Gay Marriage Battle Heats up in California
August 14th, 2008 at 02:29pm Mark Noonan
And one does wonder what effect this may have on Presidential voting in November:
ProtectMarriage.com, the campaign favoring Proposition 8, the California initiative that would ban same-sex marriage, on Tuesday announced the launch of the official grassroots effort dedicated to supporting the campaign. The organization Catholics for ProtectMarriage.com is led by the Knights of Columbus, the California Catholic Conference and Catholics for the Common Good.
Catholics for ProtectMarriage.com is chaired by Bill May, who is also chairman of Catholics for the Common Good.
“Our strong Catholic faith teaches us the importance of treating all of God’s children with love and respect, it also teaches us that marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of the family - the first school of love, peace and justice,” May said in a statement. “The ruling by the California Supreme Court nullifying the legal definition of marriage in state law was a shock to Catholics and other citizens who are concerned about how this will affect their own children’s understanding of marriage.”
California Catholics reportedly played a large role in the passage of Proposition 22 in 2000, which defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. The proposition was approved by more than 60 percent of California voters.
I’ll ask you non-Catholics - especially you liberals out there - to rely on my word here when I say that Catholics in California will vote very heavily in favor of this amendment…and it is a complete question of whether a hispanic Catholic in California will pull the Obama or McCain lever after pulling the lever in favor of traditional marriage? Could split their ticket, as it were, or could decide that while they are voting for preserving marriage they might as well vote in favor of the guy who also wants to preserve marriage, John McCain.
There is a lot up in the air here in 2008, not least being the question as to whether or not “values” will rate as high in 2008 as they did in 2004. The more they do so, the better for McCain - because the GOP owns traditional morality in much the same way Democrats own defeat in Iraq. Both sides have tied themselves too tightly to their positions to triangulate their way out of them - and I think that a least a portion of our 2006 defeat stemmed from the number of GOPers who ran afoul of law and/or morality in direct contravention of established GOP practice. But what worked against us in 2006 can work for us in 2008 - with the Democrats suffering the series of sexual political corruption scandals and a Presidential candidate pledged to very liberal social policies opposed to a GOPer pledged to a vigorous defense of morality in the public square.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Life Issues, Popular Culture, Republicans, Social Issues
49 Comments
1. OhioOrrin | August 14th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
civil authorities borrowed the name “marrage” from the religious sacrament which existed LONG before civil authority to join people in marrage.
the civil authorities must respect the religious traditions which they have, in essence, usurped.
call it a civil union which should apply to gay or straight when performed by civil authorities.
course the issue becomes more difficult when the a unitarian pastor performs a gay religious marrage ceremony since there’s no civil authority involved.
2. Chino Blanco | August 14th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
This Thursday, August 14th, from 5:30 p.m - 8:30 p.m. at 2020 Main Street, Irvine, California:
ACTION ALERT: Tell the Right-Wing Consultants NO to Prop 8!
http://www.theliberaloc.com/2008/08/13/action-alert-tell-the-right-wing-consultants-no-to-prop-8/
3. LiberalMind | August 14th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Put your ugly little divisive wedge issue on the ballot.
It will not matter.
McCain will never, ever win California. This state has far too many enlightened, progressive people in Los Angeles and San Fransisco alone.
4. jayhay | August 14th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
You can continue to try to maintain a haves/have nots, separate-but-equal division in this country, but the times are changing, and the younger generation is not obsessed with who others love as you are, and this wall is coming down. Families are families, and how they look is not for you to decide, even if it goes against your “values” (which you, appropriately, put in quotes in your post).
Keep your side of the street clean, and get your nose out of other peoples bedrooms. There’s a point where your talk of liberty and freedom and equality has to square with reality. It’s like “Thou shalt not kill” - you either mean it, or you don’t.
5. Upstart | August 14th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Deleted - off topic.
6. Jeremiah | August 14th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
The key here, is that when November arrives, the people will have one of two choices, both of which have shown support for the homosexual agenda. Even though McCain has show to be lenient on the issue, he is still in a position to appoint those Supreme Court judges which will call most of the shots, and will maintain marriage in its proper definition, and this is most critical to what is at stake for the future of America’s youth. The Christian people have lost the battle for our schools, and thus, children have been taken by force to train them to be anti-Christian, anti-God - so their mindset is opposed to all that is good, as they are radically formed to hate the message of morality that is critical to their future.
