Patterico's Pontifications

10/10/2008

Connecticut Supreme Court Rules Gays can Marry

Filed under: 2008 Election,Law — DRJ @ 3:06 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Like previous court decisions in Massachusetts and California, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled today that gay couples have the right to marry:

“Gov. M. Jodi Rell said she disagreed with the ruling.

“The Supreme Court has spoken,” she said. “I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision – either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution – will not meet with success.”

State Sen. Michael Lawlor, chairman of the legislature’s Judiciary Committee, said he expects the General Assembly will pass a gay marriage law next year codifying the Supreme Court ruling.

“It’s important that both the legislature and the court weigh in,” he said. “The court is saying that it’s a constitutional requirement that marriage should be equally available to gays and straights and the legislature should weigh in saying whether or not it’s constitutionally required, it’s the right thing to do.”

The court was sharply divided in the decision, with three justices issuing separate dissenting opinions.”

As if this election wasn’t dramatic enough already.

— DRJ

71 Responses to “Connecticut Supreme Court Rules Gays can Marry”

  1. Ah yes, we have to make sure that ALL of the recent Republican hot-button prejudices are on the table before the election — communists, terrorists, blacks, poor people, and now, gays.

    THEY’RE ALL COMING TO GET US! ONLY MCCAIN CAN SAVE US!

    The only reason they haven’t brought up illegal immigrants is that they would get utterly killed if the Hispanics went for Obama.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  2. You really are a POS, Phil.

    JD (f7900a)

  3. Someone tell me again what Phil’s MO entails, regarding coming to this site.

    Dmac (cc81d9)

  4. Dmac – His standard MO is to point out that Republicans want to kill, torture, jail, or oppress minorities. I guess he just added homosexuals to that list.

    JD (f7900a)

  5. Well, I sure hope terrorists are a minority. If they’re in the majority, we’re completely screwed.

    Al (b624ac)

  6. Someone tell me again what Phil’s MO entails, regarding coming to this site.

    To challenge the BS that is spewing from the Republican Party these days. If it makes you feel better, I really don’t bother with the Democrats because I don’t think they’ll ever change their minds.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  7. Well, I sure hope terrorists are a minority. If they’re in the majority, we’re completely screwed.

    Yeah, I really should have called them “panic buttons” rather than “prejudices” since lumping real terrorists (as opposed to the much tremendously larger group of “suspected” terrorists) in as a “prejudice” doesn’t fit.

    Although it certainly gives you all a satisfying opportunity to affirm your belief that I actually like terrorists and hate America, and ignore everything else I say. Your welcome.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  8. Phil wrote: To challenge the BS that is spewing from the Republican Party these days. If it makes you feel better, I really don’t bother with the Democrats because I don’t think they’ll ever change their minds.

    Uh huh. Whose mind have you changed around here?

    If the answer is “nobody’s,” maybe it’s time for you to leave.

    L.N. Smithee (a0b21b)

  9. Phil,

    ?

    I wasn’t being sarcastic and I didn’t put gay marriage on the table. The courts have. I wish it wasn’t an issue because this election has enough hot buttons already.

    DRJ (c953ab)

  10. I really don’t bother with the Democrats because I don’t think they’ll ever change their minds.

    That’s the most bogus reason I’ve ever heard – you can’t make a honest attempt to change any minds in any political arena by throwing around insane and hateful rhetoric. You’re just a Howler Monkey at this point, throwing his feces around his cage for his own genuflection.

    Dmac (cc81d9)

  11. I read this somewhere:

    This decision will alarm and dismay two partially overlapping groups of people: (a) those who believe that recognition of single-sex marriage will ultimately destroy the traditional institution of marriage and foster other bad effects in society, and (b) those who decry unrestrained judicial activism as a tyrannical seizure of political power by rogue judges in a manner that undercuts the legislative and executive branches of government, thereby rendering impotent the political decisions made by democratic majorities.

    Even if you’re not in Group (a) — and I’m not — you can nevertheless think this is a horrible decision because you’re in Group (b), which does include me.

    And it relates to the election because Obama and Biden, while saying (disingenuously in my opinion) that they oppose gay marriage, are certain to appoint judges who will impose gay marriage by judicial decree.

    I think that will end up being a set-back for gay rights.

