Posted on 12/30/2012 10:08:46 AM PST by ConservativeStatement
At age 83, Edith Windsor gets plenty of compliments for her courage to take on the federal government in a landmark case that has put attitudes about gay America squarely before the Supreme Court.
But the Philadelphia-born former IBM executive scoffs at how much gumption was necessary to go to court at a time when society seems to be getting more conscious that a closed-minded approach to differences in sexuality appears to do more harm than good.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
That really does leap off the screen, doesn’t it?
For generations, we have given the State the power to create artificial persons, in the form of corporations, foundations, trusts and the like. Nobody is confused by this government-defined fiction. We know that a corporation is not a real human person. Where the left has a problem is where the Supreme Court has ruled, in Citizens United, that such “persons” have the right of free speech.
Another government-defined fiction that we have allowed for generations is that the State can also define “marriage” and who is “married” and who is not. But marriage predates any State because it is God who defines and defends marriage, not the State. Indeed, any “marriage” a State defines is just as much a legal fiction as when it tells us that a corporation is a “person” that has freedom of speech.
The State attempts to force us to recognize its power. One way is to presume the power to define who is married and who is not. We cede this power in part because we allow the State to tax incomes and estates. To administer such taxing power, the State must define who it considers to be “married” and who is not. Just as when it defines a corporation to be a “person”, as silly as this would be to God, the State does not hesitate to define anyone it pleases as being “married”, totally apart from how God would define them.
Jesus, who was recognized as a prophet by all three monotheistic religions, is quoted in Matthew chapter 19 that from the beginning of humanity, it was God’s intent that marriage would only be one man and one woman. Scripture in many ways and places also tells us that God defines sexual morality and that people who refuse to practice that His morality simply do not qualify for His freely given gift of eternal life. (for example, see Ephesians chapter 5). Of course, people are free to believe whatever they want, but that does not change what God clearly said to us.
If you review the arguments advanced by supporters of same-sex marriage (like at HRC.ORG), you will find that many of them are related to taxation, inheritance and medical issues. But existing law addresses those and any defects in the law can be easily repaired apart from the issue of “marriage”.
I don’t want a government that can tell me what I may or may not do in the privacy of my own home or relationships. In a secular Constitutional Republic with a provision that prohibits Congress from making any law respecting religion, I have to allow others to have their own beliefs and morality. I can only be an advocate for the morality and beliefs that I think are true. I take my understanding of sexual morality from Scripture and that is where I learn that God considers sodomy to be an abomination to Him.
If a State decides that two (or more) people can marry, if that is all that happened, I could live with that because I don’t have to approve, change my beliefs or what beliefs I pass on to my children.
However, once gays and their supporters have sufficient influence with a State to redefine marriage, they don’t stop there. They use the State to forbid me from acting on my morality and beliefs. In fact, the State in some cases forces me to accommodation in their practices.
If I have children in public school, the State will insist on teaching them that gay marriage is just as normal as the God’s marriage. You will be sanctioned as a parent if you attempt to remove your child from such indoctrination.
If you run a business that could provide services to the public, you will be sanctioned if you decline to treat gays as non-gays. For example, if you run a wedding photography business, you will be sanctioned if you decline to photograph a gay wedding. This has already happened in California and New Mexico [1].
You may lose control of your own property. [2]
You might have to go out of business to stay true to your principles, so you are aren’t sued into bankruptcy. [3]
From the article:
“Wedding vendors elsewhere who refused to accommodate same-sex couples have faced discrimination lawsuits — and lost. Legal experts said Discover Annapolis Tours sidesteps legal trouble by avoiding all weddings.
“If they’re providing services to the public, they can’t discriminate who they provide their services to,” said Glendora Hughes, general counsel for the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights. The commission enforces public accommodation laws that prohibit businesses from discriminating on the basis of race, sexual orientation and other characteristics.”
In short, gays will demand that non-gays accept them as moral equals, which they are not and cannot be. When the State says they are equal it is forbidden for a private citizen to dissent from that status. In doing so, they seek to force me to give them approval for something that I will never approve of. It is that last point that galls gays the most.
Curiously, when advocates of gay marriage are asked if their policy also would allow polygamy or polyandry, they recoil in horror and insist that it does not. However, logic demands that it does. I would ask how same-sex parents are going to react in the future when, for example, Utah public schools officials require that teachers instruct the children that LDS-related polygamy is just as “normal” as same-sex “marriage”. The fact that this will be an issue will show yet again that gay “marriage” is not about marriage at all it is about forcing the rest of us to approve of repugnant sexual immorality, something that LDS polygamists never demanded.
