Ariel Owens, 30, and Joseph Barham, 27, stood at Ceremony Location A about 9 a.m. Mr. Barham’s hands shook as Mr. Owens placed a ring on his finger. Moments later, they were pronounced “spouses for life.”
“I don’t know if it is a political statement,” said Mr. Barham, who works in human resources and lives in Richmond, Calif., across the bay. “I’m just marrying the man I love.”
California tourism officials were hoping for an influx of marriage-minded gay couples. Melissa Levine, 43, and Terry Levine, 51, traveled from Tucson to Indio, Calif., east of Los Angeles, with their two sons to apply for a marriage license. They later wed in Palm Springs.
“Why did we come? Because it’s not legal for us to marry in Arizona,” said Melissa Levine, a family physician. “After 18 years together, we thought it was about time.”
Unlike in 2004, time seemed less of an issue for prospective newlyweds. San Francisco had deputized about 40 volunteers, mostly city employees, to perform the marriage vows, but by midafternoon, most sat idly by. Mayor Gavin Newsom, who set off a stampede in 2004 by ordering the county clerk to issue same-sex licenses, even took time to grab a coffee. “Four years ago, I barely got out of my office,” Mr. Newsom said.
How many of these “marriages” will end up in divorce within 5 years? Of course, there is no gay divorce because gay marriage is the final expression of perfect godly union. Gay marriage blasphemously presumes to lecture God on how He SHOULD have created marriage. It’s what THEY want, not what God wants. Remember that great quote from The Great Divorce, “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘[i]Thy[/i] will be done.'”
May God have mercy on them…and on us if we are not loving the lost…
“How many of these “marriages†will end up in divorce within 5 years?”
As compared to the edifying and oh most holy statistic of 1 in 3 heterosexual marriages that end in divorce? If marriage is disintegrating and in trouble (and I agree that it is), homosexuals are not to blame. Heterosexual couples have done a very fine job on their own of desecrating that sacrament! Homosexuals are the scapegoat in the sexuality debates whilst divorce and remarriage receive full inclusion amongst reasserters.
What you say about heterosexual marriage is true enough. Homosexual are not to blame. But then, No one ever said they were. However, this remains true, that the concept of marriage is still primary and strong, so much so that the concept of marriage, one mand and one woman, is very strong in your mind, even as you score the contemporary results. What ssm WILL do is dissolve the definition of that concept, so that marriage and divorce will become equally meaningless, merely something people do, like eating or sleeping. You are condemning present practice; you are not condemning the concept. Ssm will destroy the concept. LM
#4
All of this is conjecture at this point. What if the concept of marriage was strengthened by same sex marriages and have a positive effect on marriage in general? What if same sex marriage is the door towards a recovery of the sacred in the sacrament of marriage? Just what would you do if God chose this “foolish” way, led by those denied marriage for so long that they model a commitment, sacrifice and stability that rejuvinates heterosexual marriages as well? They can’t do much worse! What if SSM is the Rahab for such a time as this? God works in mysterious ways HIS wonders to perform!
Spin as you will 5, and defend it as you will. You call yourself a Christian and yet shake your fist in God’s face. The Lord has spoken on this issue, but do as you will.
You may say “what if” #5, but this is the idlest of speculations. If we speak of probabilities, we may better ask ” What are the chances that ssm will restore marriage to its previous integrity? ” Since the evidence so far is that homosexuals divorce at much the same rate as heterosexuals, the probability is miniscule. As to what God is choosing, neither you nor I can have any idea; speculation for the sake of your agenda is as meaningless as speculation can get.
What is much more probable is that ssm will grow weak rapidly as is the present case in Mass. Mass. has an enormous number of homosexuals, but very few marry now. The burst of sudden weddings will dry up because so few homosexuals are interested in marriage; the Mass numbers suggest this, after all. The numbers will be so small that there can be no mass, cumulative effect on the actual practice of heterosexual marriage. What it can do is open the doors to the unlimited abuse of the original concept: If two homosexuals can marry because of civil rights, so can three or four. Nothing can stop this because of the precedent created in Mass and Cal. When this occurs, what will marriage mean? How can the concept be characterized?
Besides, how do you respond to B. Michael? Is scripture simply to be set aside in the name of your agenda? If he is wrong, explain how this can be? Br. Michael has, in scorn I daresay, restated the modern American creed: “…but do as you will.” The consequence of this egocentric belief is the steady disarticulation of human relationships and social identity. Larry
Br Michael and Larry Morse, hogwash.
1. “The Lord” has not spoken — [i]men[/i] have written. Sometimes (hopefully a [i]lot[/i] of the times) by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit…and perhaps also from a personal theology and agenda, in a context that is so very different from our own. Shaking our fists in God’s face? Not. Embracing God, praising God, thanking God is much closer to the mark.
2. “Speculation for the sake of your agenda is as meaningless as speculation can get.” Please see comment #1 and say the same to that person.
3. SSM has not necessarily grown weak in MA. The number of SSMs is down, yes — but think of the burst of loving energy generated when SSM was first allowed, and how patient people had waited for the opportunity to wed — and wed they did. There may always be a smallish number of gay men and Lesbians who choose marriage; this does not make access to the institution unimportant, however.
4. “So few homosexuals are interested in marriage.” Speculation of your own. That not all are interested in marriage is true (see my #3), but for a variety of reasons. And this is not a reason to deny access to marriage.
5. “…the evidence so far is that homosexuals divorce at much the same rate as heterosexuals” — citation, please? [i]Reliable[/i] statistics, please? I’m not saying you are wrong, but do nearly 50% of SSMs really end in divorce? How long have you been tracking this?
PadreWayne, If the Lord has not spoken here, then He has not spoken. Turn in your collar false prophet.
I got my nuumbers from the little Mass has published and the number from Vermont where civil unions were first made and have come apart with substantial frequency. I wish I had a web site to refer you to, but I pay as little attention to web sites as I can. T19 is for me an oddity. Larry