Posted on 08/25/2013 9:09:36 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The homosexual lobby claims the majority of Americans favor same-sex marriage and that marriage should be only about love. Even if that were true, favoring homosexual marriage by definition means being “for” anything outside what the Bible calls a sacred union—between one man and one woman.
According to a recent article on Prospect.com by Boston College School of Law professor Kent Greenfield, opponents of same-sex marriage have been right all along. Government approval of same-sex marriage will eventually erode bans on polygamous and incestuous marriages as well. As a matter of constitutional rationale, there is indeed a slippery slope between recognizing same-sex marriages and allowing marriages among more than two people and between consenting adults who are related.
The American Family Association (AFA) is pointing to Greenfield’s article in an effort to call the Republican Party and Christians around the country to act on the issue of same-sex marriage and the culturally poisonous problems that will undoubtedly result before they are the mainstream way of thinking in America.
“We have reached a frightening impasse,” says AFA President Tim Wildmon. “I fear the day just years from now when marriage has absolutely no definition at all. After we water it down more and more until it is meaningless, marriage won’t be anything but a free-will agreement between any two people—or more than two people.
"Since marriage is ultimately about the optimal nurturing environment for vulnerable young children, destabilizing the institution of marriage is a terrible thing to do to America’s children. God gave us the responsibility to protect this sacred union, and we should resist any effort to destroy it. What God has defined, man must not redefine.”
A Law Fund research scholar and author of The Myth of Choice: Personal Responsibility in a World of Limits, Greenfield writes, “Marriage, we’ve said, is about defining one’s own family and consecrating a union based on love. We’ve voiced these arguments in constitutional terms, using claims arising from the doctrines of ‘fundamental rights’ and equal protection. Fundamental-rights analysis says that marriage is for many a crucial element of human flourishing, or as the Court said almost fifty years ago ‘essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness.’ Because it’s so important, government can restrict marriage only by showing a truly compelling justification. The equal protection argument is simply that the marriage right should not be taken away from groups unless the government has good reasons to exclude those groups.”
One way politicians and citizens can act is to support the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment sponsored by Congressman Tim Huelskamp. H.J. RES. 51 is an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would make marriage legal only between a man and a woman. The amendment states, “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”
Protecting traditional marriage is nothing new. More than 150 years ago, the delegates in the 1856 Republican Party Convention made a point to protect the people of the United States from the woes that can result from same-sex marriage.
Documents from the convention state, “This Convention of Delegates, assembled in pursuance of a call addressed to the people of the United States, without regard to past political differences or divisions ... do [resolve] that the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the Territories of the United States for their government; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the Imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism—Polygamy, and Slavery.”
This is what many FReepers predicted early on.
Then the divorce issue should be fixed.
Divorce lawyers will become multi-millionaires overnight.
Just remember, every law that is passed is a law that is meant to enrich lawyers.
More than 150 years ago, the delegates in the 1856 Republican Party Convention made a point to protect the people of the United States from the woes that can result from same-sex marriage.
__________________________________________
no they didnt...
it was “from the woes that can result from” the evils of POLYGAMY which by 1862 or before was a jailable crime known as “unlawful habitation”
there was no lobby for “same-sex marriage” in 1856 and sex between men was a felonious crime thus the people were already “protected”....
polygamy is another piece in the puzzle towards America excepting islam as common place
i’ve been noticing the push to make beards on men a culture norm. another islamic piece
America has never been a ‘beard’ country
the only culture i’m aware of that is ‘beard oriented’ is islam
btw, you know what’s masculine?
being able to support your family without govt assistance.
funny how that’s never promoted
Marriage Equality: that which equates the vulva to an anus.
“America has never been a ‘beard’ country”
Umm, yes, yes it has.
Look at the mugs of most Confederate generals, save Lee. Longstreet, Jackson, Hill. It wasn’t until women could vote that you had presidents without beards.
The homosexual same sex and the feminist movements are based on the premise that men and women are interchangeable. Such a false premise violates natural law.
They use civil rights arguments to pursue their agendas. Codification of perverted thinking is a sacrilege that will not go unnoticed.
I am profoundly disappointed that such twisted and warped thinking has gone this far! Satan loves chaos; that is where we are headed!
of the 44 US presidents over the passed 237 years, only 5 had beards and 4 others had mustaches.
Look At Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Grover Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison, William H. Taft, and I could name a few more. All of those had beards. The second half of the 19th century in America was a time where having a beard was the fashionable thing for an American grown man to have.
After gay marriage, they will push to lower age of consent. First to 16, then to 14.
Look at how Bradley Manning argues that his sexuality made him do it. That’s rediculous, and a rediculous excuse at that. Come on, so someone can commit treason, murder, or who knows what and then throw up the excuse that something in their head made them do it? That’s the problem with America, it all gets screwed because people throw out excuses for everything they do, including treason, murder, etc., and then wonder why America is so full of crime, and people dislike and distrust each other so much, or the military doesn’t seem so strong anymore. I feel sad and hope not to see the day when the %^&* hits the fan, but sadly enough, that’s just wishful thinking.
I can’t wait til they put Madonna, “Lady” GaGa, et al, in burqas.
The next push is for pedophile rights, so they can have sex with children of all ages.
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.