Archive for June, 2011
Tags: gay, Gay Lesbian and Bisexual, Marriage, Marriage and Domestic Partnership, New York, Republican Party (United States), Same-sex marriage, Twitter, United States
There are at least 29 sane people in New York who sit on the legislature. In a vote of 32-29, the New York legislature voted to legalize gay marriage. I would not be exactly dancing in the streets if I was a gay activist as they have taken to doing. This is not a ringing endorsement of gay marriage by a long shot. If anything it should be more discouraging to the winning side that after all this time, they are still barely getting enough votes to pass their agenda.
In fact, in a state as overwhelmingly liberal as New York to have 29 people say no to gay marriage is rather shocking. Trust me, if it was reversed and the legislature had voted it down while I would be happy it didn’t pass, I would be highly concerned that the margin for its failure was so slim.
This is nothing new for the gay marriage camp though, because they know they cannot let the people decide if they want gay marriage in their state or not. Whenever they have, they have lost. In fact, On November 4, 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8 by a margin of almost 600,000 votes. It took a renegade judge, Vaughn Walker, with his own agenda to undo the will of the people.
History has shown while the people are not always right, the government is more frequently wrong and on the important issues of the day, especially the Court. The Court gave us Dred Scott vs. Sandford, Plessy vs. Fergueson. Taney, who was the Supreme Court justice on the Dred Scott Case is quoted as saying:
It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in regard to that unfortunate race which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted; but the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken. They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far unfit that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.
Therefore do not give me the dog and pony show about the “sanctity of our courts” and the “nobleness” of those who sit on the bench. They were wrong in 1857 when Dred Scott was decided, they were wrong in 2009 when they overturned Prop 8 and the legislators were wrong in New York. And for those of who think the gay activists are not trying to destroy marriage but just broaden the concept, there is this gem:
But once the judiciary or legislature adopts “the union of any two persons” as the legal definition of civil marriage, that conception becomes the sole definitional basis for the only law-sanctioned marriage that any couple can enter, whether same-sex or man-woman. Therefore, legally sanctioned genderless marriage, rather than peacefully coexisting with the contemporary man-woman marriage institution, actually displaces and replaces it. [Marriage Facts. Monte Neil Stewart]
What this really is about is the complete dismantling of marriage and the traditional nuclear family in order to make petulant adults feel good about their own dysfunctional lives. God help us all.
- New Yorkers Take to the Streets to Celebrate Gay Marriage Vote [Photos] (gawker.com)
- New York gay marriage bill: What would happen if it passes? (csmonitor.com)
- New York Next to Legalize Gay Marriage (redstateprogressive.com)
- The Right to Gloat – Some Thoughts on Gay Marriage in New York (workingsandbox.com)
- New York Senate Passes Gay Marriage Bill (politics.ie)
Tags: Abortion, Alamogordo New Mexico, First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Freedom of speech, Jessen, law, New Mexico, Privacy, pro-choice, pro-life, Supreme Court of the United States, Westboro Baptist Church
A young man in New Mexico, Greg Fultz, is being taken to court for putting up a billboard about his ex girl-friend. He drew an outline of a two month old baby with the words: “This Would Have Been A Picture Of My 2-Month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To Not KILL Our Child!” He claims that she had an abortion against his will. She claims she had a miscarriage and so the story goes.
However, this story is not just merely about one couple’s legal battle, it is about the right that men have to raise their own children. Whether or not she aborted, many women have aborted a child without the consent of the father. On the other hand, women who didn’t want an abortion have been forced by husbands and boyfriends to abort the child. In the end, it is one parent’s desire to kill the child over the other’s. The question here is not about father’s right or mother’s right but does anyone have the right to kill an unborn child? In either scenario, the resounding answer is no. It is not right when the mother unilaterally decides, nor is it right for the father to force an abortion onto the mother.
Who speaks for the child? Does anyone even care that in each case, an innocent child dies for someone else’s choice? What kind of nation are we becoming that we care more about our own hedonistic desires than we do the lives of our children? The abortion debate of today is not new, it has been fought under different names throughout our history-slavery, segregation, but abortion is the ultimate civil rights issue because its victims are voiceless. Whereas, we have slave journals to illuminate what it was like under the chattel system, we don’t have any first hand accounts from the unborn. We do have the mother’s perspective-at least the ones that regret it. We also have the stories of those who don’t but we never get the child’s side and fathers seeem resoundingly silent on the subject. Until now anyway. Until Greg Fultz put it on a billboard for all the world to see.
Granted, there was an incident a few years back when another young man shot his girlfriend at an abortion clinic because he didn’t want her to kill their baby and occasionally you get a song like Happy Birthday from Piper but overall the fathers are left out of the debate altogether. In fact the only time it is even considered “his” baby is when she has been raped and then she should abort it.
The legal battle between Greg and his ex is shaping up to be a first amendment, “Freedom of Speech” vs “Privacy” sort of action. But in the end, it is much more fundamental than that, it is about the Declaration of Independence-do we really have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Either we live up to those words or we don’t! Either all of us are endowed with these inalienable rights, that all men are created equal or it is the greatest lie ever penned.
Whether Greg meant to or not, he has struck a chord. Whether you consider him a hero or a villian, he has spoken up not just on behalf of him but on the behalf of millions of men everywhere. Most importantly, he has unequivocally stated men will no longer be discounted in this important matter and that unborn children do matter to the fathers!
The pro-life side is winning and the pro-choicers know it and are running scared. America will no longer tolerate their lies and one day the voices they tried to silence will cry out in victory-Our lives will not be denied!
- New Mexico Billboard Triggers Fight Between Privacy and Free Speech (jonathanturley.org)
- Man Slams Ex for Aborting His Baby – Via Billboard (newser.com)
- Jilted ex-boyfriend puts up abortion billboard (msnbc.msn.com)
- If She Murdered His Baby: He Has a Right to Slam Her (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
- Jilted ex-boyfriend puts up abortion billboard (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
- Free Speech for Me, but not for the Unborn (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)
- Ex-Boyfriend’s Abortion Billboard Ignites Debate (foxnews.com)
- Coupon Offers Women Free Exam With the Purchase of an Abortion (pumabydesign001.wordpress.com)