Christians can renew the voice of truth within the school system if Christians will put their mind to opposing the ACLU with all their might. Any other way, and Barack Obama will lead us into a darkness that is un-paralleled to anything that has beset us in the history of America.
Christian people MUST regain the courage to stand up for what is right, before ALL hope is lost for America.
Contact neighbors and friends, everywhere, and tell them to vote for John McCain for President.
7. CanadianObserver | August 14th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Deleted - off topic.
8. Jeremiah | August 14th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Deleted - off topic.
9. js | August 14th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Deleted - off topic.
10. js | August 14th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Deleted - off topic.
11. BARRASSO | August 14th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Deleted - off topic.
12. Jeremiah | August 14th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Deleted - off topic.
13. CanadianObserver | August 14th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Deleted - off topic.
14. 42 | August 14th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Deleted - off topic.
15. Jeremiah | August 14th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Deleted - off topic.
16. 42 | August 14th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Deleted - off topic.
17. cam | August 14th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Here’s a simple solution. Have the government get out of the marriage business. Leave that up to churches. Then, if a couple wants to get together and be considered one in the eyes of the law, let them sign a contract. At that point all of the laws which apply to community property, responsibility to children etc. would be all that the law cared about.
If one got married and then did not sign a contract the courts would see these two people as two separate entities and neither would have any right to make a claim against the other. If one is fully devoted to the other and feels strongly about their commitment why should the government be there to enforce this covenant between God and the married couple.
Of course, if you go to the boat show with your buddy and go in on the purchase of a boat, you both have a claim to that property. The court recognizes this now. It does not require a marriage for this to work.
Bottom line is that before any talk of gay marriage even started somewhere around 50% of all marriages ended in divorce. The problem is that many people go into marriage without real commitment. The law can’t change that. It is a case of personal responsibility.
18. navydad | August 14th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
If any of you here believe in creation, then you must believe that we humans make mistakes, eg. cloning, etc. Now, imagine somewhere, long ago, two humans made the mistake of having sex even though they were blood relatives. What would be the consequences? Possible Downs Syndrome, or some genetic deficiency where an extra arm grows out the side of one’s head…LOL!
Here’s my scientific, not religous belief, and I’m sure some conservatives will jump my sh#t for this:
It’s not a matter of choice (in general), and whether you choose to believe it or not, humans cause these genetic deficiencies all the time through inbreeding, etc…..and yes, there are those that choose this lifestyle, but there’s not one heterosexual person I know that would knowingly “choose” to be gay…period, and those that I do know (which is somewhere between 20 & 30) are educated, upstanding citizens that are no different than heterosexuals…they simply aren’t attracted to the opposite sex. Now, is this wrong? Only God knows and since this one minuscule issue in their life is a bit screwed up, they’re still all good, God fearing people….THAT WISH THEY WEREN”T GAY!!
Thirty-five years ago,I too had the belief that it was all about choice…but it’s not.
We need to look at homosexuality as a genetic issue, rather than a religous issue…for once.
19. Kahn | August 14th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
LiberalMind, “Los Angeles and San Fransisco alone” Indeed. Alone.
And the rest of the state, where thy produce oil, build planes, shoot rockets, and grow food is Republican. Liberals, quite literally suck. The big cities in the west and in the northeast suck resources and products from the rest of the country. YOU are the consumers.
Personally, I don’t care about this issue. But have several friends who do. In fact, they feel VERY strongly about it. Surprisingly strongly about it.
We’ll see.
Meanwhile, the lefts position on oil and now Georgia is sinking the Chosen One like a rock. Keep it up. Keep telling people who you leftist loons really are and how you really feel. The more the better. Spread your cynical message from the hilltops.
You are quite dis-likable.
20. Rich | August 14th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
I was thinking Barney Frank could do it.
21. CanadianObserver | August 14th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
there’s not one heterosexual person I know that would knowingly “choose” to be gay…period, and those that I do know (which is somewhere between 20 & 30) are educated, upstanding citizens that are no different than heterosexuals…they simply aren’t attracted to the opposite sex.
21. navydad | August 14th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
——————————-
Wow, navydad, I’m pleasantly surprised to see your enlightened insight on this issue.
22. HeyHey | August 14th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
“LiberalMind, “Los Angeles and San Fransisco alone” Indeed. Alone.”
Doesn’t matter Kahn, majority rules…
The amount of homophobic and religious tripe in this thread are astounding. This is nothing more but a wedge issue. It probably will not be an issue in the future. Just think back 25 years, then 50, then 75, then 100. America has come so far yet some people want to bring it back to biblical times or the 1950’s. Think forward. think progressive. The world is progressive.These little issues do nothing but cloud the future.