    Beldar (365ae5)

  12. Beldar – I think that will end up being a set-back for gay rights.

    It will be interesting to see the outcome of Prop 8 in CA, which, despite its liberal reputation, has decided against recognition on past ballot measures.

    What is most shocking to me is the number of people who are willing to submit themselves to government ‘recognition’.

    Granting the government this type of power is the source of, not the solution to, this problem.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  13. You can’t make a honest attempt to change any minds in any political arena by throwing around insane and hateful rhetoric.

    You’re right, I’m sorry. No more namecalling.

    You’re just a Howler Monkey at this point, throwing his feces around his cage for his own genuflection.

    Oh wait, nevermind — it’s on, beeatch!

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  14. Do you hate Howler Monkeys now, Phil?

    Dmac (cc81d9)

  15. It baffles me that a statutory right created legislatively for the purposes of codification of mariage rights and responsibilities and been construed to be a constitutional right.

    Joe - Dallas (d7c430)

  16. What is most shocking to me is the number of people who are willing to submit themselves to government ‘recognition’.

    The overwhelming majority of people are married at some point in their lives; do you think they would be better off if the government didn’t recognize their marriage?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  17. You can’t have Gay Marriage and no polygamy.

    You just cannot have that. Gay Marriage = polygamy. If you have a redefinition, of marriage from it’s traditional bounds, there is no stopping point. Ever. That has been the experience in every society with gay marriage for more than a few years. Legally, there is no way to stop at just Gay Marriage.

    Polygamy is very bad for society.

    Therefore, any sane person would oppose Gay Marriage. Yes gays suffer harm, though few gays want to marry. Harm outweighed by good in preventing polygamy.

    whiskey (e09923)

  18. “I really don’t bother with the Democrats because I don’t think they’ll ever change their minds.”

    So much for the ‘reagan democrats’

    imdw (de7003)

  19. McCain and Palin MUST say that these are the kind of judges Obama wants to appoint.

    Obama and Biden say they are against gay marriage but they intend to appoint judges who will make it the law–instead of appointing judges who will interpret the Constitution.

    Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c)

  20. Actually: Connecticut Supreme Court Imposes State Sponsorship of Homosexual Marriage.

    aaron (678c76)

  21. “Beldar – I think that will end up being a set-back for gay rights.”

    I agree. I think its too soon for these kinds of decisions. In time the bigotry will pass, and rights will be afforded. Not legislatively at first, as I prefer, but by courts at first, followed by dragging along those who refuse. Like how Brown v. Board had to be followed, rather than lead by, legislation.

    imdw (de7003)

  22. “Even if you’re not in Group (a) — and I’m not — you can nevertheless think this is a horrible decision because you’re in Group (b), which does include me.”
    impose gay marriage by judicial decree.

    Beldar, did Loving v. Virginia force you to marry a black woman?

    Nanker Phelge (563863)

  23. Of course, it will be us wicked Republicans who will be accused of raising the specter of same-sex marriage just in time for the election.

    The disappointed Dana (556f76)

  24. aphrael – do you think they would be better off if the government didn’t recognize their marriage?

    I think you have that backwards. My opinion on this issue is that most people are focusing on the wrong aspects of the interaction. There is scant attention paid to the current practices of our society in regards to marriage.

    The brilliance of the Founding Fathers is not their ability to set up a government that ruled in a just manner, but their ability to set up a government that continued to function because it was based on a system of power that emanated from the citizens upward to the elected officials.

    When the power to legitimize behavior is ceded to the government, the power to de-legitimize behavior goes along for the ride.

    What, in practice, is the result of our current situation whereby ‘marriage’ between a man and a woman is recognized by the state?

    Polygamists get around the statute by only declaring one spouse for the man, while the others are still, effectively, doing the same polygamist behaviors. There are no statutes that prohibit adults from occupying the same household, other than zoning ordinances, and that would not change. Polygamy and polyamory are more often about money and power than about love. (See Hefner) They are indicative of ancient notions of a tribal past whereby sheer numbers and acquisitions trump rights. Equal rights and equal protection are more important fights against polygamy than government recognition of a ‘standard’. (Which can change when government players change)

    If a gay couple were staying down the hall from a married couple in a hotel, is there any legal recourse for the married couple to have the gay couple removed from the premises, based on the lack of a marriage license? Having the government able to remove the gay couple is not something that I would imagine the proponents of the defense of marriage act are trying to accomplish, as that often produces a backlash.

