August 8, 2010

Constitutional Conundrum

If one sexual orientation is befitting of minority status, wouldn't all sexual orientations thereby deserve the same?

When you say that one race cannot be discriminated against because their race makes them a minority, you are saying that for all races.

If you argue the same in court for sexual orientation then other sexual orientations can argue the exact same thing. Courts cannot ignore precedence when considering such cases and could not legally find against one and not the other.

Sexual orientation is not a minority status. Making it one for the purpose of driving an agenda is a slippery slope which will reak havoc on the institution of marriage.

Either they are too dumb to know that; or it is their intent. Which do you think it is?

by: Keith D. Rodebush


  1. In my opinion, the government shouldn't have anything to do with Marriage in the first place. People do not need to be encouraged to unite with the purpose of creating a family in mind. It is just one more way that the government has its grubby little fingers in your personal life.

    So lets make this argument go away altogether. Make marriage a social issue. NOT a legal one.

  2. That's exactly where it was until this judge deemed it a constitutional right. Thousands of years of human existence and this has always been a domestic tradition. Now, one man says, no; it's a constitutional right. Just one more in a long string of government getting involved in our daily lives. This is what the Founding Fathers warned against. Once you let the government in, they never leave, until you kick them out, with ballots or bullets.