ACLU punk’d again…and again — Marriage wins, they lose
It’s no surprise that the ACLU has no respect for the democratic process and continues their attempt to undo popularly-enacted legislation and constitutional amendments. What is surprising is the stinging string of rebukes the ACLU and its extremist allies have suffered in the past week on the subject of marriage from the very courts they depend on to force their twisted vision on a public that overwhelmingly rejects nearly everything the ACLU stands for.
Since last Friday, there have been five, count ‘em five, decisions that have upheld marriage and the right of the people to enact policy that affirms and reflects the best of interest of the governed, especially the most vulnerable among us, children. These decisions were not limited to “Red States.” Yes, marriage won in states like Georgia, Tennessee and Nebraska (the last two just today), but also in New York and Massachusetts.
What is most stunning about this bundle of rulings is that each addresses, and rejects, a unique line of attack that the extreme anti-marriage forces have employed in order to render the institution meaningless. It’s very telling that the ACLU and its minions rely exclusively on seizing the matter from the public policy arena where it belongs and on having a radical redefinition of marriage imposed on the people by a tiny, but disproportionately moneyed and powerful, special interest lobby that seeks special “rights.” It makes sense for them, of course. After all, every time marriage goes to the people, marriage wins. It should. If marriage is allowed to disintegrate even more than it has since the advent of the postmodern, anti-family, “genderless society,” libertine philosophy in America, our society will disappear and be replaced…with what we don’t know, but it would certainly be the stuff of a bloody nightmare.
Email This
Posted by G. Fortunato on July 14, 2006 2:23 pm
Trackback URL:
- Josiah Project » Stop the ACLU pinged this post.
- customerservant.com » Blog Archive » Stop The ACLU Blogburst, 31 August 2006 pinged this post.
- FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog » Stop the ACLU Blogburst Watch: The ACLU vs. America — The Numbers Don’t Lie pinged this post.
- California Conservative » ACLU Vs. America pinged this post.
- Stop the ACLU Blogburst: 8/31/06 The Numbers Don’t Lie « Daily Inklings pinged this post.
- Conservative Thinking: ACLU Against The Grain
- Xtreme Right Wing. Scratching the Rash of Liberalism! pinged this post.
Comments
22 Responses to “ACLU punk’d again…and again — Marriage wins, they lose”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Your post raises some questions. Since heterosexuals currently have the right to get married, how does expanding it to include homosexuals give them “special rights”? You also claim that the public overwhelmingly rejects nearly everything the ACLU stands for. Since everything they stand for is in support of the Bill of Rights, are you saying the public rejects the Bill of Rights?
I’m pro-marriage. I want EVERYBODY to be able to get married to whever they fall in love with.
I’ve yet to hear an argument as to how wanting to get married is going to destroy marriage.
Divorces are MUCH more common in states with anti-gay-marriage laws. The state with the lowest divorce rate in the country is the only one that allows gay marriage. Those folks LOVE marriage and think everybody should do it.
Ed Brayton clearly demonstrates how silly Glib’s claims are:
Pretty easy camanintx:
Marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman. The advocates of forcing the state to call a same sex relationship “marriage” are asking that they, and ONLY they, be permitted to define what marriage is. You hear anti-marriage radicals scoff at the slippery slope argument all the time, arguing vigorously that calling homosexual relationships “marriage” will not lead to polygamy, polyamory and the sanction of “marriage” between close relatives. However, the same legal arguments used by those currently trying to diminish marriage are applicable, and probably MORE applicable to the other “alternative” arrangements I mentioned above and WILL be used should the legal battle ultimately be won by the homosexual agendists. So, if same-sex “marriage” advocates deny the slippery-slope and are asking that only THEY be allowed to redefine marriage, they are asking for special “rights.”
Additionally, “heterosexuals” as a class do not have the right to get married. There is currently (as there has been for the entire history of our nation) an institution set up that may be entered by a man and a woman of legal age who are not closely related. Every man and every woman have the SAME access under the same conditions as everyone else. This is called marriage, as you may have guessed. Marriage has been recognized by the state not because the state has any interest in sanctioning close relationships (because then you could argue that friendships should accrue the same status and benefits as marriage), but because the ONLY union that can possibly result in children happens to be that between ONE man and ONE woman. If you can’t see that this relationship is unique and non-duplicable by a combination of two people of the same sex, you have a pathological ability to deny those things that you can’t not know.
