Why California’s Proposition 8 Would Make Jesus Weep (2 Viewers)

[oneohh]

Oh, so you don't have any kind of defensible reason. Glad you're on the anti-equality side then.

Definsible? Anti-equality? So when a gay couple uses science to have a child, that's not playing God?

Are straight people playing God when they allow science to keep their sick child alive?Are you against all life-giving/saving science or only when that science benefits gay couples?

Live giving is the same as life saving to you?

Yes. Saving someone's life is the same as giving that someone life, no?Even if you disagree, it's not letting nature/God decide, so it's playing God. I'm just curious as to who you think are allowed to play God.

Only God and men and women in natural relationships.

 

[oneohh]

The schools will teach that I am wrong, and that God is wrong.

You are, and they should.

This is your opinion. Why is your opinion correct and his is not?

 

[the moops]

But when you call it "marriage" you are moving beyond giving them rights and actually interfering with my rights. You are attempting to change my definitions, and force me to give up what I believe in. It's an infringement on my freedom.

You are still free to do whatever the hell you want. You are still free to sit in your church and condemn married gays and supporters of married gays. Your definition can be whatever the hell you want it to be.

 

[beavers]

Obama should defend the DOMA, as he should defend the Bush Tax cuts or current federal sentencing guidelines or any other law on the books. The President has the ability to influence policy and attempt to pass legislation to conform to his views, but when acting as the Executive he has no authority to choose which laws to defend. It is the Executive's job in state and federal government to enforce and defend the laws, not determine which ones to use and which ones to throw away.

Note, I recognize that practically not all laws can be enforced equally. And this will lead to some rationing of resources and uneven enforcement. However, there is a difference between allocating resources and refusing to defend a law on the books.

Obama doesn't have to defend DOMA.

In other Netroots news, one of Obama’s top 2008 campaign advisers, Steve Hildebrand, went on record for the first time saying he believes the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and that he’s “very perplexed” by the administration’s continued effort to defend the law in the courts.

“I’d like to see the president and Attorney General Holder announce that they will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act and to agree with the judge’s findings in the Massachusetts’ court case,” he said of U.S. judge Joseph Tauro’s ruling earlier this month that DOMA is unconstitutional.

Though we’re all aware of this decision, allow me to reiterate that Tauro found DOMA didn’t even meet the “rational basis” test for denying federal recognition to same-sex couples – in the legal world, that’s the most deferential test, or the easiest test, for a law to meet in order to pass as justifiable.

Hildebrand did not say this in my interview with him, but I would hazard to guess he believes this is precisely the type of situation where elections should have consequences. He backs the administration’s approach to ending DADT because he believes the law cannot be repealed without enlisting the support of the Pentagon.

By contrast, beginning to dismantle DOMA does not necessitate vote wrangling or building momentum or corralling 60 senators to overcome a filibuster. Instead it only requires an administration led by a man who has called the law discriminatory and ran on a platform of repealing it to come down on the side of equality.

In other words, it is one law that unnecessarily harms and targets an aggrieved minority that can be declared unconstitutional by the president because it is. Judge Tauro’s decision left no doubt of that.

Critics of this approach often say the Justice Department cannot pick and choose which laws it defends and that, if the Obama administration did so, it would set a terrible precedent for future administrations. But as Hildebrand noted, it is not the duty of the Justice Department to defend unconstitutional laws and, moreover, no future administration is going to sit around pondering what the Obama administration did before making key decisions. I somehow doubt that George W. Bush and **** Cheney looked to the Clinton administration for guidance on major decisions at Justice. WWCD (What Would Clinton Do?) was clearly not their standard.

 

[McJose]

For example: if I teach my children that, according to my beliefs which stem from Scripture, that homosexuality is sinful, then I do not want my kids to go a public school and be taught differently. That will be an inevitable result of this decision. The schools will teach that I am wrong, and that God is wrong.

Why would a public school teach that ANYTHING is sinful?

 

[the moops]

For example: if I teach my children that, according to my beliefs which stem from Scripture, that homosexuality is sinful, then I do not want my kids to go a public school and be taught differently. That will be an inevitable result of this decision. The schools will teach that I am wrong, and that God is wrong.

