December 08, 2005

A Victory For Marriage And Separation Of Powers

A New York appelate court has overturned a lower court ruling that permitted homosexual marriage and ordered that gender specific terms in the state's marriage law be redefined in a manner contrary to legislative intent and their common meaning.

The appeals court judges said state laws regarding marriage "do not violate the due process and equal protection provisions of the New York State Constitution."

"The role of the courts is `to recognize rights that are supported by the constitution and history, but the power to create novel rights is reserved for the people through the democratic and legislative processes,"' the appeals court wrote, quoting a 2003 decision handed down by a Massachusetts state court.

Now such an argument is sure to upset liberals, who believe that law is whaqt the sours say it is and that a right is a right because liberals say it is.

Furthermore, the panel rejected the trial judge's fundamental re-writing of the state's marriage statute.

The court also criticized the way Ling-Cohan proceeded, saying, "we find it even more troubling that the court, upon determining the statute to be unconstitutional, proceeded to rewrite it and purportedly create a new constitutional right."

Judges don't make constitutional law -- the people do.

Not only that, but the court laid out a legitimate state purpose in recognizing only heterosexual marriage.

"Society and government have a strong interest in fostering heterosexual marriage as the social institution that best forges a linkage between sex, procreation and child rearing,'' the 55- page majority opinion says. "It systematically regulates heterosexual behavior, brings order to the resulting procreation and ensures a stable family structure for the rearing, education and socialization of children.''

This is precisely what those of us who support traditional marriage have argued all along -- the recognition of heterosexual marriages only is based upon the experience of society over millenia and the biological connection to parenthood.

Posted by: Greg at 09:54 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 332 words, total size 2 kb.

1 In fact, Mrs. GOP and I just thanked God last night that homer-sexerals aren't allowed to have the same civil rights as us. Such a thing would surely destroy our marriage.

Homer-sexeruals don't deserve human rights. It's disgusting that their pushing their sick agenda of disturbing concepts like "love" and "acceptance" on good God-fearing people like ourselves. Do they actually think they are of equal worth to US?!?!? Don't make me laugh.

Posted by: Mr.GOP at Sat Dec 10 06:49:46 2005 (YAEN3)

2 Well, Homer, what you and Marge discussed last night is of no interst to me.

I'm all for homosexuals having the same rights as the rest of us -- none of whom can marry a person of the same sex.

Now please slink back to your bridge -- there are billy goats trying to cross.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Dec 10 07:34:01 2005 (YMzHW)

3 Exactly!

Just like them colored folks have the right to marry any person of their own race, just like everybody else. Can't believe they ended up letting them have the "special rights" to marry outside their race. We can't let these evil subhuman homosexuals do the same.

It will DESTROY real marriages. Take the recent Marilyn Manson/Dita Von Teese wedding, that's exactly what God intended.

Why stop by preventing them from marrying though? There are numerous other "rights" they don't deserve. We ought to just ship them off to an island and drop an A-bomb on it.

Posted by: Mr.GOP at Sat Dec 10 08:20:40 2005 (YAEN3)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
8kb generated in CPU 0.0052, elapsed 0.013 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0095 seconds, 32 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]