Goodridge decision comes down hard
rob wade
Maggie Gallagher (archive)
So at last it has happened: Four judges in Massachusetts, ruling in a
same-sex marriage case, have decided that children don't need mothers
and fathers, that marriage has nothing to do with getting children
what they need. Marriage is a passing plaything of the latest
fashionable ideology, a toy for adults with graduate degrees to tinker
with, at their pleasure.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court judges, in Hillary Goodridge
and others vs. Department of Public Health and another, displayed
their own massive ignorance about marriage, its history and its public
purposes. Four people claim that "the government creates marriage."
There is no rational reason, they claim, for the state legislature to
require that for a marriage you need a husband and a wife, who can
become a mother and a father for their children.
Why have marriage at all? Listen to the court's reasoning: "Civil
marriage anchors an ordered society by encouraging stable
relationships over transient ones. It is central to the way the
Commonwealth identifies individuals, provides for the orderly
distribution of property, insures that children and adults are cared
for and supported whenever possible from private rather than public
funds, and tracks important epidemiological and demographic data."
The reason we have marriage is to save on welfare? Track important
epidemiological and demographic data?
And oh, by the way, there is no great reason to have a state
legislature, either, since the justices believe they have the right
not only to strike down laws they consider unconstitutional, but to
order elected officials to pass new laws to their liking. The form of
democracy is maintained, but it is drained of its substance.
Why did they do this? So they can be heroes to their friends at
cocktail parties? So they can feel historic and powerful? The most
striking thing about this decision to me is the complete absence of
any sense of risk.
Marriage today is in crisis, a crisis that revolves precisely around
the core values swatted down like so many inconsequential flies by the
good juris doctors. Do children need mothers and fathers, and do
adults have a responsibility to conduct their intimate lives so that
children get what they need?
For 30 years, the sexual revolutionaries have said, "Heck, kids are
resilient; the important thing is that you do what makes you happy."
By rewriting the laws of marriage, the courts have essentially carried
this logic to the ultimate conclusion: Marriage is whatever the adults
want. People have a right to conduct a great social experiment on
children because, well, adults want to do it, and doing your own thing
is the new law of the land.
The interesting question is whether or not the state legislators will,
like senators under Augustus, accept this new definition of their
subservient role, or whether they will stand and fight against the
court's usurpation of democratic authority. What happens if after 180
days, the state legislature hasn't passed a new unisex marriage law?
In Vermont, the high court made its threat clear: Pass civil unions or
else we will create gay marriage in Vermont. What is the "or else"
here?
Meanwhile, polls have been showing a sharp swing against gay marriage
in Massachusetts. Reformers on the ground are trying to pass a state
constitutional amendment protecting the normal definition of marriage.
In Washington, marriage advocates are struggling to come together on
language that would take marriage in America out of the hands of state
courts.
How about something simple: Marriage in America is and shall be
exclusively the union of one woman and one man.
Then, when The New York Times or People magazine start treating
same-sex unions as if they were marriage, we at least can point to the
U.S. Constitution and say: Not in the United States of America.
JTEM
Christians fear an end to traditional marriage
and abortion clinic shootings
WorldNutDaily.org
Thousands of formerly ardent Christians filed for divorce
this morning, as others raped their children and household
pets, after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled
that gay people are citizens too.
"My marriage is over," spoke one upset Christian as he
dry-humped the fender of a parked car. "My marriage isn't
worth anything," he insisted. "I feel no connection to my wife
and children and I just want to do whatever I please, when it
pleases me to do it." With that he turned to a passing elderly
woman and shouted for her to reveal her "tits."
This same scene is being repeated over & over again, on
every street in every city & town in America. Once devoted
parents & spouses, America's Christians are denouncing any
bonds between themselves and their families as they embark
on a binge of sex, drugs and socialism.
"We warned you that this would happen," insisted one anti
human rights activist. "We told you that gay citizens enjoying
equal rights would destroy marriage, the family and even
Christianity itself. And now it's happened," he said. "You
should have listened to us. If you had, I wouldn't of had to
have sex with three different strange men in a public restroom
this morning."
The fallout from today's decision is enormous and far reaching.
So big is the change that swept America this morning that it may
be days before a true accounting of the damage is complete. As
things stand, one uncomfirmed report has Bob Jones Jr., of Bob
Jones University, defecating on his bible upon hearing the news,
while other witnesses have come forward to report that they had
seen Pat Robertson, former leader of the Christian Coalition and
the host of the 700 club, enjoying sex with a chair.
Congress was quick to pass an appropriations bill funding the
thousands of new orphanages needed to care for the abandoned
children. It is hoped that this is only a temporary measure and
that Christians will yet accept the financial reponsibility for their
families, even if they no longer love them and insist on
masturbating in public.
Dionisio
> So at last it has happened: Four judges in Massachusetts, ruling in a
> same-sex marriage case, have decided that children don't need mothers
> and fathers, that marriage has nothing to do with getting children
> what they need.
Marriage isn't about children. Children are not a requirement, and never
have been.
Next strawman.
> And oh, by the way, there is no great reason to have a state
> legislature, either, since the justices believe they have the right
> not only to strike down laws they consider unconstitutional, but to
> order elected officials to pass new laws to their liking. The form of
> democracy is maintained, but it is drained of its substance.
Ah, there it is. The judges struck down nothing. They merely noticed
that the legislature wanted to create "laws" that weren't written down.