If you teach your kids that slavery is all good, would you be as equally upset if the schools teach differently?

 

[Burton]

But when you call it "marriage" you are moving beyond giving them rights and actually interfering with my rights. You are attempting to change my definitions, and force me to give up what I believe in. It's an infringement on my freedom.

You are still free to do whatever the hell you want. You are still free to sit in your church and condemn married gays and supporters of married gays. Your definition can be whatever the hell you want it to be.

The state represents me. My position is in the majority. The majority of Americans want marriage to be ONLY between a man and a woman. Why shouldn't the state reflect the majority viewpoint?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The schools will teach that I am wrong, and that God is wrong.

You are, and they should.

This is your opinion. Why is your opinion correct and his is not?

Because it is.

 

[oneohh]

The schools will teach that I am wrong, and that God is wrong.

You are, and they should.

This is your opinion. Why is your opinion correct and his is not?

Because it is.

 

[dparker713]

Adoption down?

No but answer the question.

I did. Adopt. There are plenty of kids out there that would love a home and a family.

On behalf of all of the FBG families that went through IVF in order to have a child: link

All of you people are going to hell for subverting the natural order.

Don't really want to get into this, but spending thousands and thousands of dollars on IVF or the like really cant be categorized as anything other than a selfish and narcissistic act.

 

[Running with scissors]

he should defend the Bush Tax cuts

I agree with very little of what you say, but I'm going to go ahead and agree here. He should defend the Bush tax cuts; as written, and let them expire.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Adoption down?

Question for you- what is "science" that can't be used to aid conception? Can you use a thermometer to determine ovulation? After all, God didn't create thermometers or the temperature scales any more than he created IVF. What about Viagra? What about a bed, for that matter? God didn't create beds any more than he created IVF. Can a wife wear an alluring negligee to pique her husband's interest? Seems artificial- the only God-approved article of clothing is a fig leaf, man created the rest just like we created IVF. Can your wife take pain medication during childbirth? I don't think there's any question that birthing pain medication is a scientific tool used to aid in reproduction, so I assume that's a no.Thanks, will answer yours.

All of this is fine for a man and a woman to use. Men and women are allowed to have children - it's even possible naturally. Imagine that.

I'm sorry, I don't follow you. I was under the impression that it was not OK for people to use science to have children. I'm just trying to figure out what is science and what is not. Could you explain to me why IVF is "science" and the above are not?

 

[scoobygang]

WTF are you talking about with this evidence? Evidence of what? You want proof that a man and a man can't have a child naturally? It doesn't work naturally. Why do you feel the need to force it? You are entitled to nothing. Free will? Eff off with your free will.

You are proposing a moral rule. One apparently based on some conception of what is natural. I pointed out a natural consequence of your rule, which is that preventing a death that would have occurred naturally is every bit as unnatural as creating a baby through science.So you then modified your moral rule with a distinction. I am pointing out that your distinctions are incoherent and ungrounded in any underlying moral principle. They're just something you've pulled out of your ***. So why should anyone give them any weight in an argument?

 

[dparker713]

But as Hildebrand noted, it is not the duty of the Justice Department to defend unconstitutional laws and, moreover, no future administration is going to sit around pondering what the Obama administration did before making key decisions.

It is not the province of the Justice Department or the Adminstration to determine what laws are Constitutional and what laws are not Constitutional. The American system of jurisprudence is an advesarial system and is only effective when both sides of an argument is zealously defended. Lawyers in the system have roles to play and sometimes they need to act contray to their personal beliefs to facilitate justice.

 

[Spartans Rule]

But when you call it "marriage" you are moving beyond giving them rights and actually interfering with my rights. You are attempting to change my definitions, and force me to give up what I believe in. It's an infringement on my freedom.

That's not an infringement on your freedom at all. You can still define marriage however you want. No one's stopping you.It's just silly that people think this affects them at all.

 

[Spartans Rule]

How did this thread get back on topic? We need golddigger back in here.

