From an era when gay meant happy.
Posted on 05/15/2008 12:38:31 PM PDT by PercivalWalks
Sometimes you find out a marriage is over when you come home and your house is empty except for a note from your soon-to-be former wife. Sometimes it happens after a fight. Sometimes it happens when you find out about an affair.
I found out my marriage will soon be over in a different way--the Campaign for Children and Families and the Alliance for Marriage Foundation told me.
According to the Campaign for Children and Families, today's California Supreme Court pro-gay marriage ruling "has destroyed the civil institution of marriage." The Alliance for Marriage Foundation says the decision has "struck down marriage." All because the ruling would allow the 2% of the population who are gay to marry. Read the full story of the catastrophe here.
Ignorant me, I thought that marriage was under greater threat from the fact that hundreds of thousands of innocent fathers have been booted out of their homes with little judicial oversight via restraining orders based on false domestic violence allegations. Or that courts allow children of divorce to be dragged half way across the country so mothers can exclude their fathers from their lives. Or that the abusive child support system often traps low income men in a hopeless spiral of debt. Or that family courts are allowing military parents to be permanently removed from their children's lives while they're overseas. I was wrong--it's gays being allowed to marry that is the real threat.
The announcement is the second terrible blow to my marriage in the past 18 months. In October 2006, the Campaign for Children and Families informed me that in signing a bill to allow California gay couples to file taxes as if they were married, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had "put the last nail in the coffin for marriage between a man and a woman in California" and "Terminated [the] Last Piece of Marriage."
The worst part of this is that these tax changes may also lure my teenage son into the gay lifestyle. If the Campaign for Children and Families is correct about the dire threat gays pose to heterosexuals and heterosexuality, perhaps the only thing that's kept my son from doing it so far was the tax disadvantage he knew he'd face one day...
Feminist sparkplug Gloria Allred represented some of the plaintiffs in the case decided today. Gloria and I don't agree on much--we once debated family law issues on the radio and after an hour of battle I said, "Gloria, any common ground here?" and she replied, "Still looking, Glenn." But she's right on this issue and I congratulate her and the gay groups which won today.
As for "protecting families," Gloria's victory in the 1996 Burgess case--which allowed custodial mothers to move children thousands of miles away, thus destroying the father-child bond--genuinely harmed families. Today's Allred victory did not.
Ron Prentice, the executive director of California Family Council, says:
"In November, the people will have an opportunity to overrule the Court's decision by passing a constitutional amendment - and California's voters must respond in strength and number."
Great. So while the California shared parenting movement--the real defenders of families--remains unfunded and starved, these fake "defenders of families" are going to pour millions of dollars into a campaign against gays. I guess these people never heard their elementary school teacher say, "If the other person hasn't done anything to bother you, then leave them alone."
Glenn Sacks, www.GlennSacks.com
[Note: If you or someone you love is faced with a divorce or needs help with child custody, child support, false accusations, Parental Alienation, or other family law or criminal law matters, ask Glenn for help by clicking here.]
FYI - I wonder how Glenn Sacks would feel if this court imposed a conservative agenda by judicial fiat - like ban all abortion center, banned quotas, rounded up all the illegals, etc.
So then because of other problems in marriage and family life, because there are these other issues, that means we have to allow same-sex marriage? Because we haven’t been able to solve those other problems, then we have to allow same-sex marriage?
Can same-sex marriage be defended on its own merits, or is the main argument that straight people have messed up marriage, so any fears of allowing same-sex marriage and the consequences must be groundless?
What kind of logic is this?
It’s remarkable how some people can only see an event from the perspective of how it affects THEIR issue. Glenn needs to realize that redefining marriage is an issue that destroys civilizations... not just a small percentage of families.
Ping!
It may not destroy one marriage. But it brings down an entire civilization.
Why even have elections? - Just let judges create and make the laws.
—
Works for me,, where’s Judge Dredd?
This is not about discrimination. They always had the right to marry, just like all the normal people in the country. Someone of the other sex, that is.
Oh, they want to marry someone of the same sex? Sorry. That would be ridiculous.
Sacks is a pro-gay idiot.
I can’t decide if he and his fathers rights boneheads are worse than or equal to the homo perverts who want to destroy the sanctity of marriage.
Either way, I can’t stand these anti-American sentiments.
IIRC, this article is what is called “gay taqiyya”.
From an era when gay meant happy.
Heh heh.
The will of the people, twarted again!
Where would they go with their complaint?
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.