Marriage is not about the “feelings” of adults, nor is it about “benefits” for those adults. We hope that married couple love each other…and benefits are incidental. Marriage is about the state ensuring that children are brought into the world and legally attached to the mother and father THAT CREATED them. A relationship between two men can never produce that, thus the state has no interest in pretending that the two relationships are equally consequential for society.
That adoption exists and some use artifical insemination to prodcue children doesn’t matter – laws are almost never made to address rare exceptions. The state would make a huge mistake were it to create a world in which it promotes and rewards the practice self-absorbed adults purposely depriving children of either a mother or a father.
So, Glib…
1) Who are the “tiny, but disproportionately moneyed and powerful, special interest lobby that seeks special ‘rights’”?
2) You claim that, in each of the recent court decisions, “marriage wins”. Had the decisions gone the other way, what exactly would marriage have lost?
3) Do you personally feel threatened by gay marriage?
More questions for Glib:
4) You state that “Additionally, ‘heterosexuals’ as a class do not have the right to get married.” What is the legal basis for this claim?
5) You state that “Marriage is not about the ‘feelings’ of adults, nor is it about ‘benefits’ for those adults.” There is clear evidence that this claim is false, at least as far as federal law is concerned. In a GAO survey in 1996, more than 1000 federal laws were identified in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status. In the face of this evidence, how do you reconcile your claim that the benefits of marriage are merely incidental?
“I’m pro-marriage. I want EVERYBODY to be able to get married to whever they fall in love with.”
So…what if someone “falls in love” with 17 people? Should the state sanction that and call it marriage? What if meatbrain falls in love with his sister? Should they walk the aisle? If not, why not?
I already touched on the trouble with marriage. I agree, divorce is an awful example to our children. No-fault divorce (brought to us by the Left) is a disaster. So is the oppressive tax system which forces both parents into the workforce (brought to us by the Left). So is abortion on demand (brought to us by the Left) which has given irresponsible people an even better excuse to behave badly and dissociates sex from responsible procreation. I can go on. Your argument is a little like the old “destroy the village to save it” logic.
“Divorces are MUCH more common in states with anti-gay-marriage laws.”
45 states have laws or constitutional amendments that define marriage as between one man and one woman, so your point is meaningless, but I will address it anyway.
Your divorce rate stats are off as the marriage rate in MA is the lowest in the country aside from PA, so of course the divorce rate as a proportion of the population will be lower, which is how these things are measured.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/mar%26div.pdf
“Who are the “tiny, but disproportionately moneyed and powerful, special interest lobby that seeks special ‘rights’”?”
People who identify themselves as homosexuals make up no more than 3% of the population. As a demographic subgroup, people who identify themselves in this way enjoy far higher levels of personal wealth in nearly every category than the national average. Additionally, people who identify themselves as homosexuals are proportionately over-represented in the media and entertainment, the information gatekeepers. So naturally, these outlets will create the appearance of greater presence and exaggerated popular support for their worldview. I don’t fault them for it because it is the logical thing to do from their perspective. This is the group that is pushing to redefine marriage.
“You claim that, in each of the recent court decisions, “marriage wins”. Had the decisions gone the other way, what exactly would marriage have lost?”
Read my comments to camanintx.
“Do you personally feel threatened by gay marriage?”
Explain what you mean by this.
“You state that “Additionally, ‘heterosexuals’ as a class do not have the right to get married.” What is the legal basis for this claim?”
I have already explained this. Re-read my comments to camanintx about the requirements to qualify for a marriage license. Everyone has the SAME rights under marriage laws in each state.
“In the face of this evidence, how do you reconcile your claim that the benefits of marriage are merely incidental?”
Marriage existed in this country prior to these benefits being attached to marriage, hence they are incidental.
Next.
Answering Ed Brayton:
You never asked for my position on the examples you site. You should find out what someone’s position is before you attack it. Being that this is the crux of your post…should I even continue? OK, I’ll hit a point or two.
“When democratically elected school boards pass policies that forbid religious groups from using school facilities, they file lawsuits in court to overturn those decisions – so much for their “respect for the democratic process.”
Ed…ever hear of viewpoint discrimination? The case law here is so overwhelming I can’t believe you would choose this example. If a school board has adopted a policy that specifically intends to injure a single group for its religious affiliation, it has clearly established an unconstitutional policy. So dang right a lawsuit is justifed. Marriage laws were not created with the intent to injure a suspect class and there exists a rational basis for the state to regulate marriage as it always has in this country, so these two examples cannot be approached the same way. I’ve covered the state’s interest argument for marriage laws in another comment above if you care to read it.
