QUICK LINKS
WA State Supreme Court Will Rule on Marriage Tomorrow
After 16 months of deliberation, the Washington State Supreme Court has said they will announce their ruling on traditional marriage tomorrow.
We see three possible outcomes; the Supreme Court will uphold traditional marriage (DOMA), the Supreme Court will strike down traditional marriage (DOMA), the Supreme Court will send the issue to the Legislature.
If the Supreme Court strikes down traditional marriage, Washington will become the 2nd state in the nation to offer same-sex marriage and the first to extend the benefit to those outside of the state.
Gary Randall, President of Faith & Freedom, and other staff members will be in Olympia tomorrow covering the events for our Faith & Freedom Network.
Once again we are reminded of the importance of our judicial system in society. In order to inform and educate voters, Faith & Freedom will be releasing, within the next two weeks, a first-ever judicial voter's guide. The voter's guide will be available both on our website and through direct mail.
If the Supreme Court strikes down traditional marriage or refers it to the Legislature, Faith & Freedom is prepared to mount a sustained campaign to defend or restore traditional marriage in our public life.
7 Comments:
We are with you! If the state supreme court does the unthinkable
of striking down traditional marriage, or pass it on to the legislature, then by all means, go for it to defend our authentic marriages! You will have support and help with this endeavor! There are MORE of US then THEM--if we can get 'everyone' to speak up and be supportive about this important issue of having only authentic marriages in our state!
Puh-leeze. My marriage to my same-sex 'significant other' will not hurt you or your family. Get a grip!
Puh-lease. Your lack of marriage to your same-sex "significant other" will not hurt you or your "family". Get a power of attourney document drawn up if you must, but don't try to corrupt the meaning of the word marriage.
I know what you mean. Maybe I should work the court system to redefine a few words that would make my life better:
Speeding: Driving faster than the max speed rating of your tires (my tires are rated up to 149MPH, if I remember right, so I should be able to go that fast, and not allowing me to do so is infringing on my right to get places quickly)
Steeling: Taking something that doesn't belong to you without permission and the person or business notices it's gone (i.e. I should be able to steel, as long as no one notices. In general, I'd prefer to steel from dumb rich people of stores with poor inventory control, and software piracy wouldn't be an issue at all. The current definition of "steeling" is too strict and infringes on my right to have the stuff I want)
Adultery: Having sex outside of marriage with an ugly person (as long as I cheat with super model's it's all cool. What kind of person would want to take that right away from me?!? Discrimination against married people, I say!)
Murder: Killing someone who wasn't generally considered an a$$h0le (boy, wouldn't this make life easier! Current laws are too restrictive and not being able to murder under current laws infringes on my constitutional right to life, liberty, and pursuit of an a$$h0le-free life!)
So, if the path is paved such that marriage comes to mean "some number of people who promise to make coffee for each other in the morning until it's inconvenient or whatever," then I'll be jumping on the bandwagon to get my new definitions pushed through the courts too.
Wish me luck and once my new laws are passed, you better think twice before you cut me off in traffic. ;-)
"strike-down traditional marriage"? That's not very accurate. Permit pagan, heretical same-sex marriage (you can insert whichever adjectives you like) is a little closer.
Associating same-sex marriage as crimes is mean and silly.
THEY GOT IT RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!! WAS IT 7 TO 0? IF NOT WHO VOTED HOW?
I wasn't associating it with crimes, I was associating it with immoral activities, which for the most part, just happen to be crimes in many cases (well, except for speeding; I just put that one in for fun).
The overlying point, in case you missed it, was that the argument for same-sex "marriage" basically comes down to: I would make us (homosexual couples who want to get married) happier. It doesn't have to do anything with denied rights, it has to do with extra benefits they'd like to have.
So, if we're changing laws based on what I'd prefer, then I'd prefer to cruize down I-5 doing 120MPH if I want (at only 30 seconds per mile, you make really good time). If nobody buys into that idea (i.e. the fact that I'd like it better that way), then I guess the next step would be to claim that it's infringing on my right as a human being. There's nothing wrong with going fast (at least that's what I'll say), and people in other countries can drive that fast, so I'm being denied my basic human right to "the pursuit of happiness at whatever speed I desire." Being denied basic human rights is wrong, so obviously I'm a persecuted minority who needs protection under the law.
If you don't like this logic, then same-sex marriage won't fly either. On what possible grounds could it? Married people get a few benefits for being married that single people don't, but they're benefits for the people who get them, not denied rights for those who don't. So, are we denying homosexuals some basic rights? No. If we were, then all single people could just as well claim to be denied those "rights."
Certain laws protect rights, other laws encourage desirable behavior. That's the two main kinds of laws that exist. Here's some examples of those catagories:
Laws that protect rights:
-Steeling: You have the right to own stuff and not have it taken against your will.
-Murder: You have the right to live and not have your life taken from your prematurely.
These types of laws exist to protect your rights by punishing offenders to violate those right.
Laws the encourage desirable behaviors:
Speeding: For the safety of all persons using the roadway, traveling at safe speeds is encouraged.
Disabled parking: We give the benefit of good (meaning "close") parking places to disabled people.
In both these cases, we're encouraging desired behavior. We encourage people to drive at safe speeds and we encourage people to save the good parking places for disabled people. By doing this, we are NOT, in any way, infringing on some basic human right to drive fast or park close. We decide how to shape our society and use laws such as these to help shape it by encouraging the most desirable types of behavior. So, where does marriage fit? It fits in the latter category. If you get married you get the benefits of the desirable behavior that society, in general, is trying to encourage. If not, you don't. It's a law that provides a benefit, instead of a penalty. To make this analogous to speeding, it would be something like "everyone has to pay $100/month to use the highways (at whatever speed they want), but if you keep your speed below 60MPH, you only have to pay $70/month". That's a benefit you get, if you opt for the desired behavoir. For same-sex couples to have an argument that they're being denied rights, they would have to be having problems like "it is illegal for me to live with this person" or "it's illegal for me to hold hands and kiss this person in public." I would be just fine with NOT seing these things, but the fact is, they're perfectly legal and within those person rights. They have those rights and they're not being infringed upon.
In closing, remember, no rights are being infringed upon by not allowing same-sex marriage. That's just an argument that is being used to try and work the court systems. I don't want to deny same-sex couples any rights that all Americans have, but I'm okay with not giving additional benefits for behavior that is less desirable for society.
Post a Comment
<< Home