WOW, that is one long string of red herrings!:lol: [/Quote] That's odd, because everything in my post directly relates to a point that you made.

 

 

Forgive me for not addressing the issues that you have raised that are not germaine to the topic at hand. Let us re-forcus on the issue of gay marriage and the courts - and the impact that the New Jersey ruling might have on this election.[/Quote] If you don't want me to address an aspect of an issue, then don't bring it up.

 

 

Most of the rules that govern us are not expressly written into the US Constitution, thus the fact that heterosexuals are not guaranteed the right to marry is not surprising. [/Quote] I'll ask again - is there a Constitutional right for heterosexuals to marry?

 

 

The founding fathers recognized the possibility that elitists might want to expand the role of the federal government ...[/Quote] A fine attempt to lay it all at the feet of "elitists", but the truth is that the Constitution does not address a vast array of issues that confront us today. Whether you wish to admit it or not, these issues effect all of us - not just the "elitists" (which, I believe, you are trying to use as a euphimism for "liberal"). Correct me if I am wrong.

 

 

Marriage laws are created by states. The fact that there is no mention of heterosexual marriage in the US Constitution is irrelevant to the discussion. [/Quote] It is the very point of the discussion. You are claiming that a homosexual has no right to marry, while implying that that right is somehow extended to heterosexuals.

 

 

... who use the judiciary to enforce their unpopular brand of morality on the rest of us. [/Quote] Who is forcing their morality on whom here?

 

 

If liberals believe that "there oughta be a low," then they need to hone their political skills and get a law passed. Gay marriage lacks popular support in even the most liberal states in the country and that is why groups like GLAD are looking toward the courts for legislation.[/Quote] I believe you are correct. As I said earlier - in another twenty or thirty years, this will all be behind us.

 

 

Frances

Your assumption that my post was directed at you is wrong. Consequently, your implication that I misstated your position on gay marriage, polygamy, or any other issue was uncalled for.

I must apologize.

 

You must have intended to answer your own question for the benefit of all of the other people on this thread that are advocating that gays and lesbians should be treated equally.

 

 

Frances

I must apologize.

 

You must have intended to answer your own question for the benefit of all of the other people on this thread that are advocating that gays and lesbians should be treated equally.

 

 

Frances

You don't need to speculate on my intention. I responded to Heresay's post and pointed out the hypocrisy with which gay activists claim a right that does not exist while denying polygamists the same non-existent right. My post was relevant to the thread topic and the political implications of the gay marriage, but it had absolutely nothing to do with you.

That's odd, because everything in my post directly relates to a point that you made.

 

 

If you don't want me to address an aspect of an issue, then don't bring it up.

 

 

I'll ask again - is there a Constitutional right for heterosexuals to marry?

 

 

A fine attempt to lay it all at the feet of "elitists", but the truth is that the Constitution does not address a vast array of issues that confront us today. Whether you wish to admit it or not, these issues effect all of us - not just the "elitists" (which, I believe, you are trying to use as a euphimism for "liberal"). Correct me if I am wrong.

 

 

It is the very point of the discussion. You are claiming that a homosexual has no right to marry, while implying that that right is somehow extended to heterosexuals.

 

 

Who is forcing their morality on whom here?

 

 

I believe you are correct. As I said earlier - in another twenty or thirty years, this will all be behind us.

 

 

Frances

There is a well established right of heterosexuals to marry and it has been established by duly enacted laws in all fifty states. As I pointed out, the US Constitution reserved the right to create such laws for the states. This is not a Constitutional issue, but a political issue, and the efforts by liberals to federalize the issue by claiming non-existent constitutional rights is the reason gay marriage is a campaign issue.

You don't need to speculate on my intention. I responded to Heresay's post and pointed out the hypocrisy with which gay activists claim a right that does not exist while denying polygamists the same non-existent right. My post was relevant to the thread topic and the political implications of the gay marriage, but it had absolutely nothing to do with you.

Your original post did not address gay activists, but rather "advocates for gay marriage".

:thumb: I think the weakness of the position of advocates for gay marriage is most apparent ....

There is no doubt who you were referring to by the use of the phrase "advocates of gay marriage". The time limit has elapsed, and you cannot change the verbiage from the first post. As a consequence, any attempt to spin what you were saying, or whom you were saying it to is pretty transparent.

 

If you wish to act as if you were not trying to imply an answer for me, so be it. We can both let others decide for themselves.

 

If you were not attempting to insinuate my position on polygamy by linking it to my position on gay marriage, I will let my response stand on it's own merit. Just to avoid confusion, I am saying that as an advocate for equal treatment of homosexuals under the law, I do not consider the argument for (or against) polygamy to be relevant.

 

 

Thanks,

Frances

There is a well established right of heterosexuals to marry and it has been established by duly enacted laws in all fifty states. As I pointed out, the US Constitution reserved the right to create such laws for the states. This is not a Constitutional issue, but a political issue, and the efforts by liberals to federalize the issue by claiming non-existent constitutional rights is the reason gay marriage is a campaign issue.

Does this mean that a homosexual that wishes to marry his or her partner should not be allowed to seek those same rights in a court of law?

 

 

Frances

Does this mean that a homosexual that wishes to marry his or her partner should not be allowed to seek those same rights in a court of law?

 

 

Frances

Of course homosexual couples should be allowed to file whatever actions they want in our courts. However, absent laws granting them the right to marry, their complaints should be dismissed for having no merit. That is why it so important to appoint judges who understand the importance of having a country ruled by law and not (wo)men. Liberals look at vacancies on the bench as opportunities to install judges who are not adverse to ignoring the laws of the land and creating their own.