It's good to see that some gay writers are willing to admit the obvious:
Is it possible that Obama has not yet come out in favor of full-on federal marriage equality because if he does, his opponents can say that he opposes the will of the majority?
Even LGBT organizers agree that they’d rather pass marriage equality by legislature than at the ballot because at the ballot WE ALWAYS LOSE.
People who oppose the ballot also like saying that if America voted on interracial marriage in the 60s, that still might be illegal too. But is that really our only defense against the ballot argument? If so, it’s no wonder that Obama hasn’t articulated a reason to support marriage that doesn’t fly in the face of the democratic process that had denied us our rights. --Queerty
21 Comments
What, they can't bribe every voter?
LOL!
>>People who oppose the ballot also like saying that if America voted on interracial marriage in the 60s, that still might be illegal too. But is that really our only defense against the ballot argument?
Exactly! The majority are never going to give up their God-given sensibilities no matter how much brain-washing is committed upon the populace by the liberal media and pop culture celebs.
What is even more frightening is that they think that they can bribe any public official as they please. Before they wanted the courts. Now the attitude is, why needs courts when there are politicains to bribe.
Civil rights issues have never been won at the ballot. When you implement Mob rule the minorities always lose. This is why we have the Supreme Court, their job is to protect minorities from bigotry, hatred and Mob rule. Perhaps if Christianity were put up to vote you would see how it feels.
Since when was same-sex "marriage" a civil right?
I think marriage was enshrined as a right by the courts and case law. Just as "opposite sex" marriage isn't a civil right... it's just marriage... And same sex couples have same right to that civil contract as any heterosexed couple who can now consent.
Well said DW!!!
The Supreme Court rejected your argument in Baker v. Nelson , 409 U.S. 810, 34 L.E.2d 65, 93 S. Ct. 37 (1972)
The right to vote is a civil right. It was fought for during the heyday of the Civil Rights Movement. Laws which had the effect of limiting the right to vote were struck down. We demand our civil right to vote to protect traditional marriage.
Homosexual activist bigots should stop trampling on our right to vote. No citizen should ever be denied the right to vote within the law. Homosexual activists would turn back the clock regarding voting rights and deny those who support traditional marriage the right to vote.
If homosexual activists can deny us the right to vote today, then tomorrow they can deny the right to vote to those who oppose Communism, incest or polygamy.
Our civil right to vote should never be denied to us by homosexual activists.
Since when can we Christians support adultery, divorce, & marriage?
To promote marriage, we must follow Jésus's teachings on the sanctity of marriage: no weddings for people who cannot procreate: the aged, the sterile, & the infirm.
We will not prevail until the sole goal of Marriage is to reproduce. Wake up!
Mike- u can only infer facts and not reasoning on baker. The precedent is very limited in it's application due to this.
Loving v Virginia is grounded in the 1967 definition of the word marriage; the joining of opposites.
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival"
Nobody in their right mind could ever conclude that our "very existence and survival" will ever be dependent upon perverts rubbing their reproductive organ against each other.
Evidently; same-sex enthusiasts must pervert the world around them just to lend the appearance of acceptability to their depravity.
Mark Lawrence, the "gay marrage" debate has nothing to do with civil rights or equality. It is and always has been about self-fulfillment and entitlement. The attempted comparison with anti-miscegenation laws is a vile canard.
Combatvet, simply calling something "marriage" does not necessarily make it so.
Lucas P, you do not know my Lord, Jesus Christ, yet you take his name in vain. Why?
I don't think upholding religious beliefs is bigotry. Yes, there are a lot of hateful Christians out there (and some of them have already commented here), but I know that for myself, it hasn't been easy choosing my religious convictions and the dictates of my own conscience over seeing people I love being happy. I don't hate homosexuals, and I stand up for them as often as I get the chance to, even though I don't support the idea of redefining marriage to make it legal for people to do something that I see as a very serious sin. It's not about hatred or feeling threatened, it's about believing something is wrong and upholding my beliefs to make sure it doesn't become acceptable.
Homosexualtiy is perversion, plain and simple. Calling a union between two of the same sex a marriage is a sham. The essence of a marriage will always be that of a union between opposite sexes.
Calling a rose a car does not change the essence, the spirit of the rose.
That the Constitution and Rule of Law are used as tools to discriminate against other Americans? Why is that not enough to shame you people? How can you agree to this and still call yourselves Americans?
You misrepresent the issue.
Gays already have the right to privately enter whatever relationship they choose. They just do not have a right to demand formal public approval of that relationship.
More specifically, they seek to re-define marriage as a social marriage contract that would approve men having sex with men.
There is no right to formal public approval of one's private maladaptive behaviors, however.
The right to privacy is the limit of their civil rights on that.
Arbitrary discrimination does not occur when an objective maladaptive behavior is involved that does not merit public approval.
They have a right under the first amendment to demand anything they like. They even have a right to make grievance that a government contract (civil marriage) is not equally administered. A "right" to approval isn't valid- a right to be free of abject discrimination is worth fighting for.
OK, they have a right to "demand" anything they like.
In that case, my previous statement should be read without the word "demand," as follows:
"They just do not have a right to [ ] formal public approval of that relationship."
The Lawrence court stated, "[The case] does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter."
My claim, then, is there is no right to a formal recognition by government of a homosexual relationship as being marriage.
As for your claim that its wrongful discrimination, most courts have ruled that its not. See The Majority of Courts
No amount of anal intercourse can produce a child. I do question the conception of some individuals though (lol)