 

[jdoggydogg]

The majority may enact no law that infringes on the rights of the minority.Common practice is a tool I avoid in an argument. 500,000 million people can think that Rush Hour 3 is a great movie. That doesn't make it great.

A minority of Americans are interested in child pornography. Do we have the right to infringe on their right to do so?

So you're equating child porn with gay marriage? Nice.

 

[Running with scissors]

How did this thread get back on topic? We need golddigger back in here.

I blame whoever's trolling with the Burton username.

 

[oneohh]

WTF are you talking about with this evidence? Evidence of what? You want proof that a man and a man can't have a child naturally? It doesn't work naturally. Why do you feel the need to force it? You are entitled to nothing. Free will? Eff off with your free will.

You are proposing a moral rule. One apparently based on some conception of what is natural. I pointed out a natural consequence of your rule, which is that preventing a death that would have occurred naturally is every bit as unnatural as creating a baby through science.So you then modified your moral rule with a distinction. I am pointing out that your distinctions are incoherent and ungrounded in any underlying moral principle. They're just something you've pulled out of your ***. So why should anyone give them any weight in an argument?

Ungrounded in any underlying moral principle? The moral principle that it's wrong (because it's unnatural) for a man to be with a man and a woman to be with a woman? That's a moral principle, no? I've no more pulled my views on this out of my ### than you have yours. What's the difference? You think gayness is natural and I think it is forced. You don't have any evidence to the contrary.

 

[Burton]

But when you call it "marriage" you are moving beyond giving them rights and actually interfering with my rights. You are attempting to change my definitions, and force me to give up what I believe in. It's an infringement on my freedom.

That's not an infringement on your freedom at all. You can still define marriage however you want. No one's stopping you.It's just silly that people think this affects them at all.

I want the government to reflect my personal moral beliefs. In this, I am no different from anyone else here on either side of this argument. Except for one thing- my side is the majority position. Why then, am I being prevented from having my views with the power of law?If the majority of Americans were in favor of gay marriage, I would have no problem. I would grumble, and still be against it, but we're supposed to be a free country and if that's what people want, so be it. But this way, for one judge to decide things, and probably for one judge (Kennedy) to decide things on the Supreme Court for the rest of us- that's not freedom. It's a dictatorship.

 

[oneohh]

The majority may enact no law that infringes on the rights of the minority.Common practice is a tool I avoid in an argument. 500,000 million people can think that Rush Hour 3 is a great movie. That doesn't make it great.

A minority of Americans are interested in child pornography. Do we have the right to infringe on their right to do so?

So you're equating child porn with gay marriage? Nice.

Yes. And bestiality.

 

[MongoL3]

The majority may enact no law that infringes on the rights of the minority.Common practice is a tool I avoid in an argument. 500,000 million people can think that Rush Hour 3 is a great movie. That doesn't make it great.

A minority of Americans are interested in child pornography. Do we have the right to infringe on their right to do so?

So you're equating child porn with gay marriage? Nice.

Yes. And bestiality.

Glitttaaaahh!!!

 

[Spartans Rule]

How did this thread get back on topic? We need golddigger back in here.

I blame whoever's trolling with the Burton username.

 

[scoobygang]

I want the government to reflect my personal moral beliefs. In this, I am no different from anyone else here on either side of this argument. Except for one thing- my side is the majority position. Why then, am I being prevented from having my views with the power of law?If the majority of Americans were in favor of gay marriage, I would have no problem. I would grumble, and still be against it, but we're supposed to be a free country and if that's what people want, so be it. But this way, for one judge to decide things, and probably for one judge (Kennedy) to decide things on the Supreme Court for the rest of us- that's not freedom. It's a dictatorship.

I have a moral problem with guns. I live in a city where the majority of residents agree with me, so the city had a strong handgun control law. The Consitution, however, has a 2nd Amendment, so the Supreme Court has ruled that my city cannot have that handgun ban, despite the thoughts of the democratic majority in my city.The Constitution explicitly places checks on what even democratic majorities can achieve. Even a democratic majority cannot prevent Catholics from holding mass. Even a democratic majority cannot prevent blacks from owning land.

