How is it I am not a lawyer but can see in the case of California's PROPOSITION 8, the judge ruled INCORRECTLY because he chose to disregard the definition of the word and practice of "marriage" as originally, and currently, adopted and applied to US policy.
And, Barry M., just because you and so many others wish to redefine the word doesn't make it so!
The Prop 8 arguments are 1) The Plaintiff has the burden of proof... (prop 8 discriminates against gays and does not allow due process...); 2) the Defendants say gay marriage does harm to the state (children, families). The judge ruled saying gays are NOT allowed due process and gay marriage does NOT harm the state. But where has the Judge assessed the basic definition of the "activity" these persons wish to engage in to see if they are "eligible" to be included in this legislative "class": "married" persons?
Well I am harmed because supporters of gay marriage want to redefine the word "marriage", which I undertook more than 20 years ago, implying the origin of this word and celebration were incorrectly defined from their origin(!); and that they (the US fed government) will rule and provide final definition and complete clarity as to what this practice is and who can participate! I am harmed because the federal government wishes to now say this word and this religious celebration is not the type of institution I chose to participate when I entered into it voluntarily more than 20 years ago! Because if I had been made aware the U.S. Federal Government intended to sponsor this institution, and therefore have the sole ability to re-define what this practice is and who can participate--I may have chosen not to participate! If I had been made aware the definition of "marriage" would be subject to change over time due to their ...judicial activism ...I may not have made this life-long commitment to this "practice" under the state government that licensed the activity!
This is not Constitutionalists not wanting to be fair. This is not about being "ANTI-GAY!" "The People" are tired of those who are to INTERPRET and APPLY THE LAW, "spinning" it to meet their end goal--and not "the will of the people"! It means those representing the citizenry DO NOT have the common interest as their goal as they continue to RE-INTERPRET LAW to obviously support their minority interest!
Not that I agree it should be, but if the 'Gay Community' had only been asking for "civil union granting legislative responsibilities and privileges equal to that of "married" persons" this overly diverse and overly politically-correct "new" America we now live in would have had this in place as a new Constitutional amendment long ago!
Constitutionalists should question WHY the federal government continues to play a role in "marriage" anyway, except to legislate over and tax this "class" of people differently than an individual. Issues of controlling racial intermarriage have long since been put-aside with civil rights legislation as a reason for marriage licensing, so there is no longer a need for a government issued licensed except for taxation!
(And, Barry, your continued analogy of black racism in the south is FAR FROM the prop 8 and gay issues of today! The laws fighting for and against who was to be treated fairly as a full "privileged" U.S. Citizen--by decree or by birth--had nothing to do with sexual orientation--and who you chose to co-habitate with! And the privileges of citizenship in America don't mean all are allowed--or conversely, forced into--each individuals or groups religious tenets, celebrations, etc. just because they are US Citizens!! Why do so many wish to equalize this?)
"The Judge did his job"--overturning a law that was "unconstitutional"?? Well WHO SAID this judge or any other has the "constitutional" right to re-interpret and create a new definition for the religious practice of "marriage"?
I want to know who gave them this right!
Angela
TPM
--
"Conservatism is RIGHT, else we'll be LEFT with an ultra-liberal America."
The Patriot Messenger
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be respectful with your comments. Thank you.