Hucks Army - Faith. Family. Freedom. [Grassroots] JOIN HUCKS ARMY | GET INVOLVED | FUNDRAISING | LINKS | LEADERSHIP | ABOUT
It is currently Sun Nov 29, 2020 4:04 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 2:44 am 
Offline
*** General

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 2:30 am
Posts: 1350
Location: Conroe, TX
Likes: 93
Liked: 14
The ruling from CA's judges creates law from the bench and circumvents decades of the clearly identified wishes of the majority of the people. I do not believe we should put people in jail for choosing this lifestyle, nor should they be harrassed or face violence by others who disagree with them. But our right to openly disagree with this choice should not be abridged either and that is where this is headed. Schools are now teaching children as young as five that homosexuality is acceptable. There have been several articles but here is one. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63978 CO has spent tens of thousands of dollars to build special bathrooms for a seven year old transgender student. Our schools have struggled to teach children to read or to be able to keep up when entering college. They fight our rights to homeschool. They are passing out birth control to eleven year olds without notifying parents. I think they need to focus on teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic rather than sex ed or undermining parental rights.

Congress is trying to sneak a bill through that will give homosexuals special treatment rather than equal treatment and the bill will make it a hate crime to say you are against homosexuality. Our freedoms of religion and speech are under attack. http://www.afa.net/activism/aa050802.asp The bill would force people who own businesses to do business in ways that may violate their religious beliefs. (For instance, a photographer could not refuse to photograph a gay wedding ceremony or a dating service would be forced to provide matches for gay couples even if they believe it is wrong.) http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU08D10 There have also been discussions that allowing gay marriages would open up numerous cans of worms such as polygamy and would then allow social security benefits for gay partners and for any other non-traditional partnerships.

When I try to play the devil's advocate and say it doesn't hurt anyone to allow gay marriage - I am reminded daily by reports of how it is hurting others. Unfortunately, a liberal agenda is pushing the choice of a small minority onto the majority who disagrees with that choice. This agenda gives preferential treatment to that minority at the expense of the majority and strips rights from the majority. Congress is not supposed to make laws that take away our rights to free speech or that prohibit the free exercise of religion.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1
Quote:
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 7:16 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:12 am
Posts: 3819
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Likes: 194
Liked: 215
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1151

Quote:
California Supreme Court Redefines Marriage

The California Supreme Court's 4-3 decision striking down the state's definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman throws open the door for a massive redefinition of human relationships. The people of California approved Proposition 22 by a huge margin in 2000, clearly stating their understanding of marriage and their desire to protect marriage from legal revision. By a one-vote margin, their state Supreme Court renounced the will of the people. The ruling is both revolutionary and radical. It sets the stage for a much broader reorganization of human society.

Chief Justice Ronald M. George, writing for the majority, pushed the argument for same-sex marriage far beyond where any court had taken it before. The decision identified marriage as a "fundamental right," thus opening the door for infinite challenges beyond same-sex marriage.

The court also declared sexual orientation to be a class protected by a "strict scrutiny" test of all legislation and regulation. In so doing, the California court became the first in the nation to apply this test on the basis of sexual orientation. This move also opens the door for much broader challenges to laws and regulations across the board.

Unless stayed by another court, the ruling takes effect in 30 days, when California authorities will be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. California voters will have another opportunity to protect marriage in November, when a proposed constitutional amendment will come before the electorate. The stakes now could not be higher.



If homosexual marriage is accepted, why not polygamous marriage? Human-animal marriage? etc.... I am not being facetious. This is the path to anarchy because there is no underlying moral foundation. Once you open this door, what can you say is wrong? If you do, you are just being judgmental and imposing your morality on others.

Beyond that, traditional marriage is in the best interest of society as David said.

_________________
Ken


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 8:24 am 
Offline
*** General
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:42 pm
Posts: 1324
Location: Frankenmuth, Michigan
Likes: 0
Liked: 7
http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000627.cfm
by Glenn T. Stanton

--Marriage is a common good, not a special interest.
--Every society needs natural marriage -- as many men as possible each finding a woman, caring for and committing himself exclusively to her -- working together to create and raise the next generation.
--No society needs homosexual coupling. In fact, too much of it would be harmful to society and that is why natural marriage and same-sex coupling cannot be considered socially equal.

