Nedd Kareiva
ACLU + same sex marriage = loser every time
By Nedd Kareiva
OK, ACLU supporters, this one's for you. The "home team" loses in its own state. See here for their press release.
As you can see, the ACLU "denounced" (or condemned) the New York Court of Appeals (the highest court in this state) ruling that rejected homosexual marriage as the law of New York. The notable point about this case is the fact the ACLU wanted the court to authorize same sex marriage, which judges wisely stated was best left to the legislature.
To quote Justice Robert Smith who wrote the 4-2 majority opinion against the ACLU, see here and here.
"The legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability and to avoid instability in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman and the legislature could find that this will continue to be true.
The legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It is better.... for children to grow up with both a mother and a father." "Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like. It is obvious that there are exceptions to this general rule — some children who never know their fathers, or their mothers, do far better than some who grow up with parents of both sexes — but the legislature could find that the general rule will usually hold.
We do not predict what people will think generations from now, but we believe the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives."
Note the first sentence "The legislature could rationally decide." This has to bug the ACLU to no end. They didn't trust the people's representatives in the state legislature to make such a landmark decision. They wanted the courts to make the ruling as noted in this paragraph in the ABC News story.
With little hope of getting a gay marriage bill signed into law in Albany, advocates from the ACLU, Lambda Legal and other advocacy groups marshaled forces for a court fight."
It's worth noting that although the New York Senate has a majority of Republicans in its chamber, the House is heavily under Democratic control. Apparently the ACLU and their friends at Lambda Legal, a radical liberal pro-homosexual marriage law firm, figured same sex marriage was even too radical for their Democratic buddies so they thought an activist New York court could produce a similar ruling like in Massachusetts.
No dice, said New York's highest court, shocking many folks who expected the judges to rewrite the law instead. Even pro-homosexual marriage supporters such as current Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, the probable next governor of the state and who is reported to lobby for such marriage if elected, and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg did the right thing and defended current state law.
Novel idea to let the elected officials of the people decide this matter instead of activist judges and their ACLU allies.
If you are one of my regular readers, you know the biggest complaint I have about the ACLU is its unwillingness to go to the legislature to pass its liberal agenda. The ACLU doesn't trust the American people's wisdom, thus they have to find activist judges like Doris Ling-Cohan in the New York case or Constance Russell in a similar case in Georgia here, which the Georgia Supreme Court reversed, according to this story.
Republicans are not the only ones supporting traditional marriage. Georgia Attorney General, Thurbert Baker, is a Democrat and vigorously defended the GOP approved legislation against the ACLU and their buddies to allow the voters to vote for traditional marriage. Is A/G Baker a bigot?
Even the director of the pro-homosexual group Georgia Equality was quoted as saying in the Statesboro Herald article above that he respected "the democratic process that led to it" (the upholding by the Georgia Supreme Court of the state's marriage amendment).
That's much more than could be said about the ACLU.
All 20 states that have put traditional marriage amendments before the voters saw the statutes passed in huge margins. But it hasn't stopped the ACLU which last year launched a national campaign for same sex marriage.
The ACLU doesn't know a loser of an issue when it sees it. Just when the ACLU finally got the message, according to its press release, that, in their words, "It is time for the (New York) legislature to act.," they forgot what they said in issuing this press release.
So now the ACLU is going after Californians who enacted Proposition 22 in 2000 by over 61%, according to this piece. Even in liberal California, Golden Staters get it. But not the ACLU. As their press release says, they want the law overturned.
You have to hand it to the ACLU to continue fighting for this widely unpopular issue. But they just don't get it. They don't listen or care what the people say. And sooner or later, it's going to haunt them (sooner hopefully).
When 70% of Nebraskans passed their marriage amendment, the ACLU of Nebraska basically told looked down on them to tell them they didn't know what they were doing. See those pieces here and The ACLU thought in the Georgia and New York rulings that they could ride on the wings of the recent same sex adoption ruling of the Arkansas Supreme Court same sex adoption ruling of the Arkansas Supreme Court. However, they ran into two courts that deferred to the will of the people and their elected officials instead of the ACLU.
Another Democrat in Arkansas, one who is running for governor, opposed the ACLU's stance on same sex adoption and the court's ruling — check it out here.
You see, this issue is not solely a Republican one as seen by Democratic support in Georgia and Arkansas. And as noted earlier, even some liberal Democrats in New York's legislature can't support the ACLU's position on same sex marriage
So why does the ACLU go to the extreme to defend same sex marriage as it is doing? Surely they can't defend the behavior as cited in this link. It doesn't make sense.
The homosexual lifestyle isn't healthy by any stretch of the imagination (and there are dozens of web sites that provide incontrovertible evidence), yet the ACLU continues pushing the envelope and losing every time doing so. If homosexuals mutually consent to practice their behavior, that is their business. Medically, however, it isn't wise as the web link above indicates.
And it makes no sense to make a law whereby such behavior involved can shorten lives by one to three decades. Same sex partners and advocates should not adopt children for that reason and others, though we will save that discussion for another day.
Perhaps someone should share this info with avowed homosexual Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU.
Lastly, if the ACLU wishes to continue suing at taxpayer expense to overturn voter enacted amendments, the electorate should have the right to counter sue the ACLU for subverting their civil rights in voting for these amendments. For all the ACLU claims they made about protecting civil rights, it's past time the voters turn the tables on them for denying their civil rights and demanding the ACLU pay their legal fees when it loses.
Now that is something I would like to see addressed by Congress. Lawmakers, are you listening?
