Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 43

Thread: ABA Advocates Federal Legalization of Homosexual Marriage

  1. #1

    ABA Advocates Federal Legalization of Homosexual Marriage

    The American Bar Association has called for the federal legalization of homosexual marriage. By James Heiser

    ABA Advocates Federal Legalization of Homosexual Marriage


    James Heiser | The New American
    19 August 2010


    Constitutionalists are expressing their disappointment, and even outrage, over the decision by the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association (ABA) openly advocate the legalization of homosexual ‘marriage’ on the federal level.

    The action by the ABA was not a surprise to advocates of homosexual "marriage"; instead, the House of Delegates decision is being understood by such advocates as consistent with other ABA actions in recent years. In the words of Steve Weinstein, writing for EDGE (a publication which purports to be “the largest network of local Gay, Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender (GLBT) news and entertainment portals in the world”):


    The American Bar Association in recent years has actively supported gay causes. The once-conservative organization has done an about-face on marriage, the military and other hot-button issues.


    On this point, constitutionalists would probably agree with Mr. Weinstein; a growing member of conservative attorneys may view the ABA's action as contradicting both sound law and good judgment. In fact, the former president of the Ohio Bar Association decried the action of the House of Delegates as “suicidal.” A story at CNSNews.com (“American Bar Association Calls for Homosexual Marriage Nationwide”) reports:


    The ABA’s policy-making House of Delegates adopted Resolution 111, which states: “RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges state, territorial, and tribal governments to eliminate all of their legal barriers to civil marriage between two persons of the same sex who are otherwise eligible to marry.”

    The only voice of opposition came from former Ohio Bar Association President Leslie Jacobs, who said that it would be “cowardice” for him to remain silent about the issue. Jacobs urged his ABA colleagues to avoid overreaching into areas of contentious social policy.

    “We owe it to this House [of Delegates] to avoid action that would jeopardize the Association,” he said. “I personally believe it can be suicidal for the House to defer to an impulse to impose social and political and cultural values on the entire membership of the ABA – rather than to reflect some clear consensus of the bar.”

    “When an attitudinal value is not broadly shared, and when people of goodwill have sharply divergent views that are fundamental and – frankly – irreconcilable, it is axiomatic I believe that lawyers will be found not only to disagree with each other but to be engaged as advocates on both sides of the proposition on the merits, whether in litigation or in legislation,” Jacobs said.


    The action by the ABA was undertaken in the midst of the legal crisis in California over the fate of Proposition 8 and only a week after a federal judge, Vaughn Walker, deemed the action undertaken by a clear majority of California voters to be “unconstitutional.” According to the Christian Post:


    Notably, the adoption of resolution 111 on Wednesday came one week after U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled California’s Proposition 8 unconstitutional.

    And the keynote speaker of the 2010 ABA Annual Meeting in San Francisco was David Boies, who co-counseled with Ted Olson to overturn Prop. 8.

    Prop. 8, which California voters passed in 2008, effectively defined marriage in the state’s constitution as the union of one man and one woman.
    Last week, however, Walker determined that people of the same sex do have the right to marry and that the decision of the majority to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman violates that right.

    On Thursday, Walker denied a motion to stay the judgment he made, effectively allowing gay marriages to resume in the state starting next Wednesday.

    In an 11-page ruling, the judge said proponents of the stay did not show a likelihood of success on appeal nor the possibility of any irreparable harm absent a stay.


    With the timing of the ABA action thus closely coinciding with the action of Judge Walker, conservative attorneys, as well as other constitutionalists, are left with few alternatives but to continue the Proposition 8 fight all the way to the Supreme Court. Organizations such as the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) are continuing the fight in California, and within the legal community, in general. As the Christian Post reports:


    Ahead of the resolution’s passage, the Christian legal group Alliance Defense Fund stressed that the ABA does not speak for all U.S. lawyers and noted how three-quarters of American lawyers do not belong to the ABA.

    “The fact that ADF and other lawyers disagree with ABA on a number of controversial issues demonstrates the gross inaccuracy of ABA’s claim that it speaks for the U.S. legal profession,” remarked ADF Senior Legal Counsel Doug Napier, who resigned from the ABA because of its stance on controversial political issues.


    The August 18 ruling of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Perry v. Schwarzenegger is proof that the fight over homosexual "marriage" is far from over. With implementation of Judge Walker’s ruling effectively “on hold” for the rest of 2010, the ADF and others will continue to fight for the traditional, legal definition of marriage.


    SOURCE:
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/index....exual-marriage
    ----

    Ron Paul Forum's Mission Statement:

    Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this site is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by FrankRep View Post
    ABA Advocates Federal Legalization of Homosexual Marriage


    James Heiser | The New American
    19 August 2010


    Constitutionalists are expressing their disappointment, and even outrage, over the decision by the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association (ABA) openly advocate the legalization of homosexual ‘marriage’ on the federal level.

