![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... "AES/newspost" wrote in message ... [...] So, I'd really like to know what the non-religious arguments are that are so strong and so important that many people are pushing us to go all the way to the extreme measure of a Constitutional amendment, just to deny people like this the same benefits and rewards (and costs) of marriage as heterosexual couples enjoy. What are the NONreligious reasons that justify this very major step? What are the non-religious reasons to justify allowing homosexual marriage? Most of those reasons have to do with allowing marital economic benefits. I suggest that those are a major cost that a lot of people might not be willing to pay. I also suggest that before we start getting any more creative with the definition of marriage we might want to consider what additional demands might be made by other groups. There are fringe groups in Utah, for example, that want legal recognition of their polygamous relationships, even though these relationships are typically extremely abusive and incestuous. Other groups could easily demand the right to marry children, or to allow children to marry each other. The Constitutional amendment would never have been needed if a small number of judges had not decided, on their own and against the wishes of the general public, to create a right where none had existed before. Now, these judges are often elected by no one; they are political appointees. They answer to no one. They simply have decided that no matter what the laws or the Constitution say, they can simply order anything they want. I happen to think that this is very dangerous to the rule of law. You only need to look at how divisive the abortion issue has become in order to see how allowing judges to decree new law in such major ways can be harmful. If the abortion issue had been resolved through the political process, some compromise and consensus might have been reached. Creating a new right via judicial decree instead polarized the nation, left no room for compromise, and has resulted in widespread violence, civil disorder, and disrespect and politicization of the judicial system. I strongly believe that legalization of homosexual marriage through judicial fiat could have far-reaching consequences that would make Dredd Scott look like a minor skirmish. It is not inconceivable that it could lead to civil war and dissolution of the nation. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Leaving the community | David Brooks | Instrument Flight Rules | 556 | November 30th 04 08:08 PM |
aero-domains for anybody in the aviation community | secura | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | June 26th 04 07:37 PM |
Unruly Passengers | SelwayKid | Piloting | 88 | June 5th 04 08:35 AM |
Report Leaving Assigned Altitude? | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 81 | March 20th 04 02:34 PM |
Big Kahunas | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 360 | December 20th 03 12:59 AM |