Marriage Is Always About the Next Generation

A loving and compassionate society always comes to the aid of motherless and fatherless families.
A loving and compassionate society never intentionally creates motherless or fatherless families, which is exactly what every same-sex home does.
The same-sex family is not driven by the needs of children, but rather by the radical wishes of a small group of adults.
No child development theory says children need two parents of the same gender, but rather that children need their mothers and fathers.

A Vast Social Experiment Inflicted on Children


No society, at any time, has ever raised a generation of children in same-sex families.
Same-sex “marriage” will subject generations of children to the status of lab rats in (name of debate opponent’s) vast, untested social experiment.
But we know how the experiment will turn out:
America has raised millions of children in fatherless families for three decades and that experiment was a stunning failure by every measure! We know how damaging it is to raise children in intentionally fatherless families. Let’s not create more child-suffering to satisfy adult desire.
Thousands of published social science, psychological and medical studies show that children living in fatherless families, on average, suffer dramatically in every important measure of well-being. These children suffer from much higher levels of physical and mental illness, educational failure, poverty, substance abuse, criminal behavior, loneliness, as well as physical and sexual abuse.1 Children living apart from both biological parents are eight times more likely to die of maltreatment than children living with their mother and father.2

Lessons From the World's Most Famous Lesbian Mom--
Rosie O’Donnell shared this story in an ABC Primetime Live interview with Diane Sawyer:
Six-year-old Parker asks his mother, Rosie: “Mommy, why can’t I have a daddy?” Rosie answers: “Because I’m the kind of mommy who wants another mommy."
The two most dangerous words for a parent to utter together: “I” and “want.”
Parker has never asked, “Momma, why can’t we have all the rights and protections of marriage?” You see, such things only matter to adults. But he has said, “Momma, why can’t I have a daddy?”
What matters for children in marriage is whether their mothers are married to their fathers.

How Your Same-sex Family Will Harm My Family

If this were just about your family, there would be no real danger. But same-sex “marriage” advocates are not seeking marriage for you alone, but rather demanding me — and all of us — to radically change our understanding of family. And that will do great damage.
Your same-sex family will teach my little boys and girls that husband/wife and mother/father are merely optional for the family and therefore, meaningless.
And I will never allow my (grand) children to be taught that their gender doesn’t matter for the family. Their masculinity and femininity matter far too much, as does everyone’s in this auditorium.

Full Acceptance Will Be Mandatory


My civil rights to object to homosexuality as an idea will be gone.
Same-sex relationships and homes are tolerated in society today. Our nation has no existing problem where same-sex couples are evicted from their neighborhoods because of how they live. Americans tolerate such relationships.
But this is not about mere tolerance. Instead it is about forcing everyone to fully accept these unnatural families.
Only months after legalizing same-sex “marriage” in Canada, activists there successfully passed C-250, a bill criminalizing public statements against homosexuality, punishable by up to two years in prison! Say the wrong thing; go to jail. The same will happen here.
Every public school in the nation would be forced to teach that same-sex “marriage” and homosexuality are perfectly normal –- Heather has Two Mommies in K-12. Pictures in text books will be changed to show same-sex couples as normal.
Your church will be legally pressured to perform same-sex weddings. When courts — as happened in Massachusetts — find same-sex “marriage” to be a constitutional and fundamental human right, the ACLU will successfully argue that the government is underwriting discrimination by offering tax exemptions to churches and synagogues that only honor natural marriage.
Gay and lesbian people have a right to form meaningful relationships. They don’t have a right to redefine marriage for all of us.


Where Does It Stop...?


If “the right to marry whomever you want is a fundamental civil right,” how do we say “no” to a woman who wants to become the third wife of a polygamist…?
How do we say no to grooms Jonathan Yarbrough (a bisexual) and Cody Rogahn (a homosexual) –- the first same-sex couple in Provincetown, MA to receive a marriage application –- who explained to the press “…it’s possible to love more than one person and have more than one partner… In our case… we have an open marriage…”
When posed with the question “Why draw the line at two people?,” same-sex marriage advocate Cheryl Jacques of the Human Rights Campaign said, ”Because I don't approve of that.”…well, that brings an important question to mind:
How come your “because I don’t approve of that” objection to polygamy is more reasonable than my “I don’t approve of that” objection to same-sex “marriage”?

