Gays have an inherent right to marry, the gay judge judged.
No they don’t. Human behavior through the millenia suggest they don’t.
Do they have a right to live together? At a certain age, of course. Do they have a right to share a bank account? To will ones treasure to the other? Of course, we should have such a legal right if that is our wish.
Should gays or lesbians have rights equal to heterosexual couples who legally unite in marriage?
Not in a healthy society, but in the ideal society an adult male or adult female does have a entirely appropriate claim in a democratic society to enter a legal union with another of the same sex, but it must not be called marriage. It must be slightly distinct from marriage.
Sorry, you university poisoned…….there are major differences between the human male and the human female besides those determined by socialization. As Dennis Prager so often remarks, “One would have to go to graduate school to believe otherwise.”
Two females or two males as “parents” are erzatz to the normal. Never should the playing field be the same between the real and the erzatz when it comes to adopting children.
Yes, it is possible that two women or two men could raise a family adequately….even successfully. And it is possible that when the ugly smoke from gay protests blow away the homosexual pair might discover that the human mother is female and the human father is male.
Even though it no longer is in vogue, an adult society should always be gravely concerned about and deeply involved in the the raising of the country’s children. What kind of adult citizen is to be developed? What values? What will be respected? Will the nation’s children know who they are? What to value?….What to learn?
On the other hand we could return to group living ……. or start a new industry such as a rent-a-mother, or rent-a-father. We are are a creative animal, we humans.
We already have an over feminized society…especially affecting the human male negatively. Today’s Democrat Party is an excellent example of what results politically when feelings triumph over knowledge and intellectual and physical problem solving. Our schools are feminized making tomorrow’s America even more incapable of coming to decisions beyond feelings and hysteria, the drive that swept the inept and inexperienced Barack Hussein Obama into office.
If a society can be over masculinized as it is in black culture of the inner American city and in the Arab world, it certainly can become over feminized as it has come to paralyze 2010 America. Leftwing propagandists don’t allow such a condition to be discussed. They prefer it remain ‘unknown’.
Once again as with Roe vs. Wade and the abortion fraud, the will of the people is betrayed by those crippled by the feelings of a judge or two. These dictators violate the core of democracy.
For the past 50 years the American left wing led by Teddy Kennedy has managed to pocket the courts as well as the democratic process.
I pray the Supreme Court, that is Judge Kennedy, will support America’s democratic rights and slap down this Gay judge’s whim.
When the evidence for and against Proposition 8 is examined in detail, it becomes obvious just how little reason there was to single out gay and lesbian couples as the only ones to be barred from marrying. That kind of examination never took place during the bitter, frenzied 2008 campaign on the initiative. But this year, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker conducted a far more thoughtful inquiry during the federal trial challenging the measure. As a result, his decision Wednesday was not only welcome, but unsurprising.
Proposition 8 “fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license,” Walker wrote in his opinion. “Indeed, evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.”
Judicial activism? Hardly. Walker’s opinion was based on the evidence presented during the trial — including the testimony of witnesses who supported the ban on same-sex marriage. They tried to defend it as rational by arguing that it would protect traditional marriage from harm, that children are better off when raised by a mother and father, and that marriage exists for “responsible procreation.”
Those arguments fell apart when a witness in favor of Proposition 8 could articulate no ways in which same-sex marriage would affect heterosexual marriages. Even if heterosexual couples make better parents — and there is ample evidence that this isn’t so — society does not try to strip marriage rights from the ones who make bad parents. Nor does society forbid the marriages of the many heterosexual couples who either cannot or choose not to have children.
In his ruling, Walker said that a key witness presented none of the credible evidence against same-sex marriage that had been promised, and that when the witness was asked about evidence demonstrating the state’s interest in procreation through marriage, he replied: “You don’t have to have evidence of this point.” The case almost certainly will be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
We strenuously hope that Walker’s decision will be upheld by the high court. But no matter what happens, the trial in San Francisco delivered an unforgettable lesson in what Proposition 8 and same-sex marriage really mean. From now on, it will be harder for opponents of same-sex unions to continue mouthing canards. The public as well as the courts have had an opportunity to hear the facts. The debate over same-sex marriage will never be quite the same again.