 

[dparker713]

I want the government to reflect my personal moral beliefs. In this, I am no different from anyone else here on either side of this argument. Except for one thing- my side is the majority position. Why then, am I being prevented from having my views with the power of law?If the majority of Americans were in favor of gay marriage, I would have no problem. I would grumble, and still be against it, but we're supposed to be a free country and if that's what people want, so be it. But this way, for one judge to decide things, and probably for one judge (Kennedy) to decide things on the Supreme Court for the rest of us- that's not freedom. It's a dictatorship.

I have a moral problem with guns. I live in a city where the majority of residents agree with me, so the city had a strong handgun control law. The Consitution, however, has a 2nd Amendment, so the Supreme Court has ruled that my city cannot have that handgun ban, despite the thoughts of the democratic majority in my city.The Constitution explicitly places checks on what even democratic majorities can achieve. Even a democratic majority cannot prevent Catholics from holding mass. Even a democratic majority cannot prevent blacks from owning land.

Please stay away from Heller, this thread doesn't need to get any more ridiculous.

 

[oneohh]

I want the government to reflect my personal moral beliefs. In this, I am no different from anyone else here on either side of this argument. Except for one thing- my side is the majority position. Why then, am I being prevented from having my views with the power of law?If the majority of Americans were in favor of gay marriage, I would have no problem. I would grumble, and still be against it, but we're supposed to be a free country and if that's what people want, so be it. But this way, for one judge to decide things, and probably for one judge (Kennedy) to decide things on the Supreme Court for the rest of us- that's not freedom. It's a dictatorship.

I have a moral problem with guns. I live in a city where the majority of residents agree with me, so the city had a strong handgun control law. The Consitution, however, has a 2nd Amendment, so the Supreme Court has ruled that my city cannot have that handgun ban, despite the thoughts of the democratic majority in my city.The Constitution explicitly places checks on what even democratic majorities can achieve. Even a democratic majority cannot prevent Catholics from holding mass. Even a democratic majority cannot prevent blacks from owning land.

So you're equating gay with race and religion?

 

[The Z Machine]

Everything after a legitimate birth is fair game. Forcing the creation of life is not. If you can't have children you should adopt. If you become pregnant and feel it was a mistake, killing the child should not be an option.

Is there any scrap of reasoning or evidence to support this distinction? And other moral distinctions you'd like to pull out of your ***?Maybe I'll play this game. Orange foods are evil and unentitled to our respect.

I guess I'll be eating white cheddar from now on.

 

[Spartans Rule]

I want the government to reflect my personal moral beliefs. In this, I am no different from anyone else here on either side of this argument. Except for one thing- my side is the majority position. Why then, am I being prevented from having my views with the power of law?If the majority of Americans were in favor of gay marriage, I would have no problem. I would grumble, and still be against it, but we're supposed to be a free country and if that's what people want, so be it. But this way, for one judge to decide things, and probably for one judge (Kennedy) to decide things on the Supreme Court for the rest of us- that's not freedom. It's a dictatorship.

I have a moral problem with guns. I live in a city where the majority of residents agree with me, so the city had a strong handgun control law. The Consitution, however, has a 2nd Amendment, so the Supreme Court has ruled that my city cannot have that handgun ban, despite the thoughts of the democratic majority in my city.The Constitution explicitly places checks on what even democratic majorities can achieve. Even a democratic majority cannot prevent Catholics from holding mass. Even a democratic majority cannot prevent blacks from owning land.

So you're equating gay with race and religion?

No, he's making a point about majority rule.

 

[oneohh]

I want the government to reflect my personal moral beliefs. In this, I am no different from anyone else here on either side of this argument. Except for one thing- my side is the majority position. Why then, am I being prevented from having my views with the power of law?If the majority of Americans were in favor of gay marriage, I would have no problem. I would grumble, and still be against it, but we're supposed to be a free country and if that's what people want, so be it. But this way, for one judge to decide things, and probably for one judge (Kennedy) to decide things on the Supreme Court for the rest of us- that's not freedom. It's a dictatorship.

