XPost: alt.fan.j-garofalo, alt.politics.usa, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality, alt.spacebastards, alt.startrek.vs.starwars   
   From: cobalt@newscene.com   
      
   On 31 Mar 2004 00:22:48 GMT, Xomicron  wrote:   
      
      
   >   
   >2.  Second, when conservatives refer to states rights, they are   
   >generally referring to state LEGISLATURES, not state courts.  It is   
   >obvious that what gays have done is cherry-picked sympathetic state   
   >courts (Hawaii, Alaska, Vermont, and Massachusetts) to interpret/amend   
   >the state constitutions, making it very difficult for the people to do   
   >anything about it, although Hawaii and Alaska were so offended by the   
   >court's decision, they amended their constitution themselves.  Vermont   
   >created Civil Unions.  The people of Massachusetts is deciding what to   
   >do, but the hurdle is very high. So far, gays have ONE win for their   
   >efforts (since the court decisions in Hawaii and Alaska were   
   >overturned and Vermont went the way of civil unions).   
   >   
   >I suppose the strategy is to appear to create momentum and hope that   
   >the traditional deference that the American people give to courts will   
   >utlimately change public opinion and momentum will push gay marriage   
   >from state to state.  Then the US Supreme Court can claim that an   
   >"emerging awareness" of a new right has occurred and then "amend" the   
   >Federal Constitution by imposing gay marriage on any remaining   
   >recalcitrant states (this is exactly the logic they used in Lawrence   
   >to convert sodomy into a new constitutional right).  Of course, by   
   >then, you won't be hearing many gays proclaiming the virute of states   
   >rights.  The argument will have effectively distracted conservatives   
   >with the left hand while hitting them with a right punch before they   
   >even know what happened.  They will wake up one morning and, like   
   >Dorothy in Oz, find out they "aren't in Kansas anymore."  Without a   
   >single shot being fired or vote being cast, marriage will have been   
   >redefined (ie. destroyed) for an entire civilization.   
   >   
   >It is clear that when gays attempt to establish gay marriage through   
   >the legislative process that they fail.  In fact, they are batting one   
   >big goose-egg -- 0 for 50.  Not only are they failing to persuade   
   >legislatures to establish gay marriage, 38 of the 50 states have taken   
   >the extra step with DOMA to defend traditional marriage.  Gays are   
   >actually going backwards in the states.  The national consensus for   
   >traditional marriage has been unbroken for over 200 years and no state   
   >or federal constitutional provision or statute even remotely implies   
   >anything other than that, Massachusetts notwithstanding.   
      
      
   So apparently you think that when gays are born, they immediately get   
   inducted to some organization.   
      
   So what is the name of this organization?  If it manages 10 percent of   
   the population, there must be some overwhelming evidence of it.  Do   
   they all meet in the middle of the night or something?  Get their   
   instructions by secret carrier pigeon?   
      
   Sorry, there's no organization and no agenda and most of what happened   
   was the actions of people who simply aren't bigoted and are horrified   
   at what is being done to the gays.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)