Comments on: Defend Marriage. Defend Life. Protect the Future.

By: Tito Edwards

Tito Edwards — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:56:48 +0000

Joe & J. Christian,

I understand and appreciate your responses.

I still think that the judicial branch, being forced by liberal activists, brought this upon themselves by trying to impose their (im)morality on the state.

By: DarwinCatholic

DarwinCatholic — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 00:07:07 +0000

Yes.

By: fus01

fus01 — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 23:41:24 +0000

“the courts in CA have not imposed a definition of marriage which is patently false,”

Not to nitpick, but did you mean ‘now’ rather than ‘not’.

By: DarwinCatholic

DarwinCatholic — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 23:31:05 +0000

One can argue that the state should not be in the business of defining marriage, but since the state deals with marriages already (property rights, divorces, tax implications, etc.) and the courts in CA have not imposed a definition of marriage which is patently false, I can only see it as making it better to pass an initiative defining it more in keeping with what marriage actually is.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:24:15 +0000

Tito, did I rule that out somewhere along the line? I don’t think I did. I grant that activist judges brought on the current situation. But the situation has arisen and we have contend with it. To not contend with it is to give in to those commie liberal yellow-bellies.

j. christian, I don’t think that “reinforcing a definition of marriage” has nothing to do with morality. Also, what’s the definition of marriage? I think people have a hard time accepting the definition as it is outlined in Prop. 8. Polygamists certainly will have a hard time with it, though they seem to be upholding a form of marriage consistent with Prop. 8 (you just have to add a few more women to the mix). Defining marriage in any way is legislating morality.

And, of course you’re right that we shouldn’t be voting on this kind of measure. It doesn’t belong in a state or country’s constitution at all.

By: j. christian

j. christian — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:09:57 +0000

Tito,

I was going to say the same thing. Isn’t the judiciary legislating morality in this instance by forcing us to accept gay marriage as a right? And besides: of course the state can legislate morality! What do you think it’s doing with all those laws against murder?

Prop. 8 is actually pretty modest in that it makes no claim on the morality of homosexual unions or relationships. It just reinforces the definition of marriage that we already understood and didn’t need redefined by the judiciary.

In that sense, I agree wholeheartedly with Joe — we shouldn’t even have to be voting on this kind of thing! It’s only because we’ve been put in this position by a rights-inventing judiciary that we have to do it.