buy viagra online buy cialis online levitra buy effexor online buy zithromax online
Phoenix, AZ Forecast

Analysis with Political and Social Commentary
About AB
Columnists CL
Donate DO
Editor Page ED
Front Page FP
Letters LT
Links LK
RSS Feed RS
Search SR
Submit ST
 
Inside Page Phoenix, AZ  By and for we the real people Copyright ©2005-2008 MoveOff, LLC
Cure Your Asthma In Just One Week   Brand New Mp3 Site!   Cure Anxiety & Panic Attacks   Stop Snoring Using Only Easy Exercises
Cure Your Heartburn   How A Fool Discovery Cured My Bad Breath   Natural Cancer Treatments   Cancer & Health-It's All About The Cell
Trading systems, methods and signals.   Natural Cure For Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
All-Natural Pain Relief And Cure For Arthritis Sufferers.   How To Lower Blood Pressure Without Drugs.



"Government is not a solution to our problem[s],
government is the problem." -- Ronald Reagan


It's Time to Worry about Global COOLING

"...an utterly corrupt new religion called environmentalism..."
If the history of this planet's climate over millions of years is any guide, we are about to enter a new ice age.

CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper indicated in a 1993 interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune that he wants to see the United States become a Muslim country.
Marriage Is Not A 'Legal' Issue
By Peter and Helen Evans (07/18/04)

Let us begin by acknowledging an error, pointed out by (only!) two observant readers of our previous article, "Who Benefits from Gay Marriage?" We suggested, incorrectly, that "civil unions" conferred rights and protections equivalent to "civil marriages." They do not.

And it is for that very reason that the gay activists want to have same sex unions included within the legal definition of marriage. The juicy prize thay have their eyes on is described this way on the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) website.

"According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections."

GLAD goes on to say that...

"A civil union, on the other hand, is a legal status created by the state of Vermont in 2000. It provides legal protection to couples at the state law level, but omits federal protections as well as the dignity, clarity, security and power of the word 'marriage.' "

We admit that all these things sound 'nice', but we need to ask ourselves why, over the years, they have been conferred on traditional marriage. Turning to the more emotionally charged current question of whether the American people should allow same sex unions the "dignity, clarity, security and power of the word 'marriage' " we believe that this is a question best answered by "we, the people" and not arbitrarily foisted upon the nation by a 4-3 decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

That decision seems to hinge on the fact that nowhere in the Constitution of Massachusetts nor our founding documents is marriage defined according to the "one man, one woman" formula. This was not an accidental 'omission' on the part of the Framers; it was an indication that the nature of marriage was another of those self-evident truths dear to the hearts of all Americans. In today's litigious atmosphere, it is no longer good enough that "everybody knows" what real marriage is. Nowadays, the operating assumption seems to be that if something isn't positively stated, then "anything goes."

Many have considered the particular genius of our Constitution to be that it did NOT positively state all of the rights of the people (these being bestowed by the Creator, not the sate), but DID positively state (and thus limit) the powers of government and, in the first ten Amendments, further limited the government's power to infringe the liberties of the people. The final Amendment of the "Bill of Rights" guarantees that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This would suggest that, in the case of omission of a positive statement (e.g. a definition of marriage), the opinion of the people should be sought, in order that the government, in whatever branch, should be able to act with legitimacy.

Article 5 of the Massachusetts Constitution states, "All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of government, vested with authority, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times accountable to them." This article, in conjunction with the 10th Amendment of the federal Constitution, should have been sufficient to cause the Massachusetts Supreme Court to recognize that they would be acting beyond their competence in their controversial ruling, and sought the opinion of the people to dignify, clarify, secure and empower the legitimacy of their action. In the absence of something positive in their State Constitution, they should have abstained from the case. Instead, they legislated from the bench, by-passing the power residing in the people. In our opinion, this is an insult to the intelligence (not to mention sovereignty) of all right-thinking people.

Undoubtedly, this will be thrashed out at (expensive) length in the courts. Our contention in this legal context is that, where the law does not contain a positive distinction relevant to the issue in question, we must resort to the primordial authority of "the people." This will take the question out of the narrowly legal realm and back into the moral-cultural realm, where all the answers available to mankind must be found.

It is, of course, true that same-sex couples would benefit greatly (1049 ways, apparently) from having their unions legally recognized as being equivalent to traditional marriage. It seems to us highly unlikely that all these rights, privileges and protections can be 'legitimately' (as distinct from 'legally') conferred by a culture and a tax-paying society upon a union that "everybody knows" is NOT marriage.

Another paragraph of the "Limitations of Civil Union" from the GLAD website seems to suggest that the intention of GLAD is rather more than narrowly legal, although they quite naturally see the law as the weakest obstacle thwarting the essentially cultural agenda of the homosexual activists they represent. Here it is.

