Posted on 09/11/2007 4:14:14 AM PDT by monomaniac
By Hilary White
SACRAMENTO, September 10, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Democrat-controlled Senate of California has approved a bill imposing homosexual "marriage" on the state. The Senate voted 22-15 to substitute the term "two persons" for "man and wife" in state references to marriage.
Bill AB43 was the project of state Assemblyman Mark Leno of San Francisco, a homosexual activist. It was opposed by every Republican member of the Senate and supported by all but three Democrats.
WorldNet Daily quoted California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger saying last year that the definition of marriage "could be changed." The governor pointed to the loosening of the definition of marriage through state recognition of registered "domestic partners", with the same rights and duties as married couples, as providing precedent.
Other pro-family observers have said that the extension of such recognition, as well as legalized no-fault divorce, in jurisdictions around the world has opened the door to the abolition of the legal institution of marriage.
Former Assemblyman Larry Bowler, a proponent of the VoteYesMarriage.com California Constitutional Marriage Amendment told Christian News Service, "Until the people fund, qualify and pass the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment, marriage will be threatened with destruction and eventual extinction. Even Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown have said that the Legislature has the power to abolish marriage and yank marriage rights from husbands and wives."
VoteYesMarriage.com is a group of citizens and advocates for marriage and family that is lobbing to amend the state constitution to establish natural marriage as the permanent legal institution in California. Citing the overwhelming support of 61.4 per cent in 2000 for Proposition 22 that stated, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," Vote YesMarriage.com is seeking to bring the amendment to public as a ballot initiative in 2008.
The bill will now go to Governor Schwarzenegger for his signature or veto.
Visit VoteYesMarriage.com
http://www.voteyesmarriage.com/
So there! Who cares what the voters want. </s
What the state does is irrelevant to my marriage.
Calif. as usual leading the country and world down the road to
hell.
California Senate Votes to Impose Same-Sex "Marriage" on State the US
Had to correct it for what we all know is coming through the courts. If two men get "legally" married in California, then move to a state that has a ban on gay marriage, the "couple" will sue to have their "marriage" recognized in that state, and federal courts will use the "equal protection" bit to overrule the laws of that state. It IS coming.
This is why a marriage amendment to the US Constitution is so necessary.
Its not your marriage but what the state does to your kids is one way to look at it.
If ‘mo marriages are legal the state will and in many cases does promote them as equal to your marriage and tell kids its A-OK to pursue such a lifestyle of mental illness.
This is, unfortunately, a predictable consequence of government “sanctions” of marriage. I would prefer to have government out of the marriage business altogether rather than have the traditional concept of marriage distorted by the state.
The GOP needs to make a mockery of this by introducting amendments to legalize those very arrangements.
“Since the Bible has been supplanted...Isn’t a father and two mothers better...?”
Hmmm... Probably not the best grounds for argument. Just ask Asher, Benjamin, Dan, Gad, Issachar, Joseph, Judah, Levi, Naphtali, Reuben, Simeon, and Zebulun, who founded the twelve tribes of Israel, having been begotten of Jacob by wives Rachel and Leah and handmaidens Bilhah and Zilpah.
Just wait until they start doling out your tax dollars to someone's latest "life partner."
So you’ve shown the concept of a single wife to have come later, although it has served us well for some 5,000 years.
But if you are going to invalidate the concept of one man and one woman, why not go the rest of the way and allow group & incestuous marriages as well.
But it's not. Who is going to arbitrate child custody issues? The State has a natural and inevitable role in the sanctioning, protection and promotion of marriage, since all citizens pass through the instititution of the family.
A sacramental marriage is of a higher order than a natural marriage, but that does not invalidate natural marriage.
But it's not. Who is going to arbitrate child custody issues? The State has a natural and inevitable role in the sanctioning, protection and promotion of marriage, since all citizens pass through the instititution of the family.
A sacramental marriage is of a higher order than a natural marriage, but that does not invalidate natural marriage.
Good question. If the word marriage is applied to any lifelong commitment between people, then all friends are "married" too.
The essence of marriage is a lifetime commitment between a man and woman for the purposes of mutual care and the begetting and raising of children. Any other definition must refer to something other than marriage. That's the reality of the situation, and any other viewpoint is irrational, to put it kindly.
The government judiciary hasn’t done a stellar job with that, as many (perhaps most) non-custodial fathers can attest. If there is no question of “kidnapping” (no pun intended), a private arbitration panel could be used, and may be a cheaper alternative to court determination. As for child-support payments, it would seem that existing civil law and claims court could be easily employed to handle those issues.
Give ‘em time. I’m sure they’re working on it.
“why not go the rest of the way and allow group & incestuous marriages as well.”
My point was that it is probably not good policy to argue against gay marriage or polygamy solely on a biblical basis when you are trying to influence government policy.
Your message sounds like the only reason you can think think of to define marriage is that “we’ve always done it that way before.” Albeit that is a conservative position, but not a very well-reasoned one.
I bet next time they'll change it to three or four persons. The family will come to mean everything, and it will thus mean nothing.
The states should not be redefining marriage. They can deal with laws related to it in within their borders, but they should not be allowed to change its very definition. I see no hope unless we pass the Federal Marriage Amendment.
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.