Regards,
Peter H.

For better or worse (I think better) societal change takes time. To use Roe v. Wade as the classical example of change happening too fast, you’ve had a country bitterly divided for coming up on 40 years now, because the court invented the ‘right’.

Civil Unions are/were a long time in coming, yes, but that’s because society takes a while to change. I believe it was Jonah Goldberg who wrote an article for NRO about how a law can be ‘legal’ but not ‘right’ obiviously this school of thought is one I subscribe to.

“1500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow. ” Agent K

30 years ago, we’d not have a discussion of civil unions, 30 days ago we’d not have a bill waiting for the Governor of Vt to make his move. 30 minutes ago I’d not have felt the need to write this post. 30 years from now, society may well go ‘why do we have Marriage and Fred? What’s the difference, really?’

(Or more cynically, 30 years from now, h-o-m-o-s-e-x-u-a-l-i-t-y may be catagorized as a mental disorder again, tracked with genetic markers at birth and able to be treated with a psychoacive drug ‘straightagain’. I prefer to be more optimistic)

And, in case anyone wants to compare my beliefs on ‘expiration dates’ with Justice O’Connor’s U of M decision, discriminating based on race is already settled law, clearly defined in the constitution. The fact that she got it wrong shows even more why rule by Judicial Fiat is not good.

Funny, both had already been repealed — or never existed in the first place — in the vast and overwhelming majority of the states by the time the court cases ever even got there. Which is likely why amendments for either haven’t even been proposed, much less gotten there.

Wonder why antireligious and promiscuous gay bigots haven’t been nearly as successful?

As for the Frank/Scalia “do your job” squabble, Supreme Court rulings are necessary, Otherwise, interaccial marriage still would be prohibited and homosexual activity would still be criminalized. Its a last resort for the minority opinion to get its moment of judicial review.

And I think Frank is hoping the Supreme Court will rule, because the sense of congress is just as you said, lacking the courage to do it. In short, Frank doesnt have the votes.

I think on the federal level it’s a matter of the Constitution being silent, so it’s a matter for the legislature and the people to settle. Our congresscritters take the ‘pretend it will go away’ route for fear of losing their precious jobs by makng the wrong stand. That’s the difference, as I read, between Rep Fwank and Justice Scalia: Barney wants the courts to make the decision to give him cover, Justice Scalia says ‘it’s not in our job description to make law. That’s your job’.

The first time a court case gets to the Federal Courts on ‘Full Faith and Credit’ I do see a surge for a Defence of Marriage Ammendment, since the ammendment in Ohio was a defensive action to keep it out of the courts.

-This- conservative’s position is simple. Marriage is the government sanctioned union between a man and a woman. ‘fred’ is the government recognized union between two individuals of the same sex. Two different institutions, both recognized by the government.

When a straight married couple moves around the country, there is not an issue. No remarriage, etc.

Please explain.

I’m thinking none of that which you list would be needed, helio. The gayLeft tells us that having gay marriage would give them the validation they deserve from society. No longer a victimhood industry in it’s own right, I suspect.

But then, I thought in electing Obama our country would now be able to lay to rest all the excuses of blacks about their disenfranchisement and unequal outcomes of opportunities in society… we’d get rid of affirmative action, quota, black colleges, race-based tests and so forth.

Instead, I’ve heard from career folks at DofJustice that there is a task force working on Slavery Reparations with Congressman Conyers’ office.

But maybe a gay marriage victory will be different.

I am sad for all the homosexuals in history who worked so hard to carve out a place within society which truly honored the uniqueness of being homosexual. What is happening in Vermont and California and elsewhere is a travesty to the memory of the wonderful and creative homosexuals who have gone before us. We are not the marrying type–we are separate but better.

The Democrat left media has done a good job of creating a boogeyman and making gullible gays believe in it. “If you don’t vote for Democrats, the C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n right will get you! They’ll outlaw sex and force you to wear sensible shoes!” And silly as it is, a lot of “adults” believe that Republicans are out to get them.

No, not really – since marriage is the province of state governments (as are other licenses like voting, driving and incorporating), they should be addressing it at the state level and not the federal level. Which is why a federal DOMA is unconstitutional.

And the last time I checked, there were 30 states which had DOMA initiatives that overwhelmingly passed with more than 95% African-American support and 90% Hispanic support – two VERY big Dhimmicrat constituencies. Sounds like bigotry to me, no?

“Can you understand why most gay people vote democratic?”

Lack of education and maturity?

Regards,
Peter H.

Something the doofuses in Congress (especially those with a “D” after their names) seem to keep forgetting.

Regards,
Peter H.

To be blunt (who me?) The post reads “This is how states should address the issue, through the elected legislature, on the initiative of its members.”

Now this may come as a shock but that does not mean, “Letting one side win.” That means following the process of the government, and arriving at a result. Everyone won’t be happy with the result, but no one can argue how they got there.

NDT, a little less vitrolic, for our kinder gentler hosts, but your point is noted and correct.

Can you understand what gay people who want to get married have against Republicans?

At the same time, can you understand what Republicans have against gays?

Look at their hatred of Mormons for an example.

Meanwhile, educate yourself a bit about California. By our state constitution, the Legislature is not allowed to pass laws that override a voter proposition, as Proposition 22 was. Gay-sex liberals like yourself chose not to obey the law and the governor vetoed it, as he should have. It is amusing to no end that gay-sex liberals like yourself claim that the Constitution protects your unwritten and unmentioned “right” to marry all of your sexual partners, but then flagrantly ignore said constitution when what it clearly says is inconvenient to you.

Besides, MM-partner and I travel 3-4 times each winter to Stratton and the gay men we’ve met out there have few teeth in place, hideous skin and make Larry, Darryl and Darryl look like Rhodes Scholars.

The gay women are all dressed in flannel, spreading like a tuba player at a bad Sousa gig for seniors and do small engine repairs… and that’s what they like to talk about, too.