Posted on 05/14/2004 3:22:20 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
As Massachusetts prepares to begin marrying same-sex couples Monday, opponents are viewing legalization of gay marriage as a setback on the scale of the US Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, and they see a similar long fight ahead in their efforts to overturn the court decision that is leading to a new social era.
As many opponents of gay marriage see it, same-sex unions will make homosexuality more acceptable and fracture family values. On a practical, political level, the reality of gay marriage will make the opponents' battle for a state constitutional amendment to ban it more difficult than ever.
''I don't know whether this ranks as high as the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision," said Ronald A. Crews, former president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, who has helped lead the fight against gay marriage here for several years and who also strongly opposes abortion. "If it's not equal to, then it is second only to that."
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Enrollment in the HIV Drug Assistance Program has soared by more than 70 percent in the past year, with spending growing from about $1 million a month to more than $1.4 million as of March. If the increases continue at the same pace, public health authorities warned this week, the drug plan will face a $6.6 million defcit for the budget year that starts July 1…..***
Do you think we could turn the tide on the Confederate States of America and the rest of us vote that MA secede from the union?
Who cares? If people want to get married, let them get married. Actually the whole civil union thing makes more sense because marriage is a religioius contract and union is a secular one.
But, if homosexuals want to make a committment of some sort and stop being promiscuous why should anyone want to stop them.
Who really loses if we had civil unions?
Couldn't the GOP really bring in a lot of homosexuals under the tent if they just gave them a small carrot on this issue? The radicals will always be radicals, but homosexuals tend to earn more money than the average, be more educated and vote. Seems like a perfect constituency to stop antagonizing and bring on board.
Does anyone know why the judge denied the stay? Is the decision posted somewhere?
The other small carrots we've given over the years have put us smack-dab into the current issue.
If you want to keep civilization intact, gay civil unions will just as easily destroy the core of our societies. There's no difference between gay marriage and civil unions except in the spiritual sense. The impact will be exactly the same.
I just don't understand how gay civil unions threaten our civilization. Perhaps you can enlighten me. If you can do so without referencing the bible, I will be impressed indeed.
The very idea of courts presuming to have the authority to change natural law is the problem here. This shows just how run away the courts have become. They can no more order a change in natural law than they can order a fish to bark or decree that some men should fill in and act as women where there is a shortage of females. We have to win this one because if we don't the courts can order us to do anything that pleases them. There will be no true definition of the term marriage and in fact they will actually be changing the English language - how's that for arrogance?
How is marriage "natural law"?
It appears to me to be an institution created by man and the ursurped by the religious class (it exists in most cultures and is not the sole provence of Christians).
I have not yet heard a non-religious argument against civil unions. The idea is for people ot be able to make a permanent commitment to one another and to enjoy the benefits and protections the law offers two people who have chosen to do so.
"It's just not right" doesn' quite cut it for me as a reason to deny certain rights.
Once again, allow the churches to keep the instition of "marriage" holy, but civil unions hurt no one.
No. Leftists will always outdo conservatives in their efforts to remake civilization.
Second and most important, the GOP would stand to gain a few thousand votes, while losing millions who (like me) believe marriage to be one of the bedrocks of civilization.
Answer me this: On what basis do you say that Marriage, or Civil Unions, are between two people?
Does your employer provide spousal benefits? If you had 20 spouses, would your employer consider cancelling all benefits? Would that disturb you or your co-workers?
And also: How can you be against polygamy?
How can you be against a grandfather marrying his granddaughter (in order to provide Social Security survivor benefits)?
These questions are not intended to be rhetorical. Marriage is being re-defined. Where (and why) does that re-definition stop? There will be broad consequences to this.
I put my "and also" on the wrong line. It was intended to move beyond the topic of polygamy, and introduce the topic of legalized incest. I think both are serious issues. Neither is laughable, and I do not consider that a "counter-argument".
Marriage wasn't created by man, but leave that aside for a moment. It's clear, by a cursory examination of the anatomy of men and women, that people of the opposite sex were intended to marry, have sex and pro-create, and those of the same sex were not. This is the natural law argument.
The only difference between civil unions and marriage at the state level is the name. Nothing else.
By allowing homosexuals to marry, we cheapen the idea of marriage because we broadcast the idea that it can mean anything we want it to mean. Homosexual behavior would be propogated by our government and our schools even more than it is now. Finally, separating marriage from child rearing (which is what homosexual marriage is) could drive up illegitimacy rates, as it did in Scandinavia.
Where have you been? We've posted dozens of articles and had thousands of debates on FR.
"It's just not right" doesn' quite cut it for me as a reason to deny certain rights.
Once again, allow the churches to keep the instition of "marriage" holy, but civil unions hurt no one.
If you define civil unions the way the Massachusetts legislature did in proposed amendment, you establish it as equal to marriage in everything but name. If this definition is used across the country, the implications are enormous. But never mind "small things" like opening up the treasury for marriage benefits, an explosion of sham gay civil unions, the changing of marriage laws (remember that hypothetically, there would of necessity be only one set of laws to cover marriage and gay civil unions) to help it fit the different issues of same sex couples.
The bigger effects will be deeper and will compound over generations. Marriage/unions will no longer function in the social sphere the way marriage has done in the past. Men and women that head stable families are powerful role models that allow children to grow up in more ideal circumstance.
If you say it is nonsense that marriage gravitates toward a less central role in child-bearing, family formation, please refute not me but the studies of the trends in Denmark and Norway.
Well said. Homosexual adoption is horrifying, and it would only increase under homosexual marriage.
I don't know whether the decision is posted, but the gist of it seems to be this:
Granting a stay of the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling "would be to deprive that court of its authority and obligation to consider and resolve, with finality, Massachusetts constitutional issues," Tauro wrote.That court "has the authority to interpret, and reinterpret, if necessary, the term marriage as it appears in the Massachusetts Constitution," Tauro wrote.
A thread on this news story is here: Judge denies bid to stop gay marriages Massachusetts.
" . . .And don't forget the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighboring towns, all full of lust of every kind including lust of men for other men. Those cities were destroyed by fire and continue to be warning to us that there is a hell in which sinners are punished . . ."
JUDE 1:7
Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, prime sponsor of Federal Marriage Amendment, designed to protect marriage between one man and one woman will lead a Congressional hearing tomorrow with testimony from former U.S. Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork and American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) director Jay Sekulow.
Watch and listen tomorrow online at 9 a.m. MST, 11 a.m. EST by going to the following link:
http://boss.streamos.com/real-live/hjudiciary/4749/100_hjudiciary-live_030428.sm
Congresswomen Musgrave would appreciate any comments you may have regarding this historic hearing.
I have not yet heard a non-religious argument against civil unions. The idea is for people ot be able to make a permanent commitment to one another and to enjoy the benefits and protections the law offers two people who have chosen to do so.
Homosexual Agenda Ping - A guickie ping, gotta run.
From the Boston Globe, so what does one expect.
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
I see it as a wakeup call. Stand and fight, or we have only ourselves to blame.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.