    The action by the ABA was not a surprise to advocates of homosexual "marriage"; instead, the House of Delegates decision is being understood by such advocates as consistent with other ABA actions in recent years. In the words of Steve Weinstein, writing for EDGE (a publication which purports to be “the largest network of local Gay, Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender (GLBT) news and entertainment portals in the world”):


    The American Bar Association in recent years has actively supported gay causes. The once-conservative organization has done an about-face on marriage, the military and other hot-button issues.


    On this point, constitutionalists would probably agree with Mr. Weinstein; a growing member of conservative attorneys may view the ABA's action as contradicting both sound law and good judgment. In fact, the former president of the Ohio Bar Association decried the action of the House of Delegates as “suicidal.” A story at CNSNews.com (“American Bar Association Calls for Homosexual Marriage Nationwide”) reports:


    The ABA’s policy-making House of Delegates adopted Resolution 111, which states: “RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges state, territorial, and tribal governments to eliminate all of their legal barriers to civil marriage between two persons of the same sex who are otherwise eligible to marry.”

    The only voice of opposition came from former Ohio Bar Association President Leslie Jacobs, who said that it would be “cowardice” for him to remain silent about the issue. Jacobs urged his ABA colleagues to avoid overreaching into areas of contentious social policy.

    “We owe it to this House [of Delegates] to avoid action that would jeopardize the Association,” he said. “I personally believe it can be suicidal for the House to defer to an impulse to impose social and political and cultural values on the entire membership of the ABA – rather than to reflect some clear consensus of the bar.”

    “When an attitudinal value is not broadly shared, and when people of goodwill have sharply divergent views that are fundamental and – frankly – irreconcilable, it is axiomatic I believe that lawyers will be found not only to disagree with each other but to be engaged as advocates on both sides of the proposition on the merits, whether in litigation or in legislation,” Jacobs said.


    The action by the ABA was undertaken in the midst of the legal crisis in California over the fate of Proposition 8 and only a week after a federal judge, Vaughn Walker, deemed the action undertaken by a clear majority of California voters to be “unconstitutional.” According to the Christian Post:


    Notably, the adoption of resolution 111 on Wednesday came one week after U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled California’s Proposition 8 unconstitutional.

    And the keynote speaker of the 2010 ABA Annual Meeting in San Francisco was David Boies, who co-counseled with Ted Olson to overturn Prop. 8.

    Prop. 8, which California voters passed in 2008, effectively defined marriage in the state’s constitution as the union of one man and one woman.
    Last week, however, Walker determined that people of the same sex do have the right to marry and that the decision of the majority to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman violates that right.

    On Thursday, Walker denied a motion to stay the judgment he made, effectively allowing gay marriages to resume in the state starting next Wednesday.

    In an 11-page ruling, the judge said proponents of the stay did not show a likelihood of success on appeal nor the possibility of any irreparable harm absent a stay.


    With the timing of the ABA action thus closely coinciding with the action of Judge Walker, conservative attorneys, as well as other constitutionalists, are left with few alternatives but to continue the Proposition 8 fight all the way to the Supreme Court. Organizations such as the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) are continuing the fight in California, and within the legal community, in general. As the Christian Post reports:


    Ahead of the resolution’s passage, the Christian legal group Alliance Defense Fund stressed that the ABA does not speak for all U.S. lawyers and noted how three-quarters of American lawyers do not belong to the ABA.

    “The fact that ADF and other lawyers disagree with ABA on a number of controversial issues demonstrates the gross inaccuracy of ABA’s claim that it speaks for the U.S. legal profession,” remarked ADF Senior Legal Counsel Doug Napier, who resigned from the ABA because of its stance on controversial political issues.


    The August 18 ruling of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Perry v. Schwarzenegger is proof that the fight over homosexual "marriage" is far from over. With implementation of Judge Walker’s ruling effectively “on hold” for the rest of 2010, the ADF and others will continue to fight for the traditional, legal definition of marriage.


    SOURCE:
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/index....exual-marriage
    I have no opinion on gay mariage .I will say this though , would you expect anyting different from the ABA ?

  4. #3
    Well , I guess I have one opinion.That would be that this is not a Federal issue but an issue for the states

  5. #4
    who cares? the more stuff legalized the better.
    Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by libertybrewcity View Post
    who cares? the more stuff legalized the better.
    sounds like liberty!
    Insanity should be defined as trusting the government to solve a problem they caused in the first place. Please do not go insane!

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by libertybrewcity View Post
    who cares? the more stuff legalized the better.
    You are probably right and that is a good attitude, but....stuff like this always comes with unintended consequences that cannot be thought out at a Federal level.Leave it to the states.As an example , say they pass the law, some country preacher in the midwest is uncomfortable performing these and wishes not to.Is he going to be sued ?will he be suspended? locked up? Does not sound like Liberty.

  8. #7
    The ABA may be licking is chops figuring out how to fleece people with lawsuits.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    You are probably right and that is a good attitude, but....stuff like this always comes with unintended consequences that cannot be thought out at a Federal level.Leave it to the states.As an example , say they pass the law, some country preacher in the midwest is uncomfortable performing these and wishes not to.Is he going to be sued ?will he be suspended? locked up? Does not sound like Liberty.
    I agree that is should be a states issue. If the federal government stays out of the way, that is fine by me.