    For example, I think that Proposition 8 will pass in California, mainly because of the ad that shows Newsome saying “whether you like it or not”. I find government as cudgel as unattractive as the founding fathers.

    As for bestiality and child marriage, both are violations of statutes whereby one of the parties is judged insufficiently capably of agreeing to engage in the interaction.

    I’m just saying that the ‘fight’ seems to be over which group is able to force/prevent government recognition of certain behaviors. From a societal standpoint, it is the ‘struggle’ that is the problem, not the actual practice. Coincidentally, the ‘struggle’ is often what motivates voters to support both sides, neither of which have any motivation to actually solve the problem.

    My 2 cents.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  25. My 2 cents.

    And I’m going to watch the baseball game and then on to watch Ohio State/Purdue on Sat. so this is it.

    Every American, whether black, white, tan, whether a Muslim, Jew, Christian, Wiccan, Mormon, Athiests, whether a heterosexual, homosexual, transsexual, or is asexual. Whether rich, poor, homeless, or middle class…

    Deserves equal rights. Period.

    Every last one of them. And I cannot believe any true American cannot feel the same.

    jharp (2282bb)

  26. DRJ, as much as I hate to admit it, in California the courts did not put gay marriage on the table. The petition was submitted, with signatures, to the Secretary of State before the court ruling.

    It’s on the table because a million Californians wanted it to be on the table badly enough to sign a petition putting it there.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  27. Howler Monkeys

    Could you be more racist?

    JD (f7900a)

  28. In time the bigotry will pass

    Or, people could get their policy preferences by way of public opinion at the ballot box, rather than having the Courts jam it down the throats of the public.

    JD (f7900a)

  29. This will increase support for passing prop 8 in California.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  30. Does it really matter what the voters choose to do, SPQR? Especially in CA, the Judges appear to have no problem flippin’ the bird to the laws and texts as written.

    JD (f7900a)

  31. JD, yep. And that’s going to backfire really badly on the court system some day.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  32. Would that were true, SPQR. But it is not. We know that they will go about doing whatever they damn well please, and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

    JD (f7900a)

  33. Oooh yeah Phil, you really “challenge” people. Liberal society would just crumble under the weight of its intolerance without brave free-thinkers like you out there laying down the “challenge.” When you walk down the street do all the “blacks” that you speak on behalf of genuflect in your presence, you self-important wanker?

    Jack Klompus (b0e238)

  34. JD, as the court system erodes its own reputation with such rulings, it weakens itself as an institution. Eventually, it will weaken itself to the point of collapse. One day, the court system will overreach itself, and find that society will not support it. That’s the day it will be destroyed and replaced with something else.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  35. That’s the day it will be destroyed and replaced with something else.

    Not many have lived through a breakdown in authority like that which you describe.

    Historically, it never ends well, for any of the parties.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  36. That’s correct, Apogee. From the Roman Civil War onward.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  37. JD: since this initiative would be written into the state constitution, it would be hard for the courts to overturn it, unless they found a federal constitutional right to gay marriage; but that would be appealable to the SCOTUS, which isn’t going to go there.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  38. Nanker Phelge (#22 @ 4:56pm): No, Loving v. Virginia didn’t force me to marry anyone, but it did force all states to abandon laws that prevented mixed-race marriages. And I agree with that decision both as a matter of policy, but as a matter of constitutional law: Race is a suspect classification for purposes of equal protection analysis because the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically mentions it.

    By contrast, the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t mention same-sex marriage, or same-sex anything, and it’s pretty hard to dispute that it would have boggled the drafters’ or ratifiers’ minds if anyone had suggested that it ought to. The entire “heightened scrutiny” line of cases is an illegitimate attempt to give activist judges the ability to grab policy-making power whenever they want to. There is no dispute in which I cannot contrive and win with some kind of “equal protection” argument if all I need to do to win it is persuade the judge or judges that my side has the more reasonable position. It is very, very bad constitutional law precisely because it is so de-linked from the actual Constitution.

    Moreover, if you’ll actually read the post I linked, you’ll find out that as a policy matter, I support gay marriage, but that I don’t believe it should be done by judicial cram-downs over the will of a majority of citizens.