© Nedd Kareiva
OK, ACLU supporters, this one's for you. The "home team" loses in its own state. See here for their press release.
As you can see, the ACLU "denounced" (or condemned) the New York Court of Appeals (the highest court in this state) ruling that rejected homosexual marriage as the law of New York. The notable point about this case is the fact the ACLU wanted the court to authorize same sex marriage, which judges wisely stated was best left to the legislature.
To quote Justice Robert Smith who wrote the 4-2 majority opinion against the ACLU, see here and here.
"The legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability and to avoid instability in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman and the legislature could find that this will continue to be true.
The legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It is better.... for children to grow up with both a mother and a father." "Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like. It is obvious that there are exceptions to this general rule — some children who never know their fathers, or their mothers, do far better than some who grow up with parents of both sexes — but the legislature could find that the general rule will usually hold.
We do not predict what people will think generations from now, but we believe the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives."
Note the first sentence "The legislature could rationally decide." This has to bug the ACLU to no end. They didn't trust the people's representatives in the state legislature to make such a landmark decision. They wanted the courts to make the ruling as noted in this paragraph in the ABC News story.
With little hope of getting a gay marriage bill signed into law in Albany, advocates from the ACLU, Lambda Legal and other advocacy groups marshaled forces for a court fight."
It's worth noting that although the New York Senate has a majority of Republicans in its chamber, the House is heavily under Democratic control. Apparently the ACLU and their friends at Lambda Legal, a radical liberal pro-homosexual marriage law firm, figured same sex marriage was even too radical for their Democratic buddies so they thought an activist New York court could produce a similar ruling like in Massachusetts.
No dice, said New York's highest court, shocking many folks who expected the judges to rewrite the law instead. Even pro-homosexual marriage supporters such as current Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, the probable next governor of the state and who is reported to lobby for such marriage if elected, and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg did the right thing and defended current state law.
Novel idea to let the elected officials of the people decide this matter instead of activist judges and their ACLU allies.
If you are one of my regular readers, you know the biggest complaint I have about the ACLU is its unwillingness to go to the legislature to pass its liberal agenda. The ACLU doesn't trust the American people's wisdom, thus they have to find activist judges like Doris Ling-Cohan in the New York case or Constance Russell in a similar case in Georgia here, which the Georgia Supreme Court reversed, according to this story.
Republicans are not the only ones supporting traditional marriage. Georgia Attorney General, Thurbert Baker, is a Democrat and vigorously defended the GOP approved legislation against the ACLU and their buddies to allow the voters to vote for traditional marriage. Is A/G Baker a bigot?
Even the director of the pro-homosexual group Georgia Equality was quoted as saying in the Statesboro Herald article above that he respected "the democratic process that led to it" (the upholding by the Georgia Supreme Court of the state's marriage amendment).
That's much more than could be said about the ACLU.
All 20 states that have put traditional marriage amendments before the voters saw the statutes passed in huge margins. But it hasn't stopped the ACLU which last year launched a national campaign for same sex marriage.
The ACLU doesn't know a loser of an issue when it sees it. Just when the ACLU finally got the message, according to its press release, that, in their words, "It is time for the (New York) legislature to act.," they forgot what they said in issuing this press release.
So now the ACLU is going after Californians who enacted Proposition 22 in 2000 by over 61%, according to this piece. Even in liberal California, Golden Staters get it. But not the ACLU. As their press release says, they want the law overturned.
You have to hand it to the ACLU to continue fighting for this widely unpopular issue. But they just don't get it. They don't listen or care what the people say. And sooner or later, it's going to haunt them (sooner hopefully).
When 70% of Nebraskans passed their marriage amendment, the ACLU of Nebraska basically told looked down on them to tell them they didn't know what they were doing. See those pieces here and The ACLU thought in the Georgia and New York rulings that they could ride on the wings of the recent same sex adoption ruling of the Arkansas Supreme Court same sex adoption ruling of the Arkansas Supreme Court. However, they ran into two courts that deferred to the will of the people and their elected officials instead of the ACLU.
Another Democrat in Arkansas, one who is running for governor, opposed the ACLU's stance on same sex adoption and the court's ruling — check it out here.
You see, this issue is not solely a Republican one as seen by Democratic support in Georgia and Arkansas. And as noted earlier, even some liberal Democrats in New York's legislature can't support the ACLU's position on same sex marriage
So why does the ACLU go to the extreme to defend same sex marriage as it is doing? Surely they can't defend the behavior as cited in this link. It doesn't make sense.
The homosexual lifestyle isn't healthy by any stretch of the imagination (and there are dozens of web sites that provide incontrovertible evidence), yet the ACLU continues pushing the envelope and losing every time doing so. If homosexuals mutually consent to practice their behavior, that is their business. Medically, however, it isn't wise as the web link above indicates.
And it makes no sense to make a law whereby such behavior involved can shorten lives by one to three decades. Same sex partners and advocates should not adopt children for that reason and others, though we will save that discussion for another day.
Perhaps someone should share this info with avowed homosexual Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU.
Lastly, if the ACLU wishes to continue suing at taxpayer expense to overturn voter enacted amendments, the electorate should have the right to counter sue the ACLU for subverting their civil rights in voting for these amendments. For all the ACLU claims they made about protecting civil rights, it's past time the voters turn the tables on them for denying their civil rights and demanding the ACLU pay their legal fees when it loses.
Now that is something I would like to see addressed by Congress. Lawmakers, are you listening?
© Nedd Kareiva
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.)