[1] Refusing To Shoot Gay Marriage Is Discrimination, Says New Mexico Appeals Court
http://www.popphoto.com/news/2012/06/refusing-to-shoot-gay-marriage-discrimination-says-new-mexico-appeals-court
[2] Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-rules-christian-facility-cannot-ban-same-sex-civil-union-ceremony-on
[3] Opposed to same-sex marriage, company ends wedding business
Trolley owner says move made to avoid potential lawsuit
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-ar-annapolis-trolley-suspends-wedding-servic-20121225,0,7100399,full.story
[1] Refusing To Shoot Gay Marriage Is Discrimination, Says New Mexico Appeals Court
http://www.popphoto.com/news/2012/06/refusing-to-shoot-gay-marriage-discrimination-says-new-mexico-appeals-court
[2] Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-rules-christian-facility-cannot-ban-same-sex-civil-union-ceremony-on
[3] Opposed to same-sex marriage, company ends wedding business
Trolley owner says move made to avoid potential lawsuit
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-ar-annapolis-trolley-suspends-wedding-servic-20121225,0,7100399,full.story
[1] Refusing To Shoot Gay Marriage Is Discrimination, Says New Mexico Appeals Court
http://www.popphoto.com/news/2012/06/refusing-to-shoot-gay-marriage-discrimination-says-new-mexico-appeals-court
[2] Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-rules-christian-facility-cannot-ban-same-sex-civil-union-ceremony-on
[3] Opposed to same-sex marriage, company ends wedding business
Trolley owner says move made to avoid potential lawsuit
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-ar-annapolis-trolley-suspends-wedding-servic-20121225,0,7100399,full.story
[1] Refusing To Shoot Gay Marriage Is Discrimination, Says New Mexico Appeals Court
http://www.popphoto.com/news/2012/06/refusing-to-shoot-gay-marriage-discrimination-says-new-mexico-appeals-court
[2] Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-rules-christian-facility-cannot-ban-same-sex-civil-union-ceremony-on
[3] Opposed to same-sex marriage, company ends wedding business
Trolley owner says move made to avoid potential lawsuit
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-ar-annapolis-trolley-suspends-wedding-servic-20121225,0,7100399,full.story
“attitudes about”
exactly what they want to control, your thoughts and opinions
Many elderly couples are getting caught in a quandary when one becomes too ill to stay at home and the other must spend down their assets so the sick spouse can go on Medicaid. The healthy spouse must essentially be left destitute, although they do get to keep their house (how magnanimous of the government) and $2,000 in their savings account. If they have a car, it must be worth no more than a given amount. No mind they may own a reliable vehicle, in many cases, it has to be relinquished and an unreliable beater must take its place.
Many elderly men and women refuse to remarry, because it is simply dangerous to do so.
What is so closed minded in the assuming of a law which insists two men must and only must bugger each other to prove a contract of “parenthood” or homesteadness? Good Christian values not leveraged on sex for care of the family or adopted children need not apply, because that kind of open minded antisex slavery mindset is deemed closed minded... (sarc off)
Homosexuality, the death tax, all inheritence based on death of the opposite sex or whatever else, have their true inheritences in death and decadence itself. What is so closed minded about the truth? IT’s them who are closed minded or hypocritical about the reality.
If it weren’t for their sacred duty to promote homosexuality, feminism and marxism what would the news media do with themselves.
With the death tax and relying on the death of others for one’s own gain, the state is defacto having a motive to make war on us. This is completely anticonstitutional in the very sense of hiring a state to attack us, in its true Soviet socialist depravity and hypocrisy. A system dependent on subserviance or some “program” is denpendent upon the death of the individual in its multifacetedness, and that is socialism all the same indeed.
Rejecting God and scoffing at belief in cynicism is indeed socialism synonymous.
But Nazies practiced the same liberal choosey doctrines: Japanese were white but Chinese deemed yellow and inferiors, and so do liberals ascribe homosexuality or sharia as being devoid of hate criminality in and of itself. They clearly have their sexual and racial preferences, the only difference is they have not come out the closet like Hitler did, so to speak.
When it come down to it, all this Edith lesbian cares about is the $363.000 that she has to pay in taxes.
and so we have a welfare system that discourages marriage for the young and old alike.
” Refusing To Shoot Gay Marriage Is Discrimination, Says New Mexico Appeals Court”
They should be able to find some ‘good ol boys’ down there willing to shoot them. I’ll do it if they pay the air fare.
Is this what people are really thinking, or is this what the media has been insistently telling them to think for the last few years? I believe the latter is more correct.
” I think if we win, the effect will be the beginning of the end of stigma.””
Stigma....that and the taxes on the estate.
You could actually find a way to give them what they want re: taxes without redefining marriage for the rest of us.
Some of us actually hold that definition as sacred and it has nothing to do with how we feel about gays - and everything to do with how we feel about marriage.
You’re absolutely right, and I don’t think a lot of folks understand what’s coming in the gay rights war. Think civil and/or criminal penalties for speaking against homosexuality. Think having your children seized by the state if you dare teach them homosexuality is wrong! This is where this ultimately leads.
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.