    Were I to move to Massachusetts or California or, now, Connecticut, I would be living in a state in which all the state law governing all of its citizens permitted gay marriage, and in which that change in the law had indeed been decreed by the courts, rather than adopted through ordinary and democratic means by the joint action of the legislative and executive branches of government.

    It’s nice that you know a famous case name and its holding. It’s disingenuous for you to suggest that I said everyone would be compelled to enter into a gay marriage, since I’ve never said anything remotely like that.

    Beldar (bbafd3)

  39. Beldar: if you support gay marriage as a policy matter, how would you go about expressing that in California? Would you vote in favor of proposition 8 because of outrage that the courts had decided the issue, even knowing that (a) that would ban recognition of gay marriage as a policy matter, and (b) would likely prevent reconsideration of the issue by the voters for a generation?

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  40. Beldar – Disingenuous is Nanker Phelge’s MO. Socialists operate that way.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  41. aphrael, that’s an excellent example of the dilemma that gay marriage advocates have forced upon us by their tactic of using judicial activism. Unfortunately, by pushing for judicial activism, they will end up with the result of a constitutional amendment that might end up casting the policy choice in concrete as a result.

    It has been a very risky tactic to dare the backlash.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  42. “Race is a suspect classification for purposes of equal protection analysis because the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically mentions it.”

    ???

    Nanker Phelge (563863)

  43. Apogee #24
    Hell Yes. I wish some prez. candidate in the last 12 years had publicly stated, in response to the “marriage between a man and a woman” question, that they didn’t believe in allowing the Government to determine whether or not two adults of legal age were allowed or not allowed to marry. That is a church tradition. Let the church decide who it wishes to marry.

    Legal rights are different though. Is this decision about marriage as in “vow before God” or about making sure that the contractual parts of a partnership had legal standing (with regards to hospital visitation or rent cotrol or adoption rights etc. etc.)?

    EdWood (a210c9)

  44. I would remind those non-CA residents here that this court has overreached in the past,
    and has suffered some consequence for it.

    All Judges in CA have to stand for periodic confirmation by the voters.
    Chief Justice Rose Bird, and a few of her Associate Justices are now ex-justices because the voters of this state decided that they had had enough of the interference by the Bird-Court in the matter of Capital Punishment.

    Another Drew (e6d3fc)

  45. Is this decision about marriage as in “vow before God” or about making sure that the contractual parts of a partnership had legal standing (with regards to hospital visitation or rent cotrol or adoption rights etc. etc.)?

    The government recognizes contractual agreements between adults, and that’s my point. Civically speaking, the differences between a gay couple living together and a heterosexual couple living together are functionally non-existant. Also, what is the difference between Hugh Hefner and the practices of FLDS, other than isolative coercion?

    Everyone recognizes contracts.
    No one wants the government telling them what to believe.

    Which is why I agree with Another Drew that the court is about to be punished with a constitutional change that removes them from the decision.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  46. Ed Wood – Let me put this another way. There is absolutely no possibility that I would allow the government to dictate who I chose to spend my life with. If my family and/or friends thought I was making a bad decision, tough. It’s my decision.

    However, if my focus was on forcing my family or friends to accept my choice, then we’re talking about a whole different issue. Attempting to carry out the second while claiming the first is simply dishonest.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  47. When Alexander the Great conquered the Persian Empire, he found it necessary to declare himself a god. The Egyptians, especially, needed their Pharaohs to be gods.

    All the Olympus-worshipping Greeks were scandalized, except for the Spartans. The Spartans said, “If Alexander wishes to be a god, sure, let him go ahead and be a god”.

    If gays want to be married, let them be married.

    nk (f2ee58)

  48. nk – If gays want to be married, let them be married.

    Alexander thought that, as well, and that damned Angelina Jolie killed him for it.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  49. I especially appreciate the points by Beldar and Apogee above:
    – when the courts overrule the will of the people in such matters it seems that our way of life is ultimately dependent on an oligarchy of 5 who are essentially beyond accountability.

    – it is one thing to not oppose “x”, and another to endorse “x”

    The concern of many who are opposed to legally recognising gay marriage is the flip side of government recognition. Government recognition implies government “endorsement” on some level, which seems to imply government opposition to those who don’t agree with endorsement.

