From Alaska to Patagonia, supporters of same-sex weddings won important legal victories in recent days. And I would bet that ”” despite strong Roman Catholic Church opposition ”” gay marriages will be legal in most countries of the hemisphere sooner than you think.
Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled Aug. 5 that Mexico City’s six-month-old law authorizing same-sex marriage is constitutional, rejecting an appeal from federal prosecutors. Five Mexican states have passed laws allowing same-sex weddings recently, and the Supreme Court ruling is expected to drive several others to do so shortly.
On Aug. 4, a San Francisco federal judge overturned California’s ban on same-sex marriages, drawing celebrations there. The case is likely to end up in the Supreme Court, which would decide if gays have a constitutional right to marry in all U.S. states.
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/08/10/98837/commentary-the-economics-of-gay.html#ixzz0wFVortvQ
I suppose that if the states want to start issuing “Shack-Up Licenses” to anyone who applies, that’s just a reflection of modern secular humanist culture. But, it has to be equitable, and available to everyone. Male-male, female-female, male-female, mother-son, brother-sister, and, yes, 3 or more. Possibly human-canine, etc.
What they do with the shack-up license after meeting with the justice of the peace isn’t any of my business, I guess. And, of course, there’s no real commitment. People who are shacked up are of course free to co-habit with any and all others.
Calling it “marriage,” though, is appalling. An abomination. Ick.
It is disconcerting that the good Judge so cavalierly discards concepts as morals. Morals have no place in legislation. Indeed in their drive to get what they regard as their rights the homosexuals must of necessity defend and demand a laze fare sexual morality and license. And it seems to be clear that Judge Walker and secular society agree with them.
This is the hallmark of a decadent society. Now such a society does not see itself as decadent, simply tolerant and enlightened. The only problem of course when such a society produces acts and behaviors that shock the secular conscience they are surprised and confused at the lack of morality. But having destroyed the foundations of morality they are in no position to appeal to it.
As society becomes more secular, decadent and as Christian persecution becomes the norm I suggest we look to the Christians in 1st Century Rome and study how they lived in a similar environment. We must strive to live our lives as God calls us and if that means walking away from the secular world and/or creating alternative Christian only structures we should do that. Jews and Muslims already do that. It is now our turn.
Make no mistake it will not be easy because the secular requirement for control and its intolerance in the name of tolerance is ruthless.
How can this be? State after state refused by substantial margins to allow ssm, and at the same time declared that marriage was for one man and for one woman. The message here was crystal clear. Even fruitcake California turned it down. Then how can it be that ssm shows signs of winning all the marbles? See today’s NYT, wherein the largest lawyers organization favors ssm by an overwhelming margin. It the issue simple that the left wing controls both courts and media,so that the appearance of overwhelming support in simply the appearance, not the reality? How can this be? What is happening? Surely the broad run of Americans cannot have suddenly changed their minds about ssm? Or have they? Or has the broad consensus of Americans simply been overwhelmed both by the media and the pressure exerted by this depression? Where has the public gone?
Larry
Actually #1, what is the difference between shacking up together with a marriage license and …. and marriage?
Or are you saying that roommates are now going to fight for the right to get married? I mean, if you can point to a trend I’ll examine it, but it seems like a bit of a kerfuffle to me. And perhaps you can explain the benefits of human-canine “marriages” to me.
Immediately following this post — where the crowning argument is the money the newly married couples will spend on tourism — comes a post about families making greater sacrifices to pay for college. The juxtaposition is damning.
No, no, #4. Not a “marriage license,” but a “Shack-up License.” The state’s recognition that the listed individuals are formally shacked up, and deserve certain benefits as the result of that.
Marriage is a lifelong commitment between one (human) man and one (human) woman.
There are those who are forcing society to recognize that it should legally recognize other types of relationships. OK…maybe…but don’t call it marriage! And certainly, don’t restrict it to homosexual relationships. That wouldn’t be fair to the other perverts out there.
Hardly a kerfuffle.
[blockquote]It the issue simple that the left wing controls both courts and media,so that the appearance of overwhelming support in simply the appearance, not the reality? How can this be? What is happening?[/blockquote]
What is happening is that We, the People, are getting an education that our democracy is now subordinated to a Ruling Class that can thwart the will of the people whenever it suits them, that we are no longer self-governing but are ruled by people with interests inimical to ours. In fact, they hate us.
