Posted on 05/23/2008 4:17:35 PM PDT by Bishop_Malachi
A Victory for Equality and Justice," blared the headline above the editorial. "Momentous," "historic," "a major victory for civil rights," "a scrupulously fair ruling based on law, precedents and common sense."
This was the ecstatic reaction of The New York Times to the California Supreme Court's declaration that homosexuals have a right to marry and have their unions recognized as marriages.
Now there may be hugging around the newsroom at the Times, where one senior writer said, a few years back, three-fourths of the folks who make up the front page are gay. But this is just another streetlight on America's darkening path to perdition as a society and republic.
To declare that homosexuals can marry is patently absurd. The very definition of marriage is the union of a man and woman, first and foremost, for the procreation of children.
To say two men who live together and engage in sex can be married renders the idea and ideal of marriage meaningless. The court may declare it, but it cannot redefine an institution that nature and nature's God have already defined. As they say in Texas, you can put lipstick and earrings on a pig, and call her Peggy Sue, but it's still a pig.
"What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder," Christ taught. Through the Old Testament and into the epistles of St. Paul, homosexual sodomy is an abomination leading to personal destruction and damnation, one of the five sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance. How, then, can four judges declare it to be integral to the sacrament of marriage?
Well, we don't believe all that rot, comes the reply.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
If the gays want marriage, I say give it to them good and hard.
In exchange, eliminate civil unions/domestic partnership/marriage lite, to get the bennies they HAVE to get hitched with all that comes with it. Everything I have heard tells me very few gays want to through with that.
Thomas Jefferson (1820):
“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.
America burned while Rome fiddled over the Host and Warren tried to figure out how to efficiently utilize Small Groups.
Huh? Care to elaborate.
A statement tough to dispute.
When it comes to individual rights, government is the provider.
When it comes to marriage, it's a provision of religion.
Put the two entities together and it's a feeding frenzy for tax deductions via marriage.
In modern conveyance, their sh!t stinks too when performing bodily functions!
Thomas Jefferson was an orator using the English language appropriately however. ; )
God help us.
***This was the ecstatic reaction of The New York Times to the California Supreme Court’s declaration that homosexuals have a right to marry and have their unions recognized as marriages. ***
And fourty years ago they were crowing about how marriage was irrelivant to a love relationship.
Now marriage is very important -—IF YOU ARE GAY.
One of the inmate sabotaged a safety rail in the guard tower.
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.