I have a moral problem with guns. I live in a city where the majority of residents agree with me, so the city had a strong handgun control law. The Consitution, however, has a 2nd Amendment, so the Supreme Court has ruled that my city cannot have that handgun ban, despite the thoughts of the democratic majority in my city.The Constitution explicitly places checks on what even democratic majorities can achieve. Even a democratic majority cannot prevent Catholics from holding mass. Even a democratic majority cannot prevent blacks from owning land.

So you're equating gay with race and religion?

No, he's making a point about majority rule.

No, I'm pretty sure he was equating a sexual preference with a race and a religion.

 

[scoobygang]

Ungrounded in any underlying moral principle? The moral principle that it's wrong (because it's unnatural) for a man to be with a man and a woman to be with a woman? That's a moral principle, no? I've no more pulled my views on this out of my ### than you have yours. What's the difference? You think gayness is natural and I think it is forced. You don't have any evidence to the contrary.

I have offered no moral defense of homosexuality based upon whether it is natural or not. You're the one saying that homosexuality (and IVF) are wrong because they are unnatural but declining to say that appendectomies are wrong when they are equally unnatural. I don't care whether homosexuality is genetic or chosen. It's completely irrelevant.I believe that gays should have the right to marry because gays are human beings deserving of equal dignity. But I don't believe that has any bearing on the question of whether the Constitution requires that gays have that right. I answer that question by resort to the text of the 14th Amendment and the historical precedents applying it. Ironically, in the California case, where Civil Unions already exist, I think that's a very tough question. Reasonable people can debate it. What's frustrating, however, is when people who wouldn't know the 14th Amendment from 14th St. seem to think their opinions on the legal craftsmanship of an opinion (which they almost certainly haven't read) should be granted equal weight. Sorry. In law, not all arguments are equal. Some are stupid. You have a real gift for identifying them.

 

[the moops]

I want the government to reflect my personal moral beliefs.

Too bad that's not how it works.

 

[oneohh]

Ungrounded in any underlying moral principle? The moral principle that it's wrong (because it's unnatural) for a man to be with a man and a woman to be with a woman? That's a moral principle, no? I've no more pulled my views on this out of my ### than you have yours. What's the difference? You think gayness is natural and I think it is forced. You don't have any evidence to the contrary.

I have offered no moral defense of homosexuality based upon whether it is natural or not. You're the one saying that homosexuality (and IVF) are wrong because they are unnatural but declining to say that appendectomies are wrong when they are equally unnatural. I don't care whether homosexuality is genetic or chosen. It's completely irrelevant.I believe that gays should have the right to marry because gays are human beings deserving of equal dignity. But I don't believe that has any bearing on the question of whether the Constitution requires that gays have that right. I answer that question by resort to the text of the 14th Amendment and the historical precedents applying it. Ironically, in the California case, where Civil Unions already exist, I think that's a very tough question. Reasonable people can debate it. What's frustrating, however, is when people who wouldn't know the 14th Amendment from 14th St. seem to think their opinions on the legal craftsmanship of an opinion (which they almost certainly haven't read) should be granted equal weight. Sorry. In law, not all arguments are equal. Some are stupid. You have a real gift for identifying them.

Hey, a gift's a gift!

 

[scoobygang]

So you're equating gay with race and religion?

Yes. Why shouldn't I? Or to put it more it succinctly. What part of the 14th Amendment tells you that blacks and Catholics are entitled to equal protection while homosexuals aren't? You see, anyone can make a distinction. You have to make a legally relevant distinction.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The schools will teach that I am wrong, and that God is wrong.

You are, and they should.

This is your opinion. Why is your opinion correct and his is not?

Because it is.

It is silly, isn't it?

 

[oneohh]

Ungrounded in any underlying moral principle? The moral principle that it's wrong (because it's unnatural) for a man to be with a man and a woman to be with a woman? That's a moral principle, no? I've no more pulled my views on this out of my ### than you have yours. What's the difference? You think gayness is natural and I think it is forced. You don't have any evidence to the contrary.