Strange thin about the law, it ain't law till it's on paper, voted on,
passed, and signed into being. It's most uncouth to blame the Judiciary
for the failings of the Legislative and Executive branches.
Next strawman.
> Marriage today is in crisis, a crisis that revolves precisely around
> the core values swatted down like so many inconsequential flies by the
> good juris doctors.
Lo and behold, another one! Gee, if marriage is in crisis, might it not
have been placed there by the participants? You know, the wife beaters,
the child killers, the divorcers? Oh merciful Heavens! Let's not place
the blame where it should most squarely be placed. That would smack of
responsibility. Can't have that.
Next strawman.
> The interesting question is whether or not the state legislators will,
> like senators under Augustus, accept this new definition of their
> subservient role, or whether they will stand and fight against the
> court's usurpation of democratic authority. What happens if after 180
> days, the state legislature hasn't passed a new unisex marriage law?
> In Vermont, the high court made its threat clear: Pass civil unions or
> else we will create gay marriage in Vermont. What is the "or else"
> here?
Disbanding the Legislature for dereliction of duty? I mean, if they're
being paid to do something, yet not doing it, are they really needed?
Gotta stretch the tax dollars you know.
> Meanwhile, polls have been showing a sharp swing against gay marriage
> in Massachusetts.
Whoopee. Um, this might have slipped by you in Civics class, but some
things aren't subject to public opinion.
Next strawman.
> In Washington, marriage advocates are struggling to come together on
> language that would take marriage in America out of the hands of state
> courts.
Hmm... Sounds like a Legislative problem. Hope they get what they're
paying for.
> How about something simple: Marriage in America is and shall be
> exclusively the union of one woman and one man.
But that disrespects traditional marriage AND the Christian religion
this nation is allegedly founded on. How DARE they smack Solomon like
that! He was the time's wisest man, and he had two wives for every day
of the year! (Minus holidays and the odd period of recuperation.)
Can't see the religious demagogues standing for that.
--
It is Autumn.
Sitting in a duck blind. Shotgun raised.
Sighting down the barrel.
A duck floats closer and closer. Boom!
I blow its plastic head off.
If you'd been squatting here in the cold dampness since 6 this morning,
you'd be bored enough to shoot your decoys too.
-- From the "Red Green Show"
The Frog
<news0815...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>In article <c523258b.03111...@posting.google.com>,
> robcw...@yahoo.com (rob wade) wrote:
>
>> How about something simple: Marriage in America is and shall be
>> exclusively the union of one woman and one man.
>>
>> Then, when The New York Times or People magazine start treating
>> same-sex unions as if they were marriage, we at least can point to the
>> U.S. Constitution and say: Not in the United States of America.
>
>Why don't you go fuck yourself.
*This* is your reasoned argument?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity'
is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity,"
American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
The Frog
Democracy is great when it works in your favor....the trick is to
understand that the majority do have a mandate......sorry
Roger
"rob wade" <robcw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c523258b.03111...@posting.google.com...
Dionisio
> Democracy is great when it works in your favor....the trick is to
> understand that the majority do have a mandate......sorry
"Mandate." "alt.politics.homosexuality" Hmm...
Okay, enough humor. Did it slip your mind that we're a republic too?
Some things are beyond popular opinion.
The Frog
<moc.rr....@5ellimd.com> wrote:
>The Frog wrote:
>
>> Democracy is great when it works in your favor....the trick is to
>> understand that the majority do have a mandate......sorry
>
>"Mandate." "alt.politics.homosexuality" Hmm...
>
>Okay, enough humor. Did it slip your mind that we're a republic too?
>Some things are beyond popular opinion.
Not this.....why? Few believe it is in violation of the
Constitution.....
Lady Dagon
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 19:47:55 -0500, Mike C wrote:
> > r*bcw*d*_0...@yahoo.com (r*b w*d*) wrote:
> >> How about something simple: Marriage in America is and shall be
> >> exclusively the union of one woman and one man.
> >> Then, when The New York Times or People magazine start treating
> >> same-sex unions as if they were marriage, we at least can point to the
> >> U.S. Constitution and say: Not in the United States of America.
> >
> >Why don't you go fuck yourself.
>
> *This* is your reasoned argument?
With you, yes. Though it still might be difficult for you to understand.
-The Lady
The Frog
Face it, it's difficult for anyone to understand hate speech.....and
no reasoning......looks like I got to him......
Sorry to bust his bubble....
Ward Stewart
<moc.rr....@5ellimd.com> wrote:
>The Frog wrote:
>
>> Democracy is great when it works in your favor....the trick is to
>> understand that the majority do have a mandate......sorry
>
>"Mandate." "alt.politics.homosexuality" Hmm...
>
>Okay, enough humor. Did it slip your mind that we're a republic too?
>Some things are beyond popular opinion.
One must wonder where this notion of froggies would leave HIS
appointed president, serving without a majority and using this dicey
position as a bully pulpit to reform the entire world (by aggression)
??
ward
---------------------------------------------------
"The Constitution just sets minimums. Most of the
rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the
Constitution requires."
--"Justice" Antonin Scalia
---------------------------------------------------
Dionisio
> <moc.rr....@5ellimd.com> wrote:
>>"Mandate." "alt.politics.homosexuality" Hmm...
>>
>>Okay, enough humor. Did it slip your mind that we're a republic too?
>>Some things are beyond popular opinion.
>
> Not this.....why? Few believe it is in violation of the
> Constitution.....
Research "Separate but Equal" and get back to us.