Should I consider your school board comment an uncharacteristic mis-step on your part or should I expect to see similar credibility-killing material from you in the future?
“The fact is that both sides file suits to overturn laws passed democratically all the time, whenever they believe those laws violate the Constitution.”
Yes, this is true to a degree, sometimes. However (and maybe I should have included this nuance in my original post), the ACLU and its allies regularly employ legal arguments invented in the offices of the ACLU, with no basis in case law aside from precedent they were, to their credit, able to create with the complicity of friendly judges as they rolled generally unopposed through the legal system for several decades. For example, there is a long history of public displays that honor our religious heritage — on the walls and in the halls on the floors and on the doors of our public buildings. These things have stood for years…but suddenly the ACLU and it minions decide that these displays somehow violate the Establishment Clause? By the ACLU’s hand, “Congress shall make no law” has become “There shall be no acknowledgement, at any time, verbal or otherwise on public property or by any state actor acting in his official capacity.” For crying out loud Ed, the founding of this country was LITERALLY opened with a prayer, but the ACLU argues that we can’t even open a Tuesday with a prayer! There is no way the Founders intended for the the state of the law to be where it is today.
Lawsuits filed by groups like ADF, Liberty Counsel, PJI, etc. are based on deeply-rooted principles of constitutional law, no “emanating penumbras” needed. Lawsuits filed by these groups rarely challenge popularly-enacted legislation. Prove me wrong.
Ed Brayton says:
Glib-
I put my responses here rather than at STACLU because, frankly, a lot more people read them here. I’ll answer your comment, which Jay was kind enough to paste in, here as well.
“You never asked for my position on the examples you site. You should find out what someone’s position is before you attack it. Being that this is the crux of your post…should I even continue?”
I don’t think it really matters. The fact is that groups on both sides file lawsuits to overturn laws passed by the democratic process all the time, and they do so when they think such laws are unconstitutional. And the point of my post is that you only attack one side for it. Even if you disagree with those who filed the suit to overturn the Oregon assisted suicide law, why don’t you attack them for their “lack of respect for the democratic process” and their attempts to use the courts to overturn “popularly-enacted legislation”? Your rhetoric would apply equally as well, yet you only aim it at one side and not the other. That suggests that your arguments are driven more by your agenda than by a respect for the truth. There is nothing at all wrong, in and of itself, with trying to get the courts to overturn laws that result from the democratic process when those laws infringe on our liberties.
“Ed…ever hear of viewpoint discrimination? The case law here is so overwhelming I can’t believe you would choose this example. If a school board has adopted a policy that specifically intends to injure a single group for its religious affiliation, it has clearly established an unconstitutional policy. So dang right a lawsuit is justifed.”
I agree completely that a lawsuit is justified in that case. I strongly support the whole line of viewpoint discrimination cases, from Lamb’s Chapel to Good News Club to Rosenberger and beyond. But you’re missing the point completely. The point is that sometimes when people go to court to overturn democratically passed laws, they’re right; sometimes when they go to court to overturn such laws, they’re wrong. But your argument was that they are wrong because they don’t “respect the democratic process” – and the mere fact that you admit that there are cases where democratically passed laws should be challenged in court is enough to disprove your overly broad rhetoric.
“Marriage laws were not created with the intent to injure a suspect class and there exists a rational basis for the state to regulate marriage as it always has in this country, so these two examples cannot be approached the same way. I’ve covered the state’s interest argument for marriage laws in another comment above if you care to read it.”
I didn’t make any statement in my response to you about marriage laws at all, but I would disagree with the claim that there is a rational basis for the state to limit marriage to straight couples. I’ve written much analysis of that, which you are free to attempt to rebut if you like.
“Yes, this is true to a degree, sometimes. However (and maybe I should have included this nuance in my original post), the ACLU and its allies regularly employ legal arguments invented in the offices of the ACLU, with no basis in case law aside from precedent they were, to their credit, able to create with the complicity of friendly judges as they rolled generally unopposed through the legal system for several decades.”