    If the Feds MUST make a policy decision, I say vote for it.
    Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9

    Thumbs down

    Gay marriage is already legal. Its called the 9th Amendment.
    "Democracy, too, is a religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses." - H.L. Mencken

    Μολὼν λάβε

    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt


  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by libertybrewcity View Post
    I agree that is should be a states issue. If the federal government stays out of the way, that is fine by me.

    If the Feds MUST make a policy decision, I say vote for it.
    They just cannot do anything without screwing it up and need to be held to the powers limited to them.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by libertybrewcity View Post
    who cares? the more stuff legalized the better.
    I do not believe in depriving people of any advantages to be gained.The thing about marriage is there is no advantage.Through legal means you can provide your partner ( same sex or not ) with the same things you could provide a spouse with.Wills , living will , life insurance,power of attorny etc.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Brooklyn Red Leg View Post
    Gay marriage is already legal. Its called the 9th Amendment.
    I will have to look at the ninth to see if I can figure out what you mean.

  15. #13

    9th

    The enumeration in the Constitution , of certain rights , shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    I do not believe in depriving people of any advantages to be gained.The thing about marriage is there is no advantage.Through legal means you can provide your partner ( same sex or not ) with the same things you could provide a spouse with.Wills , living will , life insurance,power of attorny etc.
    Really?
    Since when did same sex domestic partners get the survivors benefits from social security? Which makes it a federal issue, btw.

  17. #15
    I didn't know it was illegal. Oh they mean to make all states recognize such marriages.
    Well I can see the rationale for that since federal benefits are involved. Remove federal tax funded benefits though and then it can be a local issue, not a federal one.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    Really?
    Since when did same sex domestic partners get the survivors benefits from social security? Which makes it a federal issue, btw.
    Different sex domestic partners would not get that.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Why should we care about what ABBA thinks? They're Canadian aren't they?
    Definition of political insanity: Voting for the same people expecting different results.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    Really?
    Since when did same sex domestic partners get the survivors benefits from social security? Which makes it a federal issue, btw.
    That's another stupid, unconstitional welfare program the CONstitution was helpless to stop. Thanks for bringing that up.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    Really?
    Since when did same sex domestic partners get the survivors benefits from social security? Which makes it a federal issue, btw.
    All this is about who should get what welfare benefits?
    Definition of political insanity: Voting for the same people expecting different results.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by ChaosControl View Post
    I didn't know it was illegal. Oh they mean to make all states recognize such marriages.
    Well I can see the rationale for that since federal benefits are involved. Remove federal tax funded benefits though and then it can be a local issue, not a federal one.
    Another good reason to do away with unConstitutional Federal social tax and spend programs.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Elwar View Post
    All this is about who should get what welfare benefits?
    Yes, every thing else can be taken care of.It all boils down to un Constitutional Federal Social programs.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    Different sex domestic partners would not get that.
    So you are admitting you were wrong when you said:
    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    I do not believe in depriving people of any advantages to be gained.The thing about marriage is there is no advantage.
    Yes?

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    Different sex domestic partners would not get that.
    Which is precisely what defeats your argument, if same sex married couples get a benefit from their partner's social security, then gay couples should be able to have the same benefit.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Elwar View Post
    Why should we care about what ABBA thinks? They're Canadian aren't they?
    Australian ?



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Which is precisely what defeats your argument, if same sex married couples get a benefit from their partner's social security, then gay couples should be able to have the same benefit.
    And polygamists.
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Which is precisely what defeats your argument, if same sex married couples get a benefit from their partner's social security, then gay couples should be able to have the same benefit.
    You are right about Federal benefits.There should be none of these.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    So you are admitting you were wrong when you said:

    Yes?
    Yes, the Federal benefits. There should be none of these.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    And polygamists.
    Not sure how that would work, could get complicated and definately expensive.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    And polygamists.
    They would have to devide the benefit ?

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by ChaosControl View Post
    I didn't know it was illegal. Oh they mean to make all states recognize such marriages.
    Well I can see the rationale for that since federal benefits are involved. Remove federal tax funded benefits though and then it can be a local issue, not a federal one.
    Correct, remove Federal benefits and let the states decide.The states legislatures would have to work out the details so other peoples liberties were not violated by giving a specific group Liberty.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Christianity and homosexual "marriage"
    By tod evans in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: 09-09-2015, 01:05 PM
  2. Judge refuses to perform homosexual marriage
    By tod evans in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 09-05-2015, 11:44 PM
  3. Justin Amash criticized by same-sex marriage advocates, opponents
    By CaseyJones in forum Justin Amash Forum
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 03-31-2013, 06:13 PM
  4. Heterosexual vs. Homosexual Marriage is a liberal division tactic
    By PierzStyx in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 02-24-2012, 09:13 PM
  5. Bruce Fein Advocates Legalization Of Pot!
    By Matt Collins in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-04-2010, 03:39 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •