15
Oct
2008
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Ryan.McCann
Welcome to the Brave New World of "Gay Marriage"

Activists on the "gay marriage" warpath have made lots of news lately.  Here are 3 particularly interesting happenings:

1) "Gay Marriage" won't affect you.  Oh really?  I think the vast majority of Hoosiers would disagree if they new that "gay marriage" might lead to their 1st graders taking a "field trip" to city hall to take part in a lesbian "wedding."  Check out the video below.

2) Two Indiana men got "married" in California over the weekend.  I wonder what happens when they come back to Indiana and sue to have their brand new "marriage license" recognized?  Indiana House Democrats Pat Bauer, Scott Pelath, Terri Austin, Russ Stillwell, etc. have made it clear over the last two years that we should stick our heads in the sand and ignore this problem.  Meanwhile, judges will eventually do the dirty work for these elected representatives when couples come back to Indiana and challenge our marriage laws.

3) Connecticut's Supreme Court forced gay marriage on that state, joining the Supreme Court of Massachusetts and California.  This case blows up the equal rights argument that activists have claimed here in Indiana.  "Civil unions" were already recognized in Connecticut, but were not good enough for activists there, even though citizens who identified themselves as homosexual in that state already had the legal benefits previously only enjoyed by husbands and wives.  This proves once again that "legal equality" is not the true goal of these activists.  Rather, they wish to change culture with the help of government by changing the definition of marriage and forcing that belief down the throats of citizens.  They will not be happy until everyone embraces their twisted view of sexuality and all opposing views are silenced, especially those of the Church. 

   

Comments: (18)

18 Comments

Comments

As for (2), it is a classic example of politians serving THEIR own interests ahead of the interests of the people they are supposedly serving. What would Washington think?

Red, given that you seem reasonably conversant with the issues here, you can tell me something Ryan continues to seem to dodge: If an amendment is needed in Indiana to keep the "unelected liberal activist judges" of our Indiana Supreme Court from allegedly mis-interpreting our Consititution concerning marriage, why does he trust the same folks to read such an amendment in only one way? Some 60 Indiana law professors have found lots of ambiguities in what's been proposed, and even those conservative law professors who helped supply the language are at opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to such things as whether or not such language bars legislatively enacted civil unions. Do you personally think what was offered is incapable of mis-interpretation, especially by our Indiana Supreme Court, and if so, why do you think that way?

We don't "trust" the court to shed their ideological blinderswhen it comes to reading the amendment, but we and the Legislature recognize courts are forced to interact with Consitutional law differently(it binds them) than stautory law (they interpret it in light of the Constitution and other factors). Since we're talking family here, think of it as how we interact with a parent vs. a sibling. That's a rough analogy, I acknowledge, but I think it sheds some light. Both are family, both are relatives; but the relationship differs in a significant way. Constiutional law binds the courts in a different way (not to mention the voters required approval) than they are required to interact with law enacted by the Legislature alone.

To "We Don't Trust Them": Its too bad that folks such as yourself feel it necessary to refrain from using your own names because it tends to diminish your own credentials and credibility to deal with an issue in the light of day. What you say about courts dealing with constitutions as opposed to statutory law may pehaps lead somewhere productive, but at this point it's hard to tell. Perhaps for starters you might enlighten us all a bit further about how, in the particular case of the "Marriage Protection Amendment" that failed last time, the second sentence of that proposal would have interacted with the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the same Article I ("Bill of Rights"). Do you think it would have caused the higher court judges to think that the equal protection features of that older provision had been modified, or an exception taken? In what specific way would that cause the court to reach a decision differently from simply interpreting statutory language? Are you perhaps saying that when voters go to the polls and ratify complex language, it makes it more clear and understandable than if it were in simple legislation? If so how?

Don -- The hope is you'll address the insights, if any, and the information, if new or at least presented in a novel way, and leave the personailities out of this thread. We wouldn't want the messenger(s) to get in the way of the message.

George Bush & Clarence Thomas

To "Ideas and Insights" (aka "George Bush & Clarence Thomas.......Kurt, your guys not mine (: )

Fair enough.....issues ought to trump personalities in rational, intelligent discourse over things as important as making sure all involve understand every word of something that's proposed to go into Indiana's highest document, it's Constitution.

I'll be watching for a reply to what I think is a fair and relevant question.

1) "Gay Marriage" won't affect you. It's only that fear when escalated that will affect you...and thin it will,"See what they did- their instigating this". If gay people need the word "marriage" to enter their relationship, so be it. The IFI should refrain from using fear tactics such as a "field trip" to scare the public. You don't think lesbian moms and gay dads go on their children now?

2) Majority rule doesn't mean tyranny of the majority. Abraham Lincoln asked Stephen Douglas in one of their debates, "If an elephant's tail is seen as a leg, how many legs does a elephant have"....I think you know the answer. Just because you and the "religious" people say its a problem doesn't make it a problem enough waste my tax dollars on.

3.) Full equality is the only kind of equality. Their are not different levels of equality.

1) "Gay Marriage" won't affect you. It's only fear when escalated that will affect you. If gay people need the word "marriage" to enter their relationship, so be it. The IFI should refrain from using fear tactics such as a "field trip" to scare the public. You don't think lesbian moms and gay dads go on their children's field trips now?

2) Majority rule doesn't mean tyranny of the majority. Abraham Lincoln asked Stephen Douglas in one of their debates, "If an elephant's tail is seen as a leg, how many legs does a elephant have"....I think you know the answer. Just because you and the "religious" people say its a problem doesn't make it a problem enough waste my tax dollars on.

3.) Full equality is the only kind of equality. Their are not different levels of equality

I think the main thrust here, and I agree, is that gay marriage proponents wish to caste their agenda to ask Americans to believe that they may barely even notice the difference.

But that's just not true. Gay marriage will open up the floodgates to a number of major societal changes (and yes, have a MAJOR effect on our schools). Proponents would like us to close our eyes to this.

How can we be "equal" if we don't also teach our children that gay marriage is OK? How can we be "equal" when the transgendered boys can't go into the girls restroom?

I suspect gay rights advocates will roll their eyes and call this fear mongering but it isn't. Once gay marriage is fully accepted, the indoctrination of our children begins. How can it not? Are we going to be schizophrenic and simply ignore the issue at our schools? Or teach that homosexuality is wrong? Or somehow invite the local priest in to debate Jeff Miner?

I don't think so.

They are public schools after all. Once public policy becomes pro gay marriage so will our schools.

"How can we be "equal" when the transgendered boys can't go into the girls restroom?"

Huh? I thought the conversation was reasonably expressing views concerning gay marriage and its impact on the public schools. What's the significance/relevance of suddenly switching gears and injecting the emotional reactions concerning kids in restrooms?

Fear mongering? Na, just good old civil discourse.

Those are all direct impacts on public schools. There are bathrooms there. Again, the public schools will have to decide how to handle these major issues of sexuality as part of the updating of public policy as it comes to GLBT issues.

It's a direct impact of a wider acceptance of new sexual norms.

Well, OK, so there are. And there are also many children there whose parents are divorced, for example, are who come from homes where mommy and daddy aren't married. These touch upon moral and religious issues, but I don't think it would be necessary for the public school to have to deal with them by having two clergy persons come in and debate/discuss them in the classrooms. In fact, this would seem to be inappropriate. I wonder if anyone might have ever thought that perhaps if these issue have to be dealt with by the teacher at all, it would for him or her to simply say something like: "People get married and have children like you, but some people have children and don't get married, and some people with children get divocred. Now a lot of people think divocre and having children without being married is wrong, in some cases their religious beliefs are that it is a sin. Others don't.

Would that be putting the public schools in the position of condoning/approving? Of course not.

Kurt, just because gay marriage is legalized doesn't mean any type of marriage curriculum needs to enter schools. I actually would be against it. I don't see why our schools would have a purpose in teaching anything about marriage! Now, I could see the issue being raised in a sociology course. And if I remember my high school course, it was debated openly on a number of issues within the class, but it wasn't teaching one way or another was correct. That is not for the school to teach, that is for the families.

Kurt, transgendered youth attend schools now...has there been an bathroom issue raised? If it's not an issue now, why would it be then. School's could create unisex restrooms for one at a time like they do at malls now. (of course you could only go in one at a time).

Dustin:

That's so ridiculous. Do you actually think that our public schools are going to stay away from topics like marriage and equality? Come on. We spend more time now in our public schools undergoing social engineering, mandatory federal government testing, weapons checks, behavioral and sex ed than we do actually requiring students to learn.

The idea that our schools won't be indoctrinating our kids towards one view of "equality" over the other is unrealistic. "Heather has two mommies" will be mandatory reading in the third grade.

Kurt,

I am married to someone working in education every day. She just read your post and thought it was the most ridiculous thing she has ever read! And she has never came across a book of being used in reading of "Heather has a mommy and daddy" in her entire career. So I ask, which schools are you talking about? ...and if you think that school depts are spending more on weapons checks than education...you need to get out more. The majority of your courts throughout Indiana don't even have weapons checks to keep their Judges and court staff safe..you think their school corp are doing this? Please! Schools already teach equality, and that is a good thing...or you end up with what I experienced in Gas City when DK's (now Rumors) announced it was a Gay Bar. So called Christians and FCA leaders calling names and actually gay bashing! You can still have equality taught in the schools without resorting to teaching "Heather has two mommies".

I appreciate the fact that people are responding to this article, but I simply don't believe that the arguments here are being made in good faith. There is no possible way that someone could believe that a couple getting married is actually stuffing anything down anyone's throats. No one is going to be forced into a same-sex marriage since no one is talking about arranged same-sex marriages, and no one could be confused enough on the subject to think that the government is going to force anyone into a same-sex marriage.

I don't really see the use in arguing, since these people obviously have an investment in their position against equality that goes deeper than sitting down and coming to the logical conclusion that if same-sex marriage is legal in California, then, yes, one day the police will come and drag them off to the chapel and force them to kiss a dude.

Their position probably has a little more to do with whoever is signing their paychecks, and logical argument isn't going to change that.

Alex,

I am probably on your side about equality, but I don't think anywhere on this post we discussed forced marriages. Kurt and IFI believe that putting same sex marriage or relationships for that matter will somehow destroy the fabric of families and the school's will force the "homosexual agenda"(whatever that is-if that's not fear mongering, I don't know what is) upon kids. Yet, I don't remember when the "heterosexual agenda" was forced on me in school. I never read books that "Heather has a mommy and daddy" and would probably be upset if a book like that was sent home with my daughter simply because the content isn't appropriate whether its heterosexual or homosexual.

...