"Separate & Unequal -- Second-Class Status: Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the fact that a civil union remains a separate status just for gay people represents real and powerful inequality. We've been down this road before in this country and should not kid ourselves that a separate institution just for gay people is a just solution here either. Our constitution requires legal equality for all. Including gay and lesbian couples within existing marriage laws is the fairest and simplest thing to do."

Yes, "our constitution requires legal equality for all." Not incidentally, the Constitution refers to individuals and their equality before the law. However, it does not, and cannot, require that we pretend that the by-definition sterile union of same sex couples is 'equal' to the uniquely fertile union of heterosexual couples, which, because it alone reproduces "the people," is accorded the preferential treatment that society overwhelmingly supports.

"Including gay and lesbian couples within existing marriage laws" would indeed be the "simplest thing to do." But it would certainly not be "fair." Homosexual activists have a long way to go to demonstrate that same sex unions benefit society to the same degree as real marriages. The question of whether or not they do will be decided, not in the court of law, but in the court of public opinion.

It will be interesting to see how this all unfolds.


(Printer friendly version)   Email: Peter and Helen Evans

Peter and Helen Evanscan be reached through "http://www.peterandhelenevans.com" This husband and wife team - both international teachers and authors - write and teach a philosophical approach to conservatism. They have helped thousands of adults in more than thirty countries realize more of the best of themselves through responsibility.
Send Feedback To Peter and Helen Evans    Site: http://www.peterandhelenevans.com


  More Items on the Front Page


UPSSA

United Progressive Socialist States of America


DiscoverTheNetworks.Org : A Guide To The Political Left



*Ed: Views are those of individual authors and not necessarily those of American Daily.
"Mexico, Canada partnership underway with no authorization from Congress"

The United States Is Being Overthrown By Our Politicians - "A silent but all-reaching coup is taking place within the United States. This coup is not being directed by bomb-laden Muslim terrorists, nor will it ever be covered by the mainstream media. The seditious act is being carried out by our very own elected officials, with President Bush leading the insurrection."
 No2Spp.us 
"The FDA has conveniently used the excuse of looking out for consumer safety to increase their perverse regulatory power, undermine free speech, disrupt commerce, and generally get in the way of helping people improve their health. The "half-truth" of the safety issue is used as a ploy to reduce the rights of Americans, one freedom at a time. Once again, the FDA is seeking more police power to intimidate supplement companies. This is one step in an overall FDA master plan to eliminate therapeutic nutritional supplements from the free market. Those who lose are the American public." The FDA - A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

Website monitoring








AmericanDaily.Ws

Faith and Family Flix - Wholesome Entertainment




Joe Was On Target







http://DeeperRight.com   





...Behind Our Backs...

LifeLock Identity Theft Services

Thought Control

USAJudges.com

Advertise on AD

Vote 4 The USA

The Internet Traffic Report monitors the flow of data around the world. It then displays a value between zero and 100. Higher values indicate faster and more reliable connections.

MadAsHell.Com




Planet Daily

Letters  Letters To The EditorClick to list...





UniqueStuff.Ws


CanadaFreePress



UPSSA or USA 2009?



  





Cure Anxiety And Panic Attacks

GoodForTheCountry

WomenFitnessCentre

Vista Used Here!

Learn reasons why your computer is not running as fast as you would like!
Pointers, free and extremely cheap software to make things run faster.


Right Topix Not-PC Search


American Street



MushMindsThinkLeft

Get Your Breath Back

A Breakthrough In The Treatment Of Asthma, Allergies, Bronchitis, Eczema, Hay Fever And Disorders Of The Upper Respiratory Tract.


ConservaBlogs

Communist Ongoing Agenda
Aztlan Ongoing Agenda


HowardWasRight




It's a Free Subscription!



Page Two    Page Three





The Conservative Voice



  

Trading systems, methods and signals.
Who else want's to trade like a Pro?


The Complete Chickenman Radio Serial
Click for a small sample audio clip.

The Radio Jingle Book

Add Sound On Your WebSite

A Piece Of My Mind



The New Media Alliance - Member

If You Still Need A Reason
to Reject Government Schools


HAS AMERICA LOST HER MORAL GAG REFLEX?

Military Sound Off Blog

Erik Rush

The Post Chronicle

Walhello Search

Off The Wall Posts

Political Candidate Posts

News By US    Radio Air Checks!

A 2005 Voting Rights Act

Get your own 800 number
for $2.00/mn and 6.9¢/min!


Americans Surrendering Liberties:
Shades Of German History




K-Meleon Browser
K-Meleon Browser!

Coalition Against Global Extremism



Stop The ACLU

Website monitoring



  Entry Options   Newsletter   Suggested Subjects
Author Archives

 
May 2008: GreeenIsm
June 2008: FlyOverCountry
July 2008: EdukShun
August 2008: Open For Suggestions
September 2008: Illegal Immigration
Design © 2003-2008 American Daily. Content ©2003-2008 of its respective author.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
*Views are those of individual authors and not necessarily those of American Daily.
Powered by Nucleus CMS Copyright ©2005-2008 MoveOff,LLC

We use StatCounter
StatCounter