Jan Ireland
The Supreme Court needs your vote on gay marriage
By Jan Ireland
After a few surreal weeks of waiting, we now know that the United States Supreme Court will not contravene clerks in Massachusetts from issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples there.
This decision that will fundamentally change America is dribbling its way around the news services on a weekend, perhaps an attempt to blunt potentially explosive news by releasing it when the public attention is elsewhere.
It's clear that the Supreme Court now needs your vote on gay marriage.
Citizens have no say on the panel of course, but they will clearly be heard at the ballot box in November. The next President of the United States could appoint as many as 5 new Justices, and the character of the Court will depend on the President elected.
The positions of the two major presidential candidates are polar opposites.
George Bush has never wavered from his belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. He harbors no animus toward homosexuals, but sees marriage as the foundation of our society, and the best societal vehicle for raising and nurturing children.
In most marriage ceremonies it is "ordained by God," which could very well be the basis of most of the rejection of the institution of marriage.
John Kerry, as he does on almost every issue, has taken positions for and against and back again. His dizzying pirouettes are hard to follow, but gay marriage is easily in line with the positions of his multi-millionaire wife, and his toadying attendance to "foreign leaders" and the "sophistication" of European countries.
Democrats, led by Tom Daschle (who is in the fight of his reelection life with challenger John Thune this November), have been filibustering conservative judicial appointments for months. They will tell you that they have confirmed several, and that is correct — as far as it goes. They have, however, also kept from a simple up and down vote, several outstanding judicial nominees — simply because they are conservative and hold traditional American values. Priscilla Owens, Miguel Estrada, Charles Pickering.
Though differing polls have been bandied about, it is likely that the majority of Americans, when the question is clearly put, are against gay marriage. And it is simple common sense to know that if you change the definition of marriage for one reason, you will be importuned to change it for another.
NAMBLA sympathizers will now slink from the shadows again to try to legalize "man-boy" love. A jailed polygamist in Utah clamored for a new trial as soon as this same court struck down the Texas sodomy law not long ago. Polyamorists (marriage "among" many) have today demanded that their arrangements be legalized.
The door has been opened to more and more "alternative" lifestyles. Can brother/sister or parent/child unions be next? Intergenerational sex groups already exist, and likely will make their stand. Even man and his best friend (dog) show clearly evident mutual strong affection. Will that be enough for "marriage" soon? Political correctness likely will not let us even call the new arrangements bizarre.
Founding Father and Signer of the Declaration of Independence, James Wilson, said "The most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband and the wife become in law only one person...Upon this principle of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage depend. This principle, sublime and refined, deserves to be viewed and examined on every side."
The United States Supreme Court needs to hear your vote in November. If you're not registered, make sure you become registered in time to vote in the November election. Because qualifying times vary, plan to complete the process well before Labor Day.
Give the Supreme Court your vote on gay marriage in November.
© Jan Ireland
After a few surreal weeks of waiting, we now know that the United States Supreme Court will not contravene clerks in Massachusetts from issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples there.
This decision that will fundamentally change America is dribbling its way around the news services on a weekend, perhaps an attempt to blunt potentially explosive news by releasing it when the public attention is elsewhere.
It's clear that the Supreme Court now needs your vote on gay marriage.
Citizens have no say on the panel of course, but they will clearly be heard at the ballot box in November. The next President of the United States could appoint as many as 5 new Justices, and the character of the Court will depend on the President elected.
The positions of the two major presidential candidates are polar opposites.
George Bush has never wavered from his belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. He harbors no animus toward homosexuals, but sees marriage as the foundation of our society, and the best societal vehicle for raising and nurturing children.
In most marriage ceremonies it is "ordained by God," which could very well be the basis of most of the rejection of the institution of marriage.
John Kerry, as he does on almost every issue, has taken positions for and against and back again. His dizzying pirouettes are hard to follow, but gay marriage is easily in line with the positions of his multi-millionaire wife, and his toadying attendance to "foreign leaders" and the "sophistication" of European countries.
Democrats, led by Tom Daschle (who is in the fight of his reelection life with challenger John Thune this November), have been filibustering conservative judicial appointments for months. They will tell you that they have confirmed several, and that is correct — as far as it goes. They have, however, also kept from a simple up and down vote, several outstanding judicial nominees — simply because they are conservative and hold traditional American values. Priscilla Owens, Miguel Estrada, Charles Pickering.
Though differing polls have been bandied about, it is likely that the majority of Americans, when the question is clearly put, are against gay marriage. And it is simple common sense to know that if you change the definition of marriage for one reason, you will be importuned to change it for another.
NAMBLA sympathizers will now slink from the shadows again to try to legalize "man-boy" love. A jailed polygamist in Utah clamored for a new trial as soon as this same court struck down the Texas sodomy law not long ago. Polyamorists (marriage "among" many) have today demanded that their arrangements be legalized.
The door has been opened to more and more "alternative" lifestyles. Can brother/sister or parent/child unions be next? Intergenerational sex groups already exist, and likely will make their stand. Even man and his best friend (dog) show clearly evident mutual strong affection. Will that be enough for "marriage" soon? Political correctness likely will not let us even call the new arrangements bizarre.
Founding Father and Signer of the Declaration of Independence, James Wilson, said "The most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband and the wife become in law only one person...Upon this principle of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage depend. This principle, sublime and refined, deserves to be viewed and examined on every side."
The United States Supreme Court needs to hear your vote in November. If you're not registered, make sure you become registered in time to vote in the November election. Because qualifying times vary, plan to complete the process well before Labor Day.
Give the Supreme Court your vote on gay marriage in November.
© Jan Ireland
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