It’s time for a new Constitutional Convention.
At the heart of this issue is the concept that individuals should be allowed to define what they believe constitutes a “significant relationship”, and then that definition should then be given equal support and approval by the legal system and society at large.
So, if two men say their relationship is as meaningful as that of a man and a woman (what has historically been called marriage) then they should be granted the right to formally establish that relationship, and have it treated like a marriage. The same holds true for 3 men and 2 women; their plural relationship, they say, is no less valuable or signficant just because more than two parties are involved, so it must be added to the list of endorsed practices. And while the concept of canine/human marriage may seem spurious, the logic that prevails in declaring the previous examples holds just as true – it is up to the individual to decide what the merits are; we have no right to pass judgement on one case in preference to others, once the notion of a “norm” has been discarded.
And that’s the whole problem. Until now, there were “norms” which society as a whole accepted, because they had genuine benefits. I’m unaware of any legitimate study which says that children receive a better upbringing and are more balanced and secure in anything other than a one mother and one father household. Certainly, other arrangements can work, but they all have shortcomings of one type or another. There’s a big difference between an adequate situation and the preferred situation.
What is happening is that We, the People, are getting an education that our democracy is now subordinated to a Ruling Class that can thwart the will of the people whenever it suits them, that we are no longer self-governing but are ruled by people with interests inimical to ours. In fact, they hate us.
I agree and disagree. It just happening on a larger scale. For hundreds of years the ruling class used the ideology of white supremacy( on White Christians primarily) for the purpose of using black labor for their advantage. This exploitation of an entire population of millions – with the complicity of millions- did not legally end until the 1960’s. So in a sense, this is judgment day. The chickens are coming home to roost. As Bonhoeffer wants stated “we must learn to read history from the eyes of the least”. If you do so, then history tells a different story and also reveals a different present as well.
I just wish that someone would have raised the issue of marrying pets. I would so have liked to have heard that presented in Federal Court.
10. i am not clear on what you are trying to say, can you please elaborate? i don’t know what you mean unless you are saying that the will of the majority will forever bow to any minority from now on because of the history of slavery in america. if so, then i have to agree, but please let me know if i misunderstood you.
Yes, I agree with #12 – really not following your argument, #10.
It would seem that #10 is saying that evil white America is receiving as judgment for the slavery of blacks (why no other races?) the scourge of homosexuality and its accompanying degradation of society as a whole. WOW!
I agree with #2 Br. Micheal. And I would add that I believe the America of my fathers may indeed be dying. But not to fear, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven.”
Actually Mark I’m opposed to same sex marriage. I’m a traditional Anglican. I was actually responding to # 7 assertion about the ruling class. That the ruling elites behavior is not new. That the ruling class (check out Tim Wise’s work on how White Supremacy was used on white christians to exploit Blacks)) has always functioned this way – not only in the US, but everywhere and in all times. Too many read American history through a non-christian lens (Think Augustine’s City of God), unfortunatelly, accepting the ruling elites interpretation of history.
In this country, the ruling elite had free reign with Blacks for hundreds of years (codified in law). However, since the 60’s that focus now has been expanded to include all vulnerable Americans. In other words, what many Americans are feeling is the process of becoming an old fashion American Negro. Or as John Paul II, so aptly described it, many Americans are now experiencing the full flowering of the “culture of death”. Ask any Black American over 45 they can acquaint you with it.
BTW, of course, I’m not saying that the ruling elites of other countries used White supremacy – that was a particular American Christian Heresy.
This article points out the absolute idiocy of gay “marriage”. My argument is that the state has NO BUSINESS whatsoever in coercing citizens to prefer or fund through their taxes other people’s chosen relationships UNLESS there is a strong state interest in so doing. Such a strong state interest exists for a male-female relationship in that it is ONLY a male-female combo that can procreate children. Reproducing results in an economic cost to the couple in terms of lost earning power. Thus there is a societal interest in relieving this economic burden.
Homosexuals, however, despite all of the crocodile tears about discrimination, tend to be one of the wealthiest sub-groups of western society. This article just proves this point – they spend more on vacations and take longer vacations – both signs of economic privilege. Thus it is absurd for government to use its coercive power to redistribute wealth from poorer folks to this extraordinarily wealthy segment of society.