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Help defend marriage in California, and the rest of the nation.
[url]
http://www.ProtectMarrriage.com[/url], a Project of California Renewal, 2150 River Plaza Drive #150, Sacramento, CA 95833.

_________________
“The central message is that the Republican Party has a great future, if we get back to being the party of principle, clarity and conviction. And we’re going to do that.” --Mike Huckabee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 5:59 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:23 pm
Posts: 1049
Location: California
Likes: 151
Liked: 36
http://www.huckpac.com/?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=1648:
Quote:
Stunning And Outrageous Ruling
by Mike Huckabee

Yesterday’s stunning and outrageous ruling of the California Supreme Court adds to the demand for a national Constitutional amendment that affirms that marriage is the relationship of one man/one woman. Traditional marriage is not only being attacked by runaway divorce rates from within the institution, but the California ruling, the Massachusetts same sex marriage law, and the polygamist camp in Texas remind us that not everyone seems to have gotten the memo on marriage.

This is not a time to be angry, but broken hearted. We should not hurl insults, but get on our knees and pray that we will have moral courage to stand for truth and what’s right, but the Master’s compassion to do so without rancor. It should be another wake up call as we as a culture keep hitting the snooze alarm.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 6:09 pm 
Offline
MODERATOR
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 12:08 pm
Posts: 6634
Location: South Beloit, IL
Likes: 479
Liked: 152
I cannot bring my self to call them gay because that word means something totally different to me. When I was in school they were called "queer;" which fit better back then. Unfortunately, it's not all that odd anymore. I wish more preachers would care more about being biblically correct than they do about being politically correct. I blame a lot of our country's moral decay on sissy preachers. Ill informed people say there is nothing in the New Testament against homosexuality. It could be because they are using the version that a lesbian was reportedly one of the translators of. I can't remember which of the newer versions was changed to be "homosexual friendly." I am not homophobic. I have friends and relatives that are homosexuals. I still love them; it is the sin I disagree with. (much like my recovering alcoholic Dad) I will not judge them; but I will let them know the truth about what God says.

This is the reference in Romans that Obama thought was unclear and hard to understand. Looks pretty clear to me in the good old KJV.
Quote:
Romans 1:26-32 (KJV) "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."


Quote:
Jude 1:7 "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."


Quote:
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (KJV) "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."


I don't usually use anything other than the Authorized King James Bible but the New KJV uses a word more common in today's language than the AKJV reference above:
Quote:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NKJV) "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

Jesus said:
Mark 10:6-9 (KJV) "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." [/quote]

_________________
Psalms 144:1 "Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 7:53 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:31 am
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Liked: 0
Granny T. I have sought explanations for this before, but to no avail. Why is the distaste for homosexuality so much stronger than all others? For adultery, for drunkards? Why is their 'sin' so much less? Why has a wonderful and profound religion, which was founded by a man known to associate with societies undesirables, reverted to fearing that which is different?

God made man for women, so are bachelors violating God's law? Do they need to be re-educated as well? If homosexuality is an abomination, so is eating pork. Do you eat pork?

I say this because I have spoken to ordained priests who take the Bible seriously, and they cannot defend for me the anti-homosexuality streak which has developed in Christianity. Granted these priests are not the most conservative of the bunch, I am sure, I've never found a explanation that is not self-contradicting.

From what you have put forth, I find nothing convincing. Natural use? That could easily imply non-procreation sex. In the epic tones of the Bible, I don't find 'unseemly' to be much of a condemnation. Abusers of self with mankind? One can 'abuse' other men in many ways that are not sexual.

I do not shy from disagreement. I merely hope people are willing to take seriously their own opinions. I constantly seek to understand opposition, especially the opposition which I cannot comprehend, such as the Christian vendetta against homosexuality. For instance, I could not understand the contradiction between evolution and creationism, until the theological points were explained to me. While I continue to disagree, I can appreciate the difference of opinion. I welcome challenging of my opinions, as I hope to challenge yours.