23. Jay Gaultieri | August 14th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Even if Proposition 8 passes California will have domestic partnerships. Look, I’m not really thrilled with gay marriage, but let them have a civil union where they can go down to City Hall, signs some forms, pay some fees, and be able to make legal and medical decisions for each other.
24. js | August 14th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
there is no reason on earth for anyone to promote homosexual conduct as “normal” as an example for our children to emulate jay.
none.
25. Henry J. | August 15th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Are you all really such alarmists on this site?
26. ned reck | August 15th, 2008 at 12:54 am
Deleted - off topic.
27. Jonathan | August 15th, 2008 at 1:00 am
because the GOP owns traditional morality…
The Republicans own traditional morality?
Exactly, which members were you referring to, Noonan?
Newt Gingrich, the architect of the Contract With America, who cheated on his wife while she had cancer?
Or do you mean Mark Foley, the congressman who was anti-gay, but we later found out that he had a thing for young boys through the internet?
Maybe you were talking about Larry Craig, another anti-gay senator who was caught with pants down and a make hooker on his knees in the stall of an airport bathroom?
For the party that talks a big game about moral values, they sure happen to be the biggest offenders.
28. Nevada Pundit | August 15th, 2008 at 1:37 am
In all honesty I think that what people do behind closed doors after the age of 18 is completely up to them. I won’t judge them for their private life, it’s theirs. However, my one complaint against same sex marriage is that is seriously eases the adoption process. While I don’t think that gay couples would be better or worse parents, I do not agree that any child should be brought up to think that homosexuality is the proper order of nature, it isn’t, and reproduction alone proves this.
A lot of people disagree with me here but then again blogs are all about debating opinions and this is mine.
29. Mark Noonan | August 15th, 2008 at 1:52 am
Jonathan,
Well, you’ve got some Democrats who want to win the war, too - but Democrats own defeat, in spite of that, just as the GOP owns traditional morality in spite of the fact that we’ve had some failures.
30. Mark Noonan | August 15th, 2008 at 1:53 am
Nevada,
You keep pointing out the obvious and our liberals will go into vapor lock - logic works on them like kryptonite on Superman.
31. Henry J. | August 15th, 2008 at 1:54 am
You don’t own traditional morality. Good god, man.
DOWN WITH THIS SORT OF THING!
Careful now.
32. Henry J. | August 15th, 2008 at 1:55 am
>>You keep pointing out the obvious and our liberals will go into vapor lock - logic works on them like kryptonite on Superman.
You guys - and it’s not even Republicans or one party in itself, as that’s pretty childish, but you guys in particular - seem extremely adept at avoiding posts when they’re detrimental to whatever inane point you’re trying to make.
33. Mark Noonan | August 15th, 2008 at 1:56 am
Jay,
On balance I think that an overwhelming majority would be in favor of some sort of domestic partnership legislation EXCEPT for the fact that gay rights advocates are trying to do an end run ’round by people and have gay marriage imposed by judicial fiat. It isn’t so much gay marriage that has people in an uproar as it is the fact that clearly liberal elites are attempting to tell the people what is what.
If the gay rights people had just gone about with reasonable, slow steps through the legislative and initiative process, they would go a lot further and never would have provoked this backlash which, I believe, will eventually result in a constitutional amendment defining marriage, and that is the end of gay marriage for good.
34. Mark Noonan | August 15th, 2008 at 1:56 am
Henry,
And as soon as you say something germane I’ll respond a second time to your comments.
35. Mark Noonan | August 15th, 2008 at 1:58 am
navy,
Uh, yeah, there are - that is, plenty of people who lived a heterosexual life and then switched over to gay and then back over to heterosexual - but, even then, that is not what is at issue here.
What is at stake is whether or not the courts or the people will decide what constitutes marriage, and what effect this battle will have on the November elections.
36. Henry J. | August 15th, 2008 at 1:59 am
Brilliant, Marky Mark. You truly are the epitome of true logic and reasooOAAHAHAHA.
No, seriously. Keep on keepin’ on. This is by far becoming my favorite blog.
37. Mark Noonan | August 15th, 2008 at 2:00 am
Liberal,
This issue didn’t exist until activists attempted to force it through the courts.
Had everyone decided to play by the rules, none of this would be happening. The division here, as in all our divisions, is the responsibility of the left side of the aisle.
38. Henry J. | August 15th, 2008 at 2:04 am
“There wouldn’t be any problem if people didn’t disagree with us!”
39. Jonathan | August 15th, 2008 at 2:18 am
29. Mark Noonan | August 15th, 2008 at 1:52 am
Jonathan,
Well, you’ve got some Democrats who want to win the war, too - but Democrats own defeat, in spite of that, just as the GOP owns traditional morality in spite of the fact that we’ve had some failures.
Mark, re-read the intent of my post.
Your party doesn’t own traditional morality. It’s a load of bulls**t to say that you do.
40. Upstart | August 15th, 2008 at 9:00 am
So many comments deleted Noonan; that is the usual indication you have been caught in typical neocon hypocrisy.
41. navydad | August 15th, 2008 at 10:19 am
CO,
I’ve always taken a scientific approach when it applies to human behavior. Unlike some, I do believe there is a small percentage of the gay community that is mentally deranged into believing they are truly gay.
Mark,
I’m with you on the issue..please don’t get me wrong here. But I personally have never known a person that has “fully switched sides” (that was truly gay) and come back to our side…it simply doesn’t happen unless they are bi-sexual which is a whole different psychobiological issue. Unless of course they’re one of the mentally deranged souls I spoke about. Then all bets are off.
42. sue | August 15th, 2008 at 11:54 am
I believe that there are young people and vulnerable people that are enticed into homosexuality by others-in other words they are making a choice they wouldn’t otherwise make if they were not told that it is “normal” and “just another choice”.
And while I don’t believe that there is a genetic link to homosexuality, I’m willing to concede that there may be. HOWEVER that does not make it OK. It is still wrong. Essentially it is in the “If it feels right, it is right and you have to let me do it” that is much of the liberal mantra.
If you say that homosexuality is “normal” and an acceptable lifestyle then you also have to agree that group marriage, bestiality and having more than 1 husband/wife is OK as well.
That is what I believe, however I could care less what 2 people want to do in the privacy of their own home. What angers me, and prompts me to speak out about homosexuality and same sex marriage is that they want to involuntarily impose it on everyone by going through the courts and they are going behind our backs and indocrinating our children through the school systems. Claiming that anyone that doesn’t agree with and even celebrate homosexuality is guilty of hate speach is reprehensible to me as well.
The gay activists will accept nothing less than everyone accepting and celebrating homosexuality. In otherwords I’m supposed to change firm beliefs that I have about morality, and if they cannot change my beliefs then they will legislate it so that I cannot state what my beliefs are, and cannot teach my children what those beliefs are either. All in the name of “hate speach” and special rights for gays.
What you are seeing is a backlash because of the actions of the activists.
43. js | August 15th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
the comparison of homosexual conduct and drug addicts/alchoholics is a solid beacon and people should listen to it….people kick drug habits and live normal lives…homosexuals can do the same thing…the thousands of little synaptic connections that fire in the brain that signal a specific behavior brings pleasure are heavily utilized when the same pleasure is repeated over and over again…building a distinct type of “path” in the brain which is a signal of reward for the behavior….
it is difficult for a person to overcome that action/reward in the synaptic habit built in thier brain….people feel very bad when they stop feeding it…and relapse is a very high incidence…some people never can do it…
but its not genetic…its learned behavioral patterns…whiles it true that the weakness to this type of addictive behavior may be linked genetically…each generation must learn its own bad habit…given the suceptibility of the participant…many times in our society we see the heavy mixture of drug/alchohol abuse and deviant sexual behavior…which exposes the socialogical pathology in the context of human reciprocity
44. Jeremiah | August 15th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Sue,
You nailed it in the first three lines.
Homosexuality is becoming more widespread because children in high school and college are being forced to listen and learn about sodomy…and the worst part about it, as you say, they are being taught that it’s “morally acceptable”, “healthy”, and “good birth control” … So, all in all, it’s a course on how one can destroy themselves.