    Specifically:
    If a person thinks it is morally wrong for a heterosexual couple to live together without being married, that is an opinion that others may or may not agree with, but there is freedom to express those views (although just what that means may be at issue).
    If the law recognizes homosexual marriage as legally equivalent to heterosexual marriage, especially as a protected civil right, what implications are there for those who oppose endorsing homosexual marriage on moral principles, be it founded in “Natural Law” or “religion”? Will vocal opposition to gay marriage be labelled “hate speech”?

    Last spring my 1st grader came home from (public) school one day announcing it would be great no matter if Obama or Hillary won, one would be the first AA Pres. or female Pres., either way a win for society (who, or what, is a “McCain”). (On another occasion she told me how all of the polar bears are drowning. She couldn’t conceive that the teacher could be wrong, she was the teacher after all). I really don’t want to make a 7 year old face issues on an emotional and cognitive level that are beyond them.

    In addition, many of the common sound bites like hospital visitation are largely bogus. I imagine 20 years ago when someone was in the ICU on a respirator, visitors limited to “family only”, and a person appeared that wasn’t known to the family, there were instances of alienation. But in all of my experience, even 20 years ago where I was, that never happened. Even if it did and still does, a currently available advanced directive would remedy the problem (as I’m sure all on this thread are aware).

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  50. MD in Philly – Almost all of the anecdotal stories used to argue in favor of same sex marriage can be accomplished with civil unions, basic estate planning, etc … But that is not enough. It is the recognition from the State, the Seal of Approval, that they seek.

    JD (f7900a)

  51. Agreed, JD. You amplified my point.

    The big divide is not between conservatives and liberals, it is between those who wish for intellectually honest discussion leading to where it leads, and those who wish to further a preconceived notion, no matter how dishonest the arguments have to be. How much those two sets of criteria correlate I’ll not venture a comment on at the moment.

    JD, if you get a chance to look for the record of that “Community Organizing after Alinsky” symposium, two things that would be important are to see what Obama actually said (but I think that is available on the web), and if there is any evidence of Ayers being around (like a picture of them together having a great time). The former could be condemnation from the horse’s (donkey’s) mouth, the second would blow up his most recent version of when and how he met Ayers.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  52. imdw

    In time the bigotry will pass, and rights will be afforded

    You state it as if it were a fact that those who find SSM problematic are homophobes. As if there is no societal or cultural value to limiting marriage to one man/one woman, adults, consenting and not of the same family.

    Maybe you should check your assumptions.

    Darleen (187edc)

  53. Nanker Phelge

    There is no difference between a “black” woman and a “white” woman. “Race” is a social construct, not a biological one.

    Is this where you attempt to say there is not biological differences between a man and a woman?

    Darleen (187edc)

  54. Could you be more racist?

    I pre – emptively denounced myself, JD.

    Dmac (cc81d9)

  55. The trouble with activist judges is simple. They won’t always agree with what the progressive—or conservative for that matter—pundits wish.

    Folks who like specific decisions made by activist judges, often in opposition to those pesky little voters who just aren’t smart enough or are too bitter to see the “truth,” don’t understand that every single activist decision will in the future be used to defend the actions of activist judges on the other side of the aisle.

    I understand the necessity of judges to do this sort of thing from time to time. The problem is that it is becoming an acceptable norm. And the Founders worried about this sort of thing, for good reason.

    So for the folks who think it is great that the Connecticut Supreme Court made this decision—without a plebiscite of the governed—well, hold that thought. Every single one of you would scream and yell about an “activist” court making “conservative” decisions.

    The government that governs best, governs least, as the saying goes.

    Thus, for the folks who think activist courts are great: be careful what you wish for.

    Eric Blair (e60b98)

  56. It’s pretty much a given that if the government, via the legislative or judiciary branch, or both, recognize same-sex unions, the concept of homosexuality in general will become more pronounced throughout society. One example being the impact on the public-school classroom, in which the curriculum would necessarily have to be adjusted to reflect that two males are legally allowed to get married, two females are legally allowed to get married.

    This will further the sexualization of society. Even more so since, as another example, most Gay Day parades (which are generally embraced by many big-city politicians, including mayors and council members) throughout the US aren’t exactly innocent, quaint and socially neutral affairs when it comes to human sexuality (eg, participants dressed provocatively or in drag, and behaving accordingly, etc).

    It will heighten the sense that in our modern culture, “anything goes,” and anything less is merely prudish and old-fashioned.