This is nonsense. The strict separationist position of the ACLU is easily traced back to the father of the Constitution, James Madison. In fact, Madison was more strict than the ACLU is today. Have you ever read Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance? He even argues that military chaplains violate the first amendment, a position even the ACLU doesn’t take (nor do I, by the way). Now, let me also add that the accomodationist position, which would allow public proclamations of religion, national days of prayer and so forth, as long as they’re not coercive, can also easily be traced back to the founders, many of whom took that position. The most extreme separationists are wrong when they claim that the accomodationist position is a flagrantly wrong interpretation of the first amendment religion clauses; but you’re equally wrong to claim that the separationist position is merely a product of the ACLU’s fantasies. Both were strongly held positions among the founders themselves and thus both have a strong constitutional pedigree. Obviously, they were split on the issue and someone’s views are going to win out in the courts.
“Lawsuits filed by groups like ADF, Liberty Counsel, PJI, etc. are based on deeply-rooted principles of constitutional law, no “emanating penumbras” needed. Lawsuits filed by these groups rarely challenge popularly-enacted legislation. Prove me wrong.”
Okay. The fact is that everyone uses penumbral reasoning. It is inescapable in constitutional law. Glen Reynolds has an excellent law review article that I can give you a link to if you like that details the long history of penumbral reasoning used by both conservative and liberal judges and legal scholars. The 9th amendment demands penumbral reasoning. If you want to throw out penumbral reasoning, then you have to throw out a long range of cases that you aren’t gonna wanna see go, like Pierce v Society of Sisters. This is just another bit of inconsistent rhetoric from conservatives. They rail against penumbral reasoning….except when they agree with it, then it’s okay. The fact is that there is no way to interpret the bill of rights without such reasoning. The founders knew this and said so.
And even if you’re right that conservative groups rarely challenge democratically passed laws, the fact that they sometimes do means that your rhetoric about lacking respect for the democratic process is nonsense. You can argue that their position is wrong, but it can’t be wrong just because it seeks to overturn democratically passed laws.
I’ve read all the anti-gay marriage responses and I still can’t see how gay marriage is damaging my own marriage. I’m happily married to a person of the opposite sex. I don’t see how all those gay marriages in Massechussetts are harming my marriage. I don’t see any of the anti-gay marriage people even attempting to explain how my marriage is damaged. If gay marriage is legalized in my state, I just can’t imagine that my husband will come to me and say “If Larry and John can get married, I think we should get a divorce.”
Nor have I seen even any flaccid atttempt to explain how gays getting married would prevent the heterosexual couple across the street from getting married if they decided they wanted to. I don’t see them saying “Well John and Larry can get married, so let’s not.”
So what are the advantages of gay marriage? The same advantages of all marriage. Gays settle down in mutually supportive stable relationships. What are the disadvantages? . . . . I can’t find any. camanintx is afraid he won’t be the ONLY one permitted to “define” marriage but other than that I can’t see a downside.
John Scalzi made an excellent point regarding the “Federal Marriage Amendment”:
So, Glib, I put it to you: Why do you find it necessary to destroy thousands of existing marriages in order to protect a concept of marriage that does not match reality? What gives you the right to destroy other people’s marriages?
$250,000 to the first person who can come up with a good argument as to why gay marriage should be outlawed. Pretty please… All I want is for someone to give me one good argument.
****************
I’d let you keep your quarter if you can tell me why counterfeit money is illegal.
Lobo
That might be a little bit… ill-defined, Major. But one thing the marriage bigots can’t provide is a rational argument for destroying existing marriages in the name of ‘protecting the institution of marriage’.
Like many other homophobes, Glib makes two false arguements, first that marriage is only about the children and second, approving gay marriage will somehow lead to polygamy, polyamory and even people marrying their pets.
Marriage today has two distinct aspects. One is the religious part where God blesses the union of a man and a woman. While this is the part Glib so adamently defends, no one is arguing that churches must be forced to recognize marriages they do not agree with. If that were the case, Catholics would be forced to perform marriages for divorced people which they don’t.
The second aspect arose just recently when the state began recognizing marriage as a social contract and defining legal rights such as medical and legal representation based on marital status.
Just as people can have civil cerimonies without involving the church, people married in church are not always legally married unless they have submitted the proper papers to the state. Therefore, these are two distinctly separate aspects that do not affect the other.
The current debate is if the state should grant the same legal benefits of marriage to same sex couples as they give to opposite sex couples. In no way does this threaten the “traditional” marriage recognized by the church.
Glib argues that the state has an interest in protecting the legal status of children by promoting traditional marriage. While this was true about 100 years ago, there is no longer any social stigma associated with children born out of wedlock, much less raised by same-sex couples.
snginga: “Homosexuality is a sin. Hence condoning it in anyway, as in “gay marriage” is wrong.”
Not everything that is sinful is or should be illegal. Otherwise everyone would be in jail and there would be no jailers.
