08 @ 1:39AM
Great article. I'm glad to hear Judge Moore's beliefs and assertions about the fundamentals of law being ultimately from God. Without God being the ultimate moral authority, nothing--and I mean nothing (including murder) can be deemed wrong. Unfortuanetly, the ever left-ward shift in the American politik and judiciary have been trying to eliminate fundamentals such as these.
ruth| 11.19.08 @ 2:12AM
RJS: Yes, including your 'secular' religion. You worship at the altar of homosexuality, I don't. You can't make me follow your religion, as I can't you.
RJ STRITTMATTER | 11.19.08 @ 7:30AM
ruth - that's right!! But as long as the STATE involves itself in these matters, then I deserve the same treatment (under the law) that you do. If you want to declare "marriage" to be a holy sacrament, then let all rights, responsibilities, and benefits that emanate from that marriage come from the church that sanctions said marriage. The last time I checked, tax and inheritance rights are NOT regulated by churches. There is still a separation of church and state, therefore all "married" people must legally be strangers (just like my partner and myself - equal protection under the law, etc. ) in the eyes of the state. Or do you think that certain clauses of the constitution only apply to certain people? If a majority of the voters decide that slavery is legal and that non-white people are only 3/5 of a person, are you going to agree to that because it is "majority rule?"
ruth| 11.19.08 @ 1:09PM
Dude, what a drama queen. It's not about marriage, it's about you telling me what I can and can't believe.
Kevin Riley O'Keeffe | 11.19.08 @ 3:23PM
The opponents of Proposition 8 wish to abolish marriage, and erect a new, sex-neutral institution in its place, albeit one still called "marriage." This is an absurdity, and nothing in either the Federal or California constitutions can possibly be construed as giving them this right.
If the state Supreme Court justices rule, against all common sense, that Proposition 8 constitutes a revision of the state constitution, rather than an amendment, and thus throw it out as a violation of our state constitution (constitutional revisions requires a 2/3rds vote of both houses of the state legislature, followed by a majority vote of the electorate, while an amendment merely requires a majority vote of the electorate), then we should do what we did in 1986, and organize a campaign to oust the justices of state Supreme Court (some of whom, I believe, will be up for ratification in 2010).
Of course, these days we don't have a George Deukmeijian, or are likely to have an equivalent figure any time too soon, to appoint good state Supreme Court justices in their stead, but stripping such judicial activists of their prestigious positions on the bench may be the one thing we can do in order to discourage their tyrannical poltroonery.
ruth| 11.19.08 @ 4:02PM
The gays are using the marriage issue as a stalking horse. What they are really after is complete societal acceptance and approval of their sexual proclivities. By force. They will not address this though, because it is not time yet. Drip, drip, drip.
Pingback| 5.2.09 @ 7:43AM
The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Feminism, ‘Equality’ and Gay Rights links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 6.25.09 @ 5:27PM
ADF Alliance Alert » Proposition 8 opponents release blacklists links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Trackback| 12.23.09 @ 12:12AM
massachusetts credit repair, on massachusetts credit repair, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Trackback| 12.28.09 @ 4:36AM
credit repair ma, on credit repair ma, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: