A response to Kevin McCullough
"To make the argument that the only thing necessary for two people to be allowed to marry is intimacy and living together sets up either more discriminatory exclusion or morally abhorrent arrangements substituting as marriage. For instance, if all that is required is intimacy and living together to make a marriage - then bigamy, incest, bestiality, and pedophiles must also be allowed to claim marriage status as long as all of it is consensual."
Mr. McCullough,
Are you saying that heterosexuals who marry, who are intimate, who live together, but do not or cannot have children, are living in "morally abhorrent arrangements"? You make blanket statements that are absurd when the same argument is compared to heterosexuals in marriage.
I just love it when people go from comparing two committed people who want to get married (who just happen to be the same sex), to comparing that to incest, bestiality, and pedophiles.
Mr. McCullough, I am a gay man who has been in a committed relationship with the same man for 29 years now. I have no desire nor have I ever had to commit incest, bestiality, and I'm certainly no pedophile. When you make statements like that, you come off looking like a first class bigot, and I'm not sure that is what you are trying to convey.
I for one, certainly find your remarks comparing my relationship to incest and bestiality at best, offensive. You obvisouly have very little experience with gay couples who love and are committed to each other.
Sincerely,
Bill Cannon
Coventry, CT
While the average American sleeps practical laws and a fundamental way of understanding life for the history of our nation changes. The changes come not because the critical mass of people in the nation felt it necessary to rise up and denounce its history. No! Instead the changes come in spite of what the critical mass thinks - and the changes are ordered and carried out by the whims of people never elected to do so.
It hasn't taken rocket science to figure out this year that some of the most easily recognized landmarks in American culture are turning into excrement left by the roadside. But the ruling by the Massachusetts's Supreme Court this last week has dwarfed the "pledge", "boy scouts", and even the "Roy Moore" controversies of the recent past.
And while a popular administration that has picked up wins in every election since coming to power in 2000, moves the country in one direction, liberal activists, using the courts that they built insist upon moving it in another direction. The U.S. Constitution while being defended and advanced by the administration, is in the process of seeing the judicial system erase its significance from history.
In it's ruling, the Massachusetts's Supreme Court has gone against not only the entire history of civilization but the stated voter will of the overwhelming majority the United States. This has happened before with dramatic results. In Hawaii, due to the passage of a state-wide ERA law, homosexual marriages were mandated to be recognized by the state. It took the voters nearly five years of aggressive work to rewrite the state laws so that marriages were implicitly declared to be between one man and one woman.
Fundamentally the view of marriage by the state has been one of outward focus. "Marriage is good because it promotes...". (The welfare of the nation's children being foremost in the voter's minds) The case made by the activists that "won" in Massachusetts is an inward focus. "I deserve the benefits of marriage because I do not want YOU to tell me who I may have intimacy with." They are strange viewpoints when examined back to back.
And then there are the obstructionists in the Senate who refuse to allow judges who don't make up new laws from the bench to be voted on.
Richard Durbin of Illinois has repeatedly said that the nominees who sit awaiting a final vote are, "too much out of the mainstream". Yet if Richard Durbin actually admitted that he agreed with the Massachusetts Court's ruling - he himself would be thrown out of office by the voter's of Illinois because his view would be considered "far out of the mainstream" in his own state.
To my knowledge, there is no reason to believe that ANY of President Bush's judicial nominees would have come anywhere near ruling with the majority in the Massachusetts's case. They would have easily been able to site 200 years of precedent and wide-spread understanding of truth that two men sharing intimate sexual acts does not equate to the marital commitment found in many millions of healthy marriages. They also would have been able to easily discern that there is no discrimination to a certain group of people in the way the law already stands.
To make the argument that the only thing necessary for two people to be allowed to marry is intimacy and living together sets up either more discriminatory exclusion or morally abhorrent arrangements substituting as marriage. For instance, if all that is required is intimacy and living together to make a marriage - then bigamy, incest, bestiality, and pedophiles must also be allowed to claim marriage status as long as all of it is consensual.
What the Massachusetts ruling does show is that there is a loss of true legal ability to discern the meaning of the law as it already stands and therefore anything goes.
The only thing that change this result is to have a bench filled with judges who do not "make it up as they go along."
I do not know if you have been emotionally engaged in the issue of breaking the unconstitutional filibuster by the obstructionist Senators preventing the constitutional voting up or down of the nominated judges, but it is safe to say, if you do not start to care - then look for the homosexual marriage issue to come visit your doorstep soon.
In other words - make the judicial nominees and election issue in 2004 when voting for your Senator.
And in the meantime - God help us everyone.
Leave a comment