Ultimately I look myself in the mirror and ask myself if I could ever choose to be sexually attracted to a man, and I can not in honesty say I could. This is the ultimate trump card for me to all those who claim its a 'choice.' As I believe God is benevolent, I do not believe him would genetically engineer sin.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 8:25 pm 
Offline
MODERATOR
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 12:08 pm
Posts: 6634
Location: South Beloit, IL
Likes: 479
Liked: 152
"MacGyver",
I would not stand by without fighting if they tried to pass laws trying to make us accept adultery or drunkenness as normal behavior either. We are still fighting for the unborn that activist judges say it is okay for the mother to choose to murder. America's government was set up in a way that "we the people" are supposed to have a say in what laws are Constitutional by amending our state and federal Constitutions when needed. It is obvious "we the people" need to decide rather than leaving it up to a few. I believe we are each accountable to God for everything we do. No matter what sin someone commits it does not just affect them. It affects those around them. My family was hurt deeply when my cousin died from AIDS because of the consequences of his lifestyle choice. I still loved him, went to the funeral, and mourned his death. A family friend was recently arrested for a criminal sexual offense. His choice not only hurt the victim; but is hurting his family and many others around him. Many liberals don't see anything wrong with sexual promiscuity among children. They are giving out condoms without parental permission to kids in grade and middle schools. How long will it be before sex with children is considered normal?

If America doesn't stop our moral decline; how much longer can we count on God's mercy? I agree with something Thomas Jefferson said,
Quote:
Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.

_________________
Psalms 144:1 "Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 2:20 am 
Offline
Private
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 1:30 am
Posts: 39
Location: Illinois
Likes: 0
Liked: 0
I believe it's wrong that 4 California Supreme Court justices were able to decide against the will of 61 percent of the California population on this.

The justices are very wrong on this.

This is not an issue that can be related to interracial marriages, but this is an issue about a behavior.

_________________
Chicagoland Voter Strong for Mike's "12 Stops" Vision & HuckPAC


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 8:51 am 
Offline
*** General
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:42 pm
Posts: 1324
Location: Frankenmuth, Michigan
Likes: 0
Liked: 7
WORLDNETDAILY: Will Judges let People Decide Marrige?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=64483

Image
L to R: Carlos R. Moreno, Joyce L. Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Ron M. George, Ming W. Chin, Marvin R. Baxter and Carol A. Corrigan of the California Supreme Court

_________________
“The central message is that the Republican Party has a great future, if we get back to being the party of principle, clarity and conviction. And we’re going to do that.” --Mike Huckabee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 9:04 am 
Offline
*** General
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:42 pm
Posts: 1324
Location: Frankenmuth, Michigan
Likes: 0
Liked: 7
World Net Daily
The United States of Fantasyland by Star Parker

Quote:
The United States of Fantasyland
May 17, 2008

California's Supreme Court has made its contribution to the ongoing debasement of our law, our language and our culture by legalizing same-sex marriage.

California now has law in the tradition of Groucho Marx who said, "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes."

When the court says there is no difference between couples consisting of a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, and that it's irrelevant that only one combination can produce children, whom are you going to believe? The court or your own eyes?

This decision shouldn't come as any surprise. The notion that words have meaning, that there is truth, and that we can approach that truth through investigation and integrity of thought is becoming passé in the United States of Fantasyland.

The decision in California fittingly closed out a week in which in Ohio an administrator at the University of Toledo was fired for writing a column in the local paper expressing her personal views about gay rights.

Crystal Dixon, a black woman, and now former associate vice president of Human Resources at the University of Toledo, wrote a counter-point opinion column in the Toledo Free Press addressing an earlier column about gay rights.

In her piece, Dixon challenged equating gays to blacks ("I cannot wake up tomorrow morning and not be a black woman"), produced income statistics for gay individuals and couples showing them in much better condition than black men, and questioned some allegations made about benefit plans at the University of Toledo.

But perhaps most troubling to those bothered by her column, Dixon said there is a God, that there is an order, and that man has free choice and responsibility for what he chooses.