If homosexuality is a sin, that is between the homosexual and God and it’s none of your business. You can’t judge, remember? Only God judges.
God established marriage between a man and as many women as he could afford. These days we just ignore that. We ignore huge portions of the Bible because they have no place in the modern world (slavery, stoning people for adultry, killing people for apostasy, killing children for disobedience, etc.)
If you think homosexuality is a sin, then you definitely shouldn’t engage in homosexual behavior. But that’s not a good reason to outlaw homosexual marriage.
You should WANT homosexuals to get married because they are better in stable marriages than not. Marriage is a GOOD thing. There’s no reason to deny it to anyone. Matthew 7:12
Fair enough. I’ll define a good argument as one that can’t be dismantled in one simple sentence or one that makes me stop and think for more than three seconds before formulating a response.
For example:
“Sin” is subjective.
Bonus sentences:
Bible isn’t the high law of the land, so you don’t get to discriminate or legislate based on what it says. I don’t believe homosexuality is immoral. I think sexuality is determined by a number of factors (of which choice is not one), and discriminating based on sexual preference is just as bad as discriminating based on race or gender. The state also has an obligation to treat all of its citizens justly and equally, which it isn’t doing by outlawing gay marriage. There’s a [edited] of stuff that Bible says is wrong (divorce, premarital sex, working on Sunday), but we’re not about to ban those. Or are we?
I don’t believe in God.
Bonus sentences:
Again, God and Bible don’t get to determine our laws. Why are people so hung up on the definition of marriage? Are you worried that we’ll need to reprint all of our dictionaries? I’m sure we can arrange for that. Webster’s would probably enjoy the boost in bidness.
For Ed Brayton:
Yes, Ed, I understand that your blog enjoys more traffic, but if you’d like to challenge me in the future, at least notify me with a link in my comments section. Otherwise, all you’re doing is whispering behind someone’s back in a room full of your friends and pretending you’ve somehow won the debate.
Being that you and I have a similar weakness – far too much to say already with the accompanying focus-killer that is the need to ensure that every contention made by the interlocutor of the moment is answered. Sorry I can’t dig deeper on these issues, as my family expects a bit more from me this weekend than the back of my head, so I’ll be as brief as my wife currently requires.
1)It is very important to know the position of the person you are challenging. You accuse me over being overbroad (something else I’ll get to in a moment) yet you didn’t even bother to ask my view before assuming where I stood, and attacking this invented presupposition. It is also very important to use LIKE illustrations. State constitutional amendments are much different from stupid decisions by education bureaucrats. I didn’t “miss your point,” I called you out for presenting a poor comparison.
2) You know, I thought about it, and you are right. I was overly broad in my original post. I thank you for keeping me honest and forcing me to rethink my presentation. My more nuanced argument would go something like this, “It is not surprising that the ACLU has come to depend heavily on subverting our law and our culture by using the courts as a weapon to impose their vision of society on America without the consent of the governed, their agenda being very unpopular in America. Groups opposed to the ACLU have occasionally used the courts to challenge decisions made by the people through legitimate democratic means, but the ACLU and its allies have cornered the market on a large-scale legal strategy that wields the courts as a sword that severs the people from their proper place as ultimate arbiter of a public policy. Thankfully, this week has prodcued a stinging string of rebuke of several strategies used by the ACLU to impose a radical redefinition of marriage on America.” I know you still won’t agree with my view, nonetheless you have done me a service.
3) Related to the last point. It is not inconsistent to generally give deference to the results of the democratic process but to support court intervention in a limited number of egregious cases and to acknowledge which side as a matter of long-established legal strategy depends on partisan judges to do their bidding in hijacking the normal course of our form of government when they don’t like the result and which side does not. This is what I argue the ACLU has done over and again, especially in regard to the sheer number of unique and alien arguments in marriage cases, which is a point I made in my original post – they will attempt to drive a boot into the neck of an unwilling public by any means necessary. The Right is generally more likely to accept results of elections and referenda, turning not to the courts, but using the front door – look at what has happened in Massachusetts. You mention a couple anomalous cases, but if you look at big picture, conservatives normally live with what is until they can change it at the ballot box. By extension, lawyers of the Right normally appeal to and rely on more well-grounded legal reasoning, while lawyers of the Left attend conferences on “Transhumanism” and discuss how to secure rights for “post-humans” and how to establish a defense for animals against “human racism.” I know you will claim that these are outliers, but what Federalist Society conference would yield such a circus side show? What side reveres Peter Singer and takes his ideas seriously?
