Constitutional Rights

The US Constitution was written with the purpose of both restricting the government and protecting the rights of the people from the government. The types of rights it protects are defined as pre-existing, natural, and/or God-given. Likewise the constitutions of the various states in this country. The Constitution does not attempt to protect that which is unnatural. So when a Florida judge yesterday decided that a law restricting adoption to traditional married couples was unconstitutional, she was declaring that the constitution protects that which nature itself (basic biology) has denied.

Some try to pervert this by arguing that not all traditional couples are willing or able to have children of their own. This specious argument is merely an attempt to divert attention from the basic, natural, biological way of things by focusing on the exceptions. An exception does not a rule make. It still takes a male and a female to produce children, and the God-given (or natural) design is that children have both a father and mother. Those who argue that all children need is love are naive at best and deceptive at worst. Today's children are tomorrow's adults. Yes, children need food, clothing, shelter, education, direction, values, friendship, love, and so much more. But perhaps the most important thing children need is the perspective, lessons, and skills they gain from two beings that are different in nature: a father and mother.

Others will attempt to twist the notion of natural rights by pointing out that humans, by nature, don't belong on the moon. The Constitution protects the people from the government. It does not prevent the people from choosing the activities they will pursue, and it does not create rights—it protects natural, pre-existing, God-given rights. If the people decide to adopt a law reserving adoption for a married man and woman, then the government's place is to abide by it, conditioned on that law fitting in with the governing document, the Constitution that was created by the people (the "We the People" in the preamble). To argue that the Constitution prevents the people from enacting laws that preserve natural, pre-existing rights is ridiculous. To argue that the Constitution protects the biologically impossible was never the intent and is totally absurd.

References
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97478955
Excerpt:

"A Miami judge ruled Tuesday that there is no rational, scientific or moral reason that sexual orientation should be a barrier to adopting children, finalizing the adoption of two siblings by their gay foster father."

The lie of "human rights" tribunals

What happens when the intolerant decide that freedom of speech should be one-sided? Those in the United States only need look north for the answer. If you don't think it can happen here, then you haven't been paying attention.

Try this on for size. A minister is fined for expressing his opinion in a letter to the editor.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODNhMTMyYjhhZGNkZGY5OGJhMjQ1YTM4MzEwNGRlODM=

"In June of 2002, a Canadian minister, the Rev. Stephen Boissoin wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper in Alberta condemning the "homosexual agenda." It was in no manner close to what could be construed as hate speech. But for having an unpopular and allegedly discriminatory opinion, two years later an anti-Christian activist brought a complaint about Boissoin was brought before the Alberta "human rights" commssion. In 2007, the Alberta tribunal found him guilty of, well, something. And Just last week they finally handed down their sentence against Boissoin."

If that doesn't strike close to home for you, check out the persecution of one of Canada's largest magazines.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmVmYzFlNGRhNzhhNGJkMzRlZDE0Nzc1NjFjNTg0NTY=

"At issue is a cover story National Review’s own Mark Steyn wrote for the Canadian newsweekly Maclean’s, titled “The Future Belongs to Islam.” An excerpt from Steyn’s bestselling book America Alone, the article highlighted the fact that demographic trends suggest that Muslims may well become a majority in much of Europe and that this obviously represents a threat to Europe as we know it. A few Muslim law students objected to the article and filed multiple complaints with Canada’s national and provincial “human rights” tribunals and presto! Steyn’s opinion and Maclean’s right to print it have now been effectively criminalized."