Heresy in the United States of Fantasyland.

Dixon wrote to challenge intellectually the premises of the earlier column. She expressed no hate and made no suggestions about how anyone should or should not behave toward gays.

As result of the column, she was suspended, then fired, from her position at the university.

After the suspension, Lloyd Jacobs, president of the University of Toledo, wrote an explanatory piece in the Free Press. He did not address or challenge a single point made by Ms. Dixon.

The indictment was simply that she violated the "Core Values" of the university, which include "diversity, integrity and teamwork."

In other words, if the political culture at the university chose to adopt a view that the world is flat, and a university employee wrote as a private citizen challenging this, it would be grounds for dismissal.

The quality of the argument is irrelevant. The crime is dissent.

Central to the First Amendment lawsuit being filed will be the issue of whether Dixon's column was written as a private citizen or as a University of Toledo employee. But the technicalities of the legal case are not my subject here.

My concern is the lack of intellectual integrity and dismal state of thought at this particular university and, in my experience, at many universities in the country.

The University of Toledo includes in its mission statement "to advance knowledge through excellence in learning, discovery and engagement." The Code of Ethics of the Board of Trustees includes ensuring that what is taught "meet the generally accepted standards of truth as established by peer review."

There is certainly reason to believe that premises underlying the university's "Core Values" do not meet this standard of knowledge. The points Ms. Dixon wrote were rigorous and germane to the discussion. Yet, those running the university could care less.

The blatant hypocrisy of claiming diversity as a goal when clearly there are individuals and points of view that are not welcome goes without saying.

Truth, and the process for discovering it, is being compromised and politicized at our universities. The kids being educated in these intellectual red light districts include our future lawyers and judges. As result, it's reasonable to expect more law of the quality that we just got out of the California Supreme Court.

A nation living in fantasyland does not bode well for the future. We all should be concerned.

_________________
“The central message is that the Republican Party has a great future, if we get back to being the party of principle, clarity and conviction. And we’re going to do that.” --Mike Huckabee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 9:13 am 
Offline
*** General
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:42 pm
Posts: 1324
Location: Frankenmuth, Michigan
Likes: 0
Liked: 7
http://tinyurl.com/5g3hn8
WORLDNETDAILY: Overturning California's Gay Marriage Ban
by Chuck Colson
May 16, 2008

Excerpts:
Quote:
...Now, the problem is that the people of California cannot overturn this decision. Even an amendment to the California constitution will not help now. It all boils down to this: the need for a federal constitutional amendment—and soon, before other states start doing the same thing.

Well, there is at least one silver lining to this very dark cloud: Politicians can no longer hide behind the argument that we ought to leave this issue to the states...


Quote:
"...I guess I am not surprised by what happened in California. I have seen judges out of control for years. What I cannot fathom is how they would do it under the guise of natural rights. If the democratic process means anything, it means the consent of the governed. We cannot let the courts do this, or we do not have a democracy.

So get busy, and start talking to these candidates. I know it is tough; I know we lost some pro-family members in the last election. But we have got to make this effort now. And in all likelihood, one of three candidates is going to be the next president of the United States..."

_________________
“The central message is that the Republican Party has a great future, if we get back to being the party of principle, clarity and conviction. And we’re going to do that.” --Mike Huckabee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 9:37 am 
Offline
*** General
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:42 pm
Posts: 1324
Location: Frankenmuth, Michigan
Likes: 0
Liked: 7
WEEKLY STANDARD: California's "Gift to McCain"?
by John McCormack
05/26/2008

http://tinyurl.com/5j88ez

Excerpt:
Quote:
...By supporting the court's decision, Obama exposed a number of vulnerabilities. McCain might ask, What exactly would preclude the U.S. Supreme Court, refreshed with a couple of Obama appointees, from declaring same-sex marriage a constitutional right in all 50 states? And if laws against same-sex marriage are just like laws against interracial marriage, as the California court declared, then what would stop the government from treating those who oppose same-sex marriage like racists?...