I was going to mention earlier, but js beat me too it, about the similarities in alcohol, drugs and sodomy … these are all choices that one must make, but anyway, I recently heard a sermon on youtube, by Dr. James D. Kennedy, a well known Pastor in the state of Florida … and he explained how Satan puts out deception, which is more simply a lie…and Satan has used this tactic ever since the beginning of time, from the fall … Today, we find Satan’s tactics to be in the form of television adds, on billboards everywhere … for instance, on television you will often see commercials on aloholic beverages, and they always show the beginnings…a team of horses pulling a slay with two large kegs of beer on it prancing through the snow, and then inside a beer joint, they show the beer being poured into a large mug with a head of foam running over the top, and they give you this nice warm experience, so to speak … that is the beginning, that they always show, but they never show the ends of the ways thereof…like the man lying in his own vomit, and flies going in and out of his mouth and all over him … the Bible talks about these ends, it says, ‘At last, it stingeth like and adder!’ At last, it stingeth like and adder! …. Then, in the book of James, we learn what the end of such lifestyles lead too … James 1:15 - Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.’
In verse twelve, it says, ‘Blessed is the man who endureth temptation, for when he has been tried, he shall be rewarded with his crown.’
We all have a choice, unless we are born mentally retarded and can’t make a perception between right and wrong. Even these folks the left wishes to destroy, like Terry Schiavo … These are the ideologies that Margaret Sanger vehemently touted to the rest of the world, and the Nazi’s, the ideology of eugenics or ethnic cleansing - which is a hatred for life, a hatred for God’s love.
Given that we are given a choice, suffice it to say, it seems as if that is the way it should work…unfortunately, the left has scrapped this freedom to choose, and are using our schools to force children against their choices and teach them that their is a “better” way. Just like Hitler, he envisioned a “perfect” society, where they would all be “like-minded” and was determined to not let anything get between him and his “dream”. In Hitler’s vision, there were nearly 12 million Jews murdered in the name of “science”, as he thought science somehow proved that the Jews were and “inferior” race, so they used the education system to incorporate hatred of the Jewish race into the minds of children. We are witnessing the same thing here in America, Christians are being labeled “bigots”, “homophobes”, and other such things in order to shut down dissenting opinions, and this is what children are learning in high school and college around the country…they are learning to hate Christianity, and how they got this, was by regulating what can actually be taught in school…they finally got their wish when the Supreme Court adopted the meme “Separation of Church and State”, which, if interpreted correctly, is meant to protect Christians and all faiths from the government telling them what they can and cannot do, the ACLU then conveniently uses private and who knows possibly government funding from the DNC to shut the lights out on the young minds of the twenty first century and beyond, which we may not last that long seeing how things have degenerated over the years with the ACLU suppressing the truth from entering its rightful place.
We could go deeper into the problem, but when drawing it down to the wire, the fundamental problem is that, Christians have sat back and allowed the ACLU and other various organizations, most notably the Supreme Court to erode our rights and they have in turn been forcing children to hear lies instead of the truth.
God bless, you do good work!
God bless you too, js!
Have a good weekend!
:)
45. Henry J. | August 15th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Ho hum and sigh.
>>And while I don’t believe that there is a genetic link to homosexuality, I’m willing to concede that there may be. HOWEVER that does not make it OK. It is still wrong.
How so?
“I’ll acknowledge that it might be natural and predetermined, but it’s still wrong, because…well, it just is!”
>>Essentially it is in the “If it feels right, it is right and you have to let me do it” that is much of the liberal mantra.
Again, you are wrong. If that was true, then they’d be lobbying for pedophilia to become legalized - “Oh, that’s coming soon!” Rabble rabble rabble.
>>If you say that homosexuality is “normal” and an acceptable lifestyle then you also have to agree that group marriage, bestiality and having more than 1 husband/wife is OK as well.
Well, you listed polygamy twice - really, there are verifiable problems that arise with that concept that have to do with the emotions of all involved, but it is no one’s business but their own.
Bestiality, as something of an amateur animal cognition theorist as well as an anthropologist, has really only had a stigma against it since some time in the Middle Ages - every culture on Earth has, at one point or another, had bestiality as a part of its everyday cultural life.
Yes, even the early Canaanite religion, from which the Abrahamic religions came from.
As our studies into different species advances, we’re learning that we’re not at all that far apart. Apes, wolves, and penguins, among various others, we’ve found share societies as complex as our own - though far more similar to that of early man (OH NO WHAT ABOUT EVE) and the various tribal societies. Granted, domesticated animals are different in quite a few ways from wild animals, their cerebral makeup isn’t. Various studies have shown that dogs are both rational and etc.
The only real thing that kind of put’s me off about it are the people themselves, not the concept. They’re oftentimes extraordinarily creepy.