I have offered no moral defense of homosexuality based upon whether it is natural or not. You're the one saying that homosexuality (and IVF) are wrong because they are unnatural but declining to say that appendectomies are wrong when they are equally unnatural. I don't care whether homosexuality is genetic or chosen. It's completely irrelevant.I believe that gays should have the right to marry because gays are human beings deserving of equal dignity. But I don't believe that has any bearing on the question of whether the Constitution requires that gays have that right. I answer that question by resort to the text of the 14th Amendment and the historical precedents applying it. Ironically, in the California case, where Civil Unions already exist, I think that's a very tough question. Reasonable people can debate it. What's frustrating, however, is when people who wouldn't know the 14th Amendment from 14th St. seem to think their opinions on the legal craftsmanship of an opinion (which they almost certainly haven't read) should be granted equal weight. Sorry. In law, not all arguments are equal. Some are stupid. You have a real gift for identifying them.

Wait so you're saying I'm not reasonable? And you're saying I'm stupid? Because I don't agree with you about gays? Nice. If you questioned 1000 people on the street, how many do you think would be able to identify the 14th Amendment?

 

[scoobygang]

Wait so you're saying I'm not reasonable? And you're saying I'm stupid? Because I don't agree with you about gays? Nice. If you questioned 1000 people on the street, how many do you think would be able to identify the 14th Amendment?

No. I'm saying you're stupid because you make stupid arguments. It's possible for smart people who disagree with me about gays to make smart arguments. You just haven't shown yourself to be one of them.

 

[oneohh]

Wait so you're saying I'm not reasonable? And you're saying I'm stupid? Because I don't agree with you about gays? Nice. If you questioned 1000 people on the street, how many do you think would be able to identify the 14th Amendment?

No. I'm saying you're stupid because you make stupid arguments. It's possible for smart people who disagree with me about gays to make smart arguments. You just haven't shown yourself to be one of them.

What's so stupid about agreeing with nature? And what's an example of a smart argument, in your opinion, against gays?ETA: And don't forget the part about the 14th.

 

[scoobygang]

Wait so you're saying I'm not reasonable? And you're saying I'm stupid? Because I don't agree with you about gays? Nice. If you questioned 1000 people on the street, how many do you think would be able to identify the 14th Amendment?

No. I'm saying you're stupid because you make stupid arguments. It's possible for smart people who disagree with me about gays to make smart arguments. You just haven't shown yourself to be one of them.

What's so stupid about agreeing with nature? And what's an example of a smart argument, in your opinion, against gays?ETA: And don't forget the part about the 14th.

1. It is stupid to cite Nature in a debate where Nature is irrelevant. "What is a better movie", I might ask, "Inception or Dude Where's My Car." The fact that Dude, Where's My Car is more faithful to the natural world as we understand it, is completely irrelevant. Because Dude Where's My Car sucks. Similarly, the 14th Amendment is not limited to "natural minorities" as opposed to "unnatural minorities." A law preventing Catholics from operating day care centers would be struck down under equal protection analysis. Yet faith is chosen, not inate. Therefore, relying on the distinction of whether homosexuality is inate or chosen is a particularly stupid argument in a debate centered around the appropriate interpretation of the 14th Amendment.2. A smart argument against the decision in Perry v. Schwarzneeger, (which is the subject of the thread) is that civil unions are co-terminous with the fundamental right of marriage as it has been interpreted by Supreme Court precedent.

3. I don't know how many could identify the 14th Amendment. What I do know is that those who couldn't should not have their opinions on a court decision applying that Amendment afforded the same respect as those that could.

 

[tommyboy]

judge walker denies stay. This will not help the pro-gay marriage side, IMO.

 

[MongoL3]

judge walker denies stay. This will not help the pro-gay marriage side, IMO.

He must've had a guilty conscience....

 

[jdoggydogg]

What's so stupid about agreeing with nature? And what's an example of a smart argument, in your opinion, against gays?

Homosexual behavior is common in pretty much every mammalian species. That takes care of your "nature" theory.

