Anti-Gay Marriage Group Backing Civil Union Bill
WASHINGTON -- The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is the leading group fighting the legalization of same-sex marriage around the country. It has raised and spent millions, opposing not only marriage equality but also civil unions.
Yet NOM is now backing legislation in New Hampshire that would repeal same-sex marriage but legalize civil unions, signaling a shift in its tactics as more states move toward recognizing marriage equality.
The New Hampshire House is expected to vote Wednesday on a bill that would repeal marriage equality and replace it with a civil unions law that was in effect in the state in 2008 and 2009. Same-sex marriage was legalized in the state on Jan. 1, 2010.
State Rep. David Bates (R-Windham), the author of the bill, is also pushing for a ballot referendum in November asking voters, "Shall New Hampshire law allow civil unions for same-sex couples and define marriage as the union of one man and one woman?"
Read More: http://i.huffpost.com/gen/538345/thumbs/r-BRIAN-BROWN-large57...
Wow......
This is false.
First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.
Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.
Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.
The California Supreme Court said the same thing. Separate names for the same benefits is not constitutional. The Federal District court said the only reasonable conclusion for prohibiting same sex marriage is because there is direct animus towards the group/minority.
Animus noun
1. strong dislike or enmity; hostile attitude; animosity.
2. purpose; intention; animating spirit.
3. (in the psychology of C. G. Jung) the masculine principle, especially as present in women ( contrasted with anima).
At the 9th Circuit court of Appeals the three judge panel agreed!!!!
In Romer v Evans (Colorado Amendment 2) Justice Kennedy said the same sort of thing
"The case was argued on October 10, 1995. On May 20, 1996, the court ruled 6-3 that Colorado's Amendment 2 was unconstitutional, though on different reasoning than the Colorado courts. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, and was joined by John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.
Rejecting the state's argument that Amendment 2 merely blocked gay people fro...
The California Supreme Court said the same thing. Separate names for the same benefits is not constitutional. The Federal District court said the only reasonable conclusion for prohibiting same sex marriage is because there is direct animus towards the group/minority.
Animus noun
1. strong dislike or enmity; hostile attitude; animosity.
2. purpose; intention; animating spirit.
3. (in the psychology of C. G. Jung) the masculine principle, especially as present in women ( contrasted with anima).
At the 9th Circuit court of Appeals the three judge panel agreed!!!!
In Romer v Evans (Colorado Amendment 2) Justice Kennedy said the same sort of thing
"The case was argued on October 10, 1995. On May 20, 1996, the court ruled 6-3 that Colorado's Amendment 2 was unconstitutional, though on different reasoning than the Colorado courts. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, and was joined by John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.
Rejecting the state's argument that Amendment 2 merely blocked gay people from receiving "special rights", Kennedy wrote:
To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability upon those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint.
Kennedy argued that protection offered by antidiscrimination laws was not a "special right" because they protected fundamental rights already enjoyed by all other citizens. Though antidiscrimination laws "enumerated" certain groups that they protected, this merely served to put others on notice (i.e., the enumeration was merely declaratory).
Instead of applying "strict scrutiny" to Amendment 2 (as Colorado Supreme Court had required) Kennedy wrote that it did not even meet the much lower requirement of having a rational relationship to a legitimate government purpose:
Its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.
And:
[Amendment 2] is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence.
Kennedy did not go into depth in rejecting the claims put forward in support of the law (protecting the rights of landlords to evict gay tenants if they found homosexuality morally offensive, etc.) because he held that the law was so unique as to "confound this normal process of judicial review" and "defies...conventional inquiry." This conclusion was supported by his assertion that "It is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort." Finding that "laws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected," the Court implied that the passage of Amendment 2 was born of a "bare...desire to harm a politically unpopular group"."
When are these anal retentive, obsesive complusive people going to learn? YOU CANNOT VOTE ON BASIC HUMAN CIVIL RIGHTS.