Massachusetts OKs gay 'marriage'

Washington Times ^ | Wednesday, November 19, 2003 | By Cheryl Wetzstein

[JohnHuang2]

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court yesterday ruled that homosexual couples have a constitutional right to marry, but stopped short of ordering the state to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Instead, the justices, by a 4-3 vote, stayed their judgment for 180 days, "to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."

[JohnHuang2]

Wednesday, November 19, 2003

Quote of the Day by South40

[Bobby777]

Signs of the Times ...

[Cindy]

JESUS DEFINES MARRIAGE: "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore, they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." -from THE BIBLE: Matthew 19:4-6

International Healing Foundation

[bulldogs]

"JESUS DEFINES MARRIAGE..."


Thanks Cindy. You always find the right passage for the article. It Keeps me strong.

[Cindy]

Thank you Bull Dogs.
I appreciate that.

Cindy

[Cannonphoder]

Something to think about:

If you approve Gay marriage, how many Gays? 2, 3 or 5 people? You say 2, but their activists (who many have heard, and I have read) say "we will challenge that in court immediately". Well, they are.

A lot of Gays prefer group sex or at least an "openness" in their choice of partners (multiple studies prove this as documented in the book "The Male Couple"). How do you quantify the limits? Where does it end?

Age of Consent laws:
What's the minimum age? Homosexual activists are doing everything possible to eliminate "age of consent" laws, because their literature is filled with glorification of pedophilia.

Gay males are just 2.2 percent of the population, but they are responsible for over 1/3 of all sexual crime against minors (5).

Marriage can become useless because we could end up minimizing its importance until it was trivial and ineffective. Once you've opened Pandora's box, the Constitution has no limits built in to prevent society from eliminating Marriage all together.

Every civilization since the beginning of man has recognized the need for marriage. This country and healthy societies around the world give marriage special legal protection for a vital reason - it is the institution that ensures the society's future through the upbringing of children. Furthermore, it's just common sense that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

There is an ocean of empirical data showing that the union between a man and a woman has unique benefits for children and society. Moreover, traditional family breakdown is the single biggest social problem in America today. In study after study, family breakdown is linked to an increase in violent crime, youth crime, teen pregnancy, welfare dependency and child poverty.

Even if your just considering what is good for the Gay people, Gay marriage is a two edged sword. Several studies have indicated that almost all Gays only want marriage for the bene's (financial rewards). What they don't realize is that long term relationships among Gays is dangerous. In the last 5 years two AIDS studies have shown that when Gay males engage in long term relationships (as a result of new Domestic Partner laws) they dramatically increase the incidence of risky sexual behavior (most specifically a significant rise in oral/anal behavior). This has resulted in an increase in AIDS cases after more than 8 years of decreases.

Carefully consider the effects to society before you support an experiment that has destroyed every civilization it's controlled throughout known history.

Perhaps you should look at the following for more in depth answers: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF02G2

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF03H01

5. Kurt Freund, et al., "Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference," p. 107. Cp. Zebulon A. Silverthorne & Vernon L. Quinsey, "Sexual Partner Age Preferences of Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women," Archives of Sexual Behavior 29 (February 2000): 67-76.

The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. See Laumann, et al., The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994).

----- Appendix: In Their Own Words ------

Homosexual activists have long understood the radical power of achieving official recognition for homosexual relationships as "marriage." Here is a sample:

"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." --Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT magazine, December/January 1994, p. 161. "[E]nlarging the concept to embrace same-sex couples would necessarily transform it into something new....Extending the right to marry to gay people -- that is, abolishing the traditional gender requirements of marriage -- can be one of the means, perhaps the principal one, through which the institution divests itself of the sexist trappings of the past." --Tom Stoddard, quoted in Roberta Achtenberg, et al, "Approaching 2000: Meeting the Challenges to San Francisco's Families," The Final Report of the Mayor's Task Force on Family Policy, City and County of San Francisco, June 13, 1990, p.1.

"It is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."

-- Michelangelo Signorile, "I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do," OUT magazine, May 1996, p. 30.

"Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. ... Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. ... As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different from non-lesbian women. ...In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly. ... We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality."

--Paula Ettelbrick, "Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?", in William Rubenstein, ed., Lesbians, Gay Men and the Law (New York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 401-405.

And there's this from pro-homosexual and pro-pedophile author Judith Levine:

"Because American marriage is inextricable from Christianity, it admits participants as Noah let animals onto the ark. But it doesn't have to be that way. In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the 'repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.' Would polygamy invite abuse of child brides, as feminists in Muslim countries and prosecutors in Mormon Utah charge? No. Group marriage could comprise any combination of genders."

-- Judith Levine, "Stop the Wedding!: Why Gay Marriage Isn't Radical Enough," The Village Voice, July 23-29, 2003. Levine declines to mention that the 1972 Gay Rights Platform also called for abolishing age of consent laws. This is a curious omission since Levine herself has written in favor of lowering the age of consent to 12 for sex between children and adults in her book Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex (p. 88).

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0330/levine.php

[freedom9]

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court yesterday ruled that homosexual couples have a constitutional right to marry, but stopped short of ordering the state to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Instead, the justices, by a 4-3 vote, stayed their judgment for 180 days, "to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."

Leviticus 18
26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you.

Job 40
8 Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?

Leviticus 26
15 And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant:
16 I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it . . .

[drlevy88]

I would like to marry 4 cats, a dog, and a kangaroo.

[Cannonphoder]

Hehehehe

[RandallFlagg]

OK. Here's what I got from another board about this subject. You can tell from my wording that I'm trying to make people think over there.

Leftist - "But why is Bush so opposed to it?? That's what I wanna know. Why is so much fu**ing time, money and energy spent by the government on such ridiculous issues?? WHy do they feel the need to deny equal rights to all citizens??
There is so much more they could be doing instead of trying to take rights away from citizens."

RandallFlagg - "I have no idea. But, answer my first question: Why aren't Brothers and Sisters allowed to marry?"

Leftist - "From what I understand is this. When family members reproduce, the child they preoduce is more likely to suffer from mental retardation. I don't know how accurate that is, but that's what I understand from what i have heard.
Correct me if I am wrong."

RandallFlagg - "Chromosomal defects, you are correct. Is that why it's not allowed?"

Leftist - "I suppose so. What's your point??"

RandallFlagg - "Then, let's say that Brother and Sister still want to get married and will then adopt children (seeing that they can't have their own). Would you have a problem with this?."

Leftist - "Under those circumstances I would have no problems with that at all."

RandallFlagg - "OK, same circumstances, what about Father and Daughter? Mother and Son? Brother to Brother? Sister to Sister?"

Leftist - "As long as it's two CONSENTING CAPABLE ADULTS, I have no problems with it."



Kinda makes ya wonder....

[Cannonphoder]

Very nice piece of work. I wish the whole world had to read your piece. They think so shallow it's truely amazing.

[Violette]

I believe that the whole reason Christ came along, was to free man for the old laws. Why is it that you are using the Old Testament to support you position? What did Christ have to say about these things? What about the other apostles?

[Violette]

How did Lot become a Grandfather?

[freedom9]

"I believe that the whole reason Christ came along, was to free man for the old laws. Why is it that you are using the Old Testament to support you position? What did Christ have to say about these things? What about the other apostles?"

Christ also made the following statements that uphold the laws and commandments set forth in the Old Testament.

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

[Violette]

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil"

He is referring to specific laws here.... Not the laws of homosexuality. He came specifically for the redemption of man.

[scan58]

Yeah...kinda makes ya sick, too.

[freedom9]

"He is referring to specific laws here.... Not the laws of homosexuality. He came specifically for the redemption of man.

He told you that, eh?

[autoresponder]

PIG LATIN AUDIOTAPE



"I COULD HARDLY BREED!"

[freedom9]

"What about the other apostles?"

They upheld the viewpoint that those engaged in such practices were "worthy of death"

[Violette]

Do you think that Christ would have put a homosexual couple to death?