_________________
“The central message is that the Republican Party has a great future, if we get back to being the party of principle, clarity and conviction. And we’re going to do that.” --Mike Huckabee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 4:28 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General

Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 11:11 am
Posts: 1037
Location: Florence, SC
Likes: 0
Liked: 1
Californians as citizens without any assistance by the Legislature can change law by the populist vehicles of Initiative and Referendum. Proposition 22 which defined marriage as between one man and one woman was just such a measure submiitted to voters and approved by a 61% majority. While Prop 22 changed the law, it did not change the Constitution. If it had, the California State Supreme Court couldn't have touched it. Because it didn't the Federal Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the State Supreme Court's action.

However, the sky is not currently falling. Citizens who saw this coming have collected 1.1 million signatures on a petition to force the California Legislature to submit a state constitutional amendment to the voters with the same goal of defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

State defense of marriage constitutional amendments, contrary to popular belief, are not set in stone. 78% of South Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment the wording of which not only prevents any but two individuals of opposite sex from marrying, but it also excludes the possibility of civil unions. All it will take is one test case before the Federal Supreme Court to overturn it.

Several companies whose corporate headquarters are in California have divisions in South Carolina. Let's assume a gay spouse of a same sex couple married in California is transferred to South Carolina. If the reason for the transfer is involuntary due to the individual's present job being eliminated or is the only avenue for promotion, the seeds of a Federal Supreme Court case are sown the minute the couple is denied a right in South Carolina they enjoyed in California.

Do not for a moment think a potentially perfect test case is not on the mind of every gay and lesbian rights activist. Courtesy of the incredibly inflexible wording of South Carolina's amendment, it provides an almost textbook venue for denial of civil rights litigation.

According to the Heritage Foundation at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/Marriage50/ 27 states currently have amended their constitution to prohibit same sex marriage. 17 additional states have statutes which define marriage as between one man and one woman. 4 states have no laws regarding same sex marriage and two, Massachusetts and now California appear to allow it.

How will the Supreme Court view same sex marriage cases? Kind of depends who is on it, doesn't it? There is a good possibility McCain just got handed an unintentional gift by some activist California judges.

There is an alternative, even if the Federal Supreme Court rules in favor of same sex marriage. Anyone remember Dred Scott? You all knew I was going to get here eventually, didn't you? Ok,, here goes.. Mea culpa, mea culpa. Mike Huckabee's proposal for a Federal Marriage Amendment might not have been so farfetched after all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 7:43 pm 
Offline
MODERATOR
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 12:08 pm
Posts: 6634
Location: South Beloit, IL
Likes: 479
Liked: 152
Someone posted this link on HuckPAC.
http://www.citizenlink.org/videofeatures/A000007448.cfm
It is a "Stoplight" video using water to demonstrate how stupid the CA Supreme Court decision is.

Quote:
What would happen if a court decided H2O no longer has the exclusive right to be water? In his Stoplight video commentary, Stuart Shepard considers where that might lead.

_________________
Psalms 144:1 "Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 7:48 pm 
Offline
*** General
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:42 pm
Posts: 1324
Location: Frankenmuth, Michigan
Likes: 0
Liked: 7
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000003814.cfm
America Votes to Protect Marriage

In 2004, thirteen states passed constitutional amendments that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The measure received more votes than either presidential candidates, George W. Bush or John Kerry, in all but one state. Four other states had previously amended their constitutions, and two more passed marriage amendments in 2005.

In August 2006, Alabama became the twentieth state to protect marriage with a constitutional amendment. Seven additional states passed constitutional amendments on November 7, 2006 (Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin). Arizona became the first state in which a marriage amendment did not pass—narrowly losing 49 percent to 51 percent. In an election year marked by victory for Democrats, the passage of seven of eight marriage amendments—27 overall—demonstrates that support for marriage transcends party affiliation.

Clearly, states are eager to protect one-man, one-woman marriage from court-mandated same-sex marriage, as happened in Massachusetts (2004), or the equivalent of same-sex marriage, as was ordered by the State Supreme Court of New Jersey in October 2006.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

_________________
“The central message is that the Republican Party has a great future, if we get back to being the party of principle, clarity and conviction. And we’re going to do that.” --Mike Huckabee


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
POWERED_BY