Gay Marriage, Or: Abusing the legal system in any which way you want to

by hulk

Alright this bugs me. The gay lobby has become flamboyant with our legal system. I know that doesn’t make any sense, I just wanted to use the word flamboyant. Ahem. So we’re all well used to the fact that in many (most?) places, it’s illegal to discriminate against gays for jobs or anything else. We also know that it’s a “hate crime”, a.k.a. ridiculous nonsense, to do anything illegal to a gay person. Hate crimes tick me off too, because I can’t imagine anyone who murdered someone else out of love for them. It’s just silly that killing a so-called minority is somehow worth greater punishment, that their life or livelihood is worth more than that of us non-minorities.

Back to the issue at hand. So the gay lobby has been using our legal system to forward their agenda. What happens when the legal system doesn’t favor their agenda? When we have a president who believes marriage belongs between a man and a woman? When a clear majority of the people of the state of California vote that marriage should be defined as being between a man and a woman in their state constitution? What then? Well first, if you’re a judge who decides to make things up from the bench, you rule that the Massachusetts legislature must make a law legitimizing gay marriage. Yeah, because it specifically says that in the constitution, and that equality applies to everything across the board. While we’re at it, why doesn’t the equality clause in the constitution give me equal powers to that judge so I can issue another ruling contradicting his? Making up things is fun.

And if you’re a mayor in San Francisco, you deliberately defy state law and then sue the state. And if you’re a judge in San Francisco, you don’t stop the mayor because you “don’t see the harm” in letting a mayor violate State Constitutional Law. So which is it? Does the gay lobby respect the law, or not? Because quite frankly, I don’t see why by the same token I couldn’t argue that the anti-discrimination laws violate my constitutional right to happiness. What if I hate gays, but I’m forced to tolerate them? Doesn’t that violate the constitution? NO. That’s ridiculous, right? So why is one thing ridiculous and the other not? Because, say it with me now, it’s ok to break the law if you are a liberal and believe you have the moral high ground. Conservatives respect the sanctity of our laws, the fact that we live in a democracy and there are procedures to do things, such as constitutional referendums, and if the majority does not agree with you, oh well. The fact is the gay lobby and their supporters don’t recognize opposing viewpoints as valid. There are people, myself included, that believe marriage is a sacred institution that belongs between a man and a woman because of the potential for reproduction, though that sounds a bit cold. The point is we need children, and children deserve to be raised in a stable family structure. Gays cannot have children. It’s a fact you can’t legislate, try as you might to make more things up. While the law permits things to be willed, science does not. There are also those who believe marriage is a biblical issue. It’s not about “cheapening” marriage, thought it may or may not be for some. The gay lobby has cited this as the chief opposition, that gay marriage cheapens heterosexual marriage. No, it’s about not being a bunch of damn fools. We can allow all the legal benefits afforded to married couples to gays through civil unions. It’s also interesting that the word marriage comes up in a court of law. These judges in Massachusetts and this mayor in San Francisco, who are they giving marriages under? Under God? Under the deity to whom you swore your oath of office? That’s right. Marriage is granted by God. Ooh, scary word, I used the G-word. That makes me a crazy in the eyes of some liberals, especially the ones who reject God out of some misplaced subconscious problems, who claim themselves as Atheists and grin from ear to ear whenever they hear of the Catholic church having problems.

I’m just disgusted, quite frankly, and I don’t care what any of my liberal friends think of me for it. Marriage belongs between a man and a woman. Men and men or women and women can have civil unions as granted by the state. I’m sick of the will of the people being ignored by high-minded liberals who think they know what’s best for the rest of us.