46. Henry J. | August 15th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
>>We could go deeper into the problem, but when drawing it down to the wire, the fundamental problem is that, Christians have sat back and allowed the ACLU and other various organizations, most notably the Supreme Court to erode our rights and they have in turn been forcing children to hear lies instead of the truth.
What rights of yours have they eroded? What lies are they feeding your children? From what I know, homosexuality is rarely mentioned in school, and if you’re referring to “EVILution” - rabble rabble rabble - then you might as well be condemning Galileo as well.
As far as your rights go - guys. You are not the Jews. You are not black, and this is not the early sixties. You are still allowed in every building, every bar, and every bank. You are allowed to preach on street sides - the more vehement of you are even allowed to protest soldier’s funerals. Please, shut the fuck up.
47. What? | August 15th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Mark writes,
“This issue didn’t exist until activists attempted to force it through the courts.
Had everyone decided to play by the rules, none of this would be happening. The division here, as in all our divisions, is the responsibility of the left side of the aisle.”
Mark, please explain how to “play by the rules.”
48. Tremaine ( | August 16th, 2008 at 12:44 am
Okay, a few things:
I disagree with a few points that are hinted at but not directly related to your points. The primary being that traditional morality is somehow better than more modern morality. Aside from being the call of a failing ideal, it also hints at a certain level of self righteousness.
Anyway, I agree that you and other Catholics should stand up for your beliefs, though I can’t understand why you cling to them. You’re doing a good thing, even if it is disagreeable. I wish you the best of luck.
However, your point of the Republican Party having an ownership over traditional morality is entirely untrue. It’s clearly either a rallying technique or a delusion. The two different parties are just clinging to different parts of that morality. I notice parallels between the old testament rules and morality on the side of the Republicans and some more New Testament morality on the Democrat side. Quite frankly we need both for a Bible.
Now, onto a few points I noticed in the responses:
Homosexual marriage won’t really have any affects on the heterosexual marriage, aside from stealing wedding dates, of course. It will just change for the people it actually applies to.
Gay marriage won’t lead to any other new forms of marriage, as neither god, the government, or the gay lobbyists support bestiality or polygamy. Actually, since rabbits don’t have legal rights, they can’t have any rights to marriage in the first place. Not even straight marriage. True story.
No real change has ever been gained through sitting quietly and waiting for the system. Though of course, for the past few hundred years or so, mainly the Catholics have been doing the oppression, but that’s the past. Some Examples: Blacks in the ’60s (no, gay=/=black, but neither would have gained anything without making their presence known), Jews leaving Egypt (see blacks), women’s rights, etc.
Anyway, on the issue of marriage itself: It’s a religious idea, not a government institution, so the church should decide. Not just the Catholic Church, but each religion individually. Civil Unions are really just good backup plans.
49. js | August 16th, 2008 at 8:06 am
from the git-go we see satan attempting to mimic and mock the precepts in the bible…and today is not any different…
marraige is a religious rite, the solemn joining of two people under God as one…when a man leaves his fathers home and cleaves to his wife (and vise-versa)…and it has been recognized thusly in america for over 2 centuries…government taxation of the right has gone on for almost as long as it has existed in america…and that does not make it a civil act, but government taxation of a religious act…and now…homosexuals propose legislation taking the religious act and compelling our government to make laws violating the religious nature of marriage…its unconstitutional from the start…and the proposal of “civil union” is nothing more than a mockery of marraige…in that it can no more replicate the familial nature of a true marraige, nor benefit society by providing the next generation…but they put forward a claim to rights that productive members of society, who are beneficial to society, and bring forth the new generation from the pangs of birth right through thier graduation of schools and presentation as legal adults on our free market….
holding up homosexual behavior and claiming it is a natural state of individual sexual choice is nothing more than a pig in a poke..anyone who claims and clings to homosexuality suffers from a state of delusion…much like an alchoholic that denies his alchoholism…government has no place to reward those who conflict in the laws of nature with abominations against it..and to call them equal in society…because they want to celebrate thier state of confusion…because they have no intent to the natural use of thier reproductive system nature created in thier bodies, only the abuse of the natural human body for unnatural purposes (selfish lust to put it bluntly)…we no more celebrate prostitutes nor nymphomaniacs with these rights (but we either punish them or treat them for a paraphilia), why should we do any different to those whose perversion of thier natural bodies entales sodomistic traits that provide no benefit to anyone but themselves?
certainly, a marrage between two people who have children and raise them, instilling morality and faith, God, Country, Honor, so to speak, should never be compared to the selfish and perverse nature of the sodomites…