The definition of marriage as one man and one woman has been intact for millennia, and for good reason, as the author of the posted article points out. It's worth noting that with very few exceptions (those groups which permit polygamy), the traditional concept of marriage has been the standard everywhere around the world, from the most enlightened modern nations to the most backward and repressive, even in atheist cultures.
It would be sheer folly if the greatest nation on the planet changed its legal system to accommodate a perverse view, promulgated by radicals of the last decade, to the effect that homosexual liaisons should have the same legal standing as heterosexual unions.
> The Supreme Court would be out of its collective mind if it declared that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution’s “equal protection” and “due process” clauses mandate that every state in the union must allow “gay marriage.”
Gays don’t respect God, history, property rights, constitutional rights, common sense, etc...and the goes on and on. Like a spoiled child, they want what they want and don’t care anout the end effects on society. They just want it because you said they can’t have it. And they will engage in sodomy and unsafe sex because its what they do. Most sure seem to be sex addicts and whatever they need to accomplish the task of sexual satisfaction will be used even if it includes your children on a scouting trip. They are sick and twisted individuals.
“The definition of marriage as one man and one woman has been intact for millennia, and for good reason, as the author of the posted article points out.”
I have a question for the group. If they called it a civil union instead and had their “wedding” at City Hall and they didn’t violate the sanctity of the religious bond between a man and a woman, would that work?
Seems to me the issue is the word “Marriage.” I get that once again the left is playing with semantics to raise awareness to their voting block without regard to those of us offended by this.
However in saying that, if they called it civil union, partners forever or whatever, and did not use the word “Marriage”, if they kept the Church out of it, why should we care? If they are not practicing religion and doesn’t demand that the Church marry them then why does it matter to us?
If you are Godless, frankly I don’t care. That’s their issue not mine.
>>It would be sheer folly if the greatest nation on the planet changed its legal system to accommodate a perverse view
What does Romans 1:25+ say about when created things [like nations] become objects of worship?
Supreme Court would be out of its collective mind
therein lies the rub
COLLECTIVE MIND!!
collective..or communal...?
So true. Hopefully G-d will help that Justice Kennedy sees it that way. He mentioned these key points in oral arguments.
Indeed. Thanks for the ping!