4) Madison as a stricter separationist than the modern ACLU is a big stretch Ed. Yes I have read M&R and we probably see that document through different eyes, but all that is too much to get into right now. That Madison opposed paid chaplains is a well established fact. However, did his view prevail? I can send you “Scalia Dissents” or John Kerry’s campaign speeches. While Scalia’s published dissents have great value (can’t say the same thing about anything John Kerry has ever said), the prevailing side carries more historical weight. How vociferously did Madison oppose the Northwest Ordinance? Did Madison attempt to prevent what would become the largest congregation in the country at the time from worshipping at the Capitol building with the Marine Corps Band providing music every week? Even if you have an answer for all this, no matter which one you give proves me right – either he was the strict separationist of your world and his view was rejected or he was not the separationist secular historians thirsty for ancestral partisans have revised him to be. Madison, as demonstrated in M&R and elsewhere, was far more worried about government infecting religion and conscience than he was about religion influencing government. One powerful example is that Madison, as I’m sure you know, wanted to die on a hill during Convention and ratification debates to proscribe a bill of rights, as he was convinced that the unamended Constitution would suffice in protecting religious liberty. However, he had a constituency at home that distrusted the majority religion and who’d also been responsible for Madison’s election – the Virginia Baptists. Only after these evangelicals repeatedly reminded Madison of their role in his securing office and their desire for religious liberty to be enumerated did he flip-flop in a big way and even author what he’d previously loathed. I can only imagine Ed, how you and your buddies here would be calling for that “dominionist” Madison’s head had he been alive today and so heavily influenced by evangelicals!
Nice brief response, no?
5) Finally, on penumbral reasoning. Yes, I would like to see Reynolds’ article. Please send me the link. But…saying the 9th Amendment “demands” penumbral reasoning is like saying the anal tumor on that abused Doberman found by Animal Cops Detroit is required for its survival since it is there. Stripping away important context using Constitutional isogesis, it is understandable where you and many others would conclude this. I’m sure conservatives deal in the “is” rather than the “ought” in some cases, so I am not making an argument that the Right never employs this reasoning because the Left has gained home field advantage and made up many of the rules. In your “middle ground” between “seps” and “acoms” argument you’ve related the tortured and incomprehensible judicial philosophy of Chief Obfuscator Sandra Day O’Connor, who in Lynch v. Donnelly was at her worst on the subject. Her “reasoning” reminded me of an expository writing assignment where you are asked to take a mundane activity like opening a box of cereal and writing directions with the intent to make the exercise as difficult as possible. Sending “a message to non-adherents that they are not full members of the political community” is a violation of the Establishment Clause? Come on! Meaninglessness disguised as high legal analysis can only lead to treachery…and it has.
“It is not surprising that the ACLU has come to depend heavily on subverting our law and our culture by using the courts as a weapon to impose their vision of society on America without the consent of the governed…”
As Ed pointed out, the Right does exactly the same thing.
“The Right is generally more likely to accept results of elections and referenda, turning not to the courts, but using the front door…”
And why we should believe this assertion, exactly? Because Glib Fortuna says so, or because he has the statistics to back up his claim?
“…while lawyers of the Left attend conferences on “Transhumanism” and discuss how to secure rights for “post-humans”…”
And which of the ACLU lawyers (or other ‘lawyers of the Left’) who are involved in the state marriage cases you cite in your original post attended those conferences, Glib? You can name them? No?
Then what’s the relevance? None at all, obviously. In point of fact, you’re making a thinly-veiled ad hominem attack on lawyers whose names you don’t even know. You chose deliberately to rely on a known fallacy to back up your case. Pathetic.
It seems everybody wants to deny the real heart of the debate.
Glib Fortuna
Author: snginga
Comment:
Because they did these things God let them to go their sinful way, wanting only to do evil. As a result they became full of sexual sin, using their bodies wrongly with each other. (Romans 1-24)
Because they did these those things God left them and let them do the shameful things they wanted to do. women stopped having natural sex and started having sex with other women. In the same way men stopped having natural sex and began wanting each other. (Romans 1-26,27)
Pretty cut and dry. New testament, not old.
That is the truth, wether you choose to believe it or not.
So the Bible agrees with me: “God let them to go their sinful way” “God left them”
God left them alone and didn’t try to stop them. There’s no Biblical reason Gay marriage should be illegal. People who are opposed to gay marriage think they are smarter than God.