 

[Running with scissors]

What's so stupid about agreeing with nature? And what's an example of a smart argument, in your opinion, against gays?

Homosexual behavior is common in pretty much every mammalian species. That takes care of your "nature" theory.

In avians such as gulls and penguins too.:frot:

 

[Shtaym Syek]

It is silly, isn't it?

IE>big fan of what you're trying to do here.He'll never get it, though.

 

[beavers]

But as Hildebrand noted, it is not the duty of the Justice Department to defend unconstitutional laws and, moreover, no future administration is going to sit around pondering what the Obama administration did before making key decisions.

It is not the province of the Justice Department or the Adminstration to determine what laws are Constitutional and what laws are not Constitutional. The American system of jurisprudence is an advesarial system and is only effective when both sides of an argument is zealously defended. Lawyers in the system have roles to play and sometimes they need to act contray to their personal beliefs to facilitate justice.

Recent Presidents have claimed a power to disregard statutes that they deem unconstitutional, prompting critics to make an array of arguments against these assertions. As a matter of text, the Faithful Execution Clause supposedly bars such non-enforcement. As a matter of history, the English Parliament specifically prohibited a royal discretionary power to disregard statutes. Moreover, American Presidents did not exercise a power to disregard unconstitutional laws until almost a century after the Constitution’s creation. Taken together, these arguments are said to refute the regal pretensions of modern Presidents.This Article serves as an antidote to such claims, while sharpening our understanding of the proper Executive Branch stance towards unconstitutional statutes. The critics are correct in supposing that the President lacks a discretionary power to disregard unconstitutional statutes; instead, the Constitution is best read as obliging the President to disregard statutes he regards as unconstitutional. First, the Constitution never empowers the President to enforce unconstitutional statutes. He no more has the power to enforce such statutes than he has power to enforce the statutes of Georgia or Germany. Second, the President’s duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution requires the President to disregard unconstitutional statutes. When the President enforces a statute he regards as unconstitutional, he violates the Constitution no less than if he were to imprison citizens without hope of trial. Third, the Faithful Execution Clause requires the President to choose the Constitution over unconstitutional laws, in the same way that courts must choose the former over the latter. Consistent with these understandings, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson argued that executives could not enforce unconstitutional laws. Indeed, President Jefferson halted Sedition Act prosecutions on grounds that the Act was unconstitutional. According to Jefferson, his duty to defend the Constitution barred him from executing measures that violated it.

 

[Burton]

After hearing about Judge Vaughn R. Walker striking down the Proposition 8 referendum in California, which became a state constitutional amendment that defined marriage as being between one man and one woman, many Christians and people of a cultural orthodox belief are discouraged that the voice of the people was rejected. Justice Walker cited the 14th Amendment, specifically the Equal Protection Clause, in his reasoning, though he seems to be more concerned with pandering to the gay lobby than following the Constitution.

The problem with both the judge’s ruling and most pro-gay commentary you will read is this: Proposition 8 did not ban gay marriage. To say that gay “marriage” was banned because the term’s definition did not allow for gay marriage is logically untrue. Marriage has not, and never will, be a bond between two people of the same-sex. All the people of California did was uphold the traditional definition of marriage “not only since America's founding but for millennia,” as stated by Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council and Manhattan Declaration signer, in a press release.

The term “gay marriage” is a logical contradiction. First, homosexuality is not a legitimate lifestyle, even though many are forcing the issue. Secondly, to be gay inherently means you cannot be married because you lack a natural bond with your partner. To be gay inherently means you cannot be married. Marriage is supposed to be procreative and express a conjugal, permanent love that is only expressed when two people are complimentary in both body and soul. Men and women can share in procreation and conjugal love, but homosexuals cannot. “Gay Marriage” is as illogical as a 4-cornered triangle, since the definition of one negates the possibility of the other.