    Mark (b1f62d)

  57. Mark, you’re closing the barn door when the horse has won the Kentucky Derby. The sexualization of virtually everything is a project that began in the immediate post-war period. Watch the (teriffic) series) Mad Men to see how Madison Ave. made sex “mainstream.”

    And it wasn’t gay sex thet were “mainstream”-izing.

    David Ehrenstein (3f6e26)

  58. Mark

    Are you familiar with the photoblogger zombie?

    Zombie covers the public goings-on in San Francisco. You might like to look here… That’s the intro page to the “Up Your Alley” street fair. Proceed to zombie’s coverage at your own risk.

    Darleen (187edc)

  59. MD – The local paper is the Springfield Journal Register

    JD (f7900a)

  60. It’s pretty much a given that if the government, via the legislative or judiciary branch, or both, recognize same-sex unions, the concept of homosexuality in general will become more pronounced throughout society.

    Does this not suggest that it is a choice, rather than biological?

    JD (f7900a)

  61. Don’t you guys ever get tired of hating everybody?

    I mean – it must be exhausting after awhile.

    Metacom (b8c7e2)

  62. We do not hate anyone, Metacom. You annoy us, but we will grow used to that. Quit projecting.

    JD (f7900a)

  63. JD

    Human sexuality isn’t a fixed point. It runs along a continuim and while basic orientation – hetero, homo or bi, appears fairly consistent, their can be wide variations. Humans can be widely conditioned to sexualize all manner of things (ie fetishes).

    A major consideration in getting humans to treat each other AS humans rather than objects is to channel sexuality into accepted parameters. If you want a society that engenders individual responsibility, including the responsibility to raise the next generation, then society celebrates and affirms loving, monogamous, committed heterosexuality. Society can take a strictly neutral stance to other forms of sexuality as long as it remains private among consenting adults, but in terms of public policy, the devaluation of the committed heterosexual couples (when you see the term “heteronormative” it is nearly always used as a pejorative adjective) the breakdown of the family unit follows. This appears less a “bug” then a feature of an ideology that preaches to men and women their primary relationship in life is not to each other but to the All Loving and Giving State.

    Darleen (187edc)

  64. yikes.. PIMF should be “there can be wide variations”

    Darleen (187edc)

  65. Darleen – I know that. I was attempting to make the distinction between it being a genetic marker and a sexual preference, at any given point in time. When convenient, the proponents claim it to be the same as gender and race.

    JD (f7900a)

  66. Like fighting Thanksgiving and supporting Guerrilla News Network, Metababe, hating is a full time job. As a bold, strident, revolutionary, not unlike your journalism professor comrade-in-arms on the front line of Austin Texas, you must know how tough it is fighting with such passion for a cause. Now come to papa commandante zero babe, I will recite Gramsci and Frantz Fanon to you as I take you on a patriarchal ride to Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade heaven!

    Jack Klompus (b0e238)

  67. So which is it with you, JD? “Genetic Marker” or “Sexual Preference”?

    David Ehrenstein (3f6e26)

  68. Are you familiar with the photoblogger zombie?

    The behavior depicted at that site shows just how far down the proverbial slippery slope a society can plummet. And if such activity were described to the foolishly naive (certainly the ones who cry and shout: “Civil rights and tolerance for everyone and everything!!!”), they would scoff that it was a terribly unfair and exaggerated portrait, a stereotype dreamt up in the minds of the “homophobic.”

    Galling, too, that such behavior, even in a totally public setting, will be excused, if not also treated with a smile, by the very same crowd who believes AIDS and STDS are due to a lack of enough education, compassion and social-welfare programs and monies.

    And forget about whether homosexuality is due to nature or nurture. That’s because the gay rights agenda is so closely tied to a libertine-left philosophy—superceding anything involving human sexuality alone—that it’s hard to know where one begins and one leaves off. After all, the people who say they desire intimate relationships with both the same sex and the opposite sex — someone like Ellen Degeneres’s
    ex-partner, Anne Heche — are seen by the left as no less deserving of accommodation, if not also praise and tributes.

    It really isn’t such a stretch to theorize that in the future the left will demand that such people be allowed to have both a male and female spouse, or a legally approved version of polygamy.

    Mark (562068)

  69. David – There are plenty of people that I would happily have that discussion with. People who could be honest, respectful, and engage in good faith. You are most certainly not one of those people.

    JD (f7900a)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1093 secs.