Beyond the legal and Constitutional battle we are facing, a cultural battle is stirring in which our culture is buying into a lie. This lie teaches that the only thing necessary for marriage is love; and perhaps even commitment (but with the advent of no-fault divorce and pre-nuptial agreements, even commitment is less necessary)

Deacon Keith Fournier wrote in a Catholic Online editorial, “The proponents of this New Cultural Revolution demand a legal equivalency between homosexual relationships and true marriages. In their zeal some believe they are fashioning a better world. They reject the truth concerning marriage, the implications on children, the structure of society and the real common good. Authentic marriage, and the family and society founded upon it, are the foundation of a free society. This is not only a ‘religious’ position, it is accepted across cultures and has informed Western Civilization. It is affirmed by the Natural law which can be known by all men and women through the exercise of reason.”

If we learn anything from this tragic decision from yet another leftist judge is this: do not buy into liberalized religious definitions. Marriage rejects homosexual relationships by their very nature. Whether these marriages become legalized or not does not mean they have any validity within the Church or within a legal system of ethics and reason.

Racial prejudice was once a legal norm and Christians led the charge in ridding our culture of it. Assuming the Supreme Court upholds Justice Walker’s decision, we should work to end this legalized injustice as well.

 

[McJose]

After hearing about Judge Vaughn R. Walker striking down the Proposition 8 referendum in California, which became a state constitutional amendment that defined marriage as being between one man and one woman, many Christians and people of a cultural orthodox belief are discouraged that the voice of the people was rejected. Justice Walker cited the 14th Amendment, specifically the Equal Protection Clause, in his reasoning, though he seems to be more concerned with pandering to the gay lobby than following the Constitution.

The problem with both the judge’s ruling and most pro-gay commentary you will read is this: Proposition 8 did not ban gay marriage. To say that gay “marriage” was banned because the term’s definition did not allow for gay marriage is logically untrue. Marriage has not, and never will, be a bond between two people of the same-sex. All the people of California did was uphold the traditional definition of marriage “not only since America's founding but for millennia,” as stated by Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council and Manhattan Declaration signer, in a press release.

The term “gay marriage” is a logical contradiction. First, homosexuality is not a legitimate lifestyle, even though many are forcing the issue. Secondly, to be gay inherently means you cannot be married because you lack a natural bond with your partner. To be gay inherently means you cannot be married. Marriage is supposed to be procreative and express a conjugal, permanent love that is only expressed when two people are complimentary in both body and soul. Men and women can share in procreation and conjugal love, but homosexuals cannot. “Gay Marriage” is as illogical as a 4-cornered triangle, since the definition of one negates the possibility of the other.

Beyond the legal and Constitutional battle we are facing, a cultural battle is stirring in which our culture is buying into a lie. This lie teaches that the only thing necessary for marriage is love; and perhaps even commitment (but with the advent of no-fault divorce and pre-nuptial agreements, even commitment is less necessary)

Deacon Keith Fournier wrote in a Catholic Online editorial, “The proponents of this New Cultural Revolution demand a legal equivalency between homosexual relationships and true marriages. In their zeal some believe they are fashioning a better world. They reject the truth concerning marriage, the implications on children, the structure of society and the real common good. Authentic marriage, and the family and society founded upon it, are the foundation of a free society. This is not only a ‘religious’ position, it is accepted across cultures and has informed Western Civilization. It is affirmed by the Natural law which can be known by all men and women through the exercise of reason.”

If we learn anything from this tragic decision from yet another leftist judge is this: do not buy into liberalized religious definitions. Marriage rejects homosexual relationships by their very nature. Whether these marriages become legalized or not does not mean they have any validity within the Church or within a legal system of ethics and reason.

Racial prejudice was once a legal norm and Christians led the charge in ridding our culture of it. Assuming the Supreme Court upholds Justice Walker’s decision, we should work to end this legalized injustice as well.

You're not going to give credit to whoever wrote this?

 

[the moops]

Are you pawning that drivel off as your own? Or did you just forget to put it in quotes and link to the author?

 

[Celph Titled]

Any dudes here wanna get married?

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

You are entitled to nothing. Free will? Eff off with your free will.

 

[McJose]

Any dudes here wanna get married?

Let me know if you find someone. I'll perform the marriage.