[RogerFGay]

ping

[breakem]

"death of marriage"

defense of marriage"

"protection of marriage"

"save marriage"

Propaganda never sleeps.

[Modernman]

This should be a fun thread.

[RicocheT]

The homosexual agenda seems to be to get all the rights heterosexual couples now have. They should be careful for what they wish for.

Much of the excitement of homosexual life was being different, operating on the cutting edge, being risky, laughing at the disapproval of the majority, having many encounters with new sex partners. Are they going to give that up in their drive to be just like the rest of us?

Are homosexuals ready for the realities of most marriages that go into middle age and beyond? Will they enjoy the flabby bodies, the snoring, the burps after spicy foods, the separate bedrooms, semi annual sex, having kids who despise you but want their hands in your pocketbook, the mailings from AARP?

A good dose of the lifestyle of the majority may just convince them to go back into the closet.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Alert Ping - Just got up, haven't read this article yet... Gotta get more organized. Breakem doesn't like it so it must have some worth.

Let me know if you want to be added to or subtracted from this highly worthy ping list.

[Modernman]

In a real sense, there are three partners to every civil marriage: two willing spouses and an approving State. ... Civil marriage is created and regulated through exercise of the police power.

Interesting point. I'm starting to lean towards the view that government should simply get out of the marriage business. Allow consenting adults to enter into any contract they desire (excluding contracts that would be illegal on other grounds: slavery contracts, etc.), in any combination of consenting adults they desire (1 man plus 1 woman, 2 homosexuals, 3 men and 1 woman, 4 heterosexual roommates). The government should take no view as to what defines a "marriage" or "civil-union" or whatever. If a religion wants to recognize such a contract as a marriage, great.

[Deliberator]

For more than two centuries, family and the institution of marriage were "recognized by law" in the United States. There is a fundamental difference today, in that marriage and family issues are entirely "politically controlled." To be recognized by law is accepting of marriage and family as something created outside of government, so important that laws are needed to recognize it, but so established in the private domain that it must be respected and protected as involving fundamental rights. By the time the Massachusetts decision was made; "Simply put, the government creates civil marriage. ... In a real sense, there are three partners to every civil marriage: two willing spouses and an approving State. ... Civil marriage is created and regulated through exercise of the police power." [...]

The real basis of the new constitutional right for same-sex marriage is that marriage and family now exist only as civil institutions, created and controlled by political processes, defined by arbitrary government services and arbitrary politically determined privileges and restrictions. Anything that may be connected to tradition or religious practice and belief has been abolished regardless of its fundamental meaning, importance to society, and the effect abolishment will have on parents and children. Marriage and family now means whatever politicians define them to mean and only what they define them to mean. The nature of marriage and family has been abolished.

Precisely.

[longtermmemmory]

The notion of fathers as the weakest link is amusing but wrong. Weak does not define a man who gets up at 6 am to go to work to earn the money to improve the lives of his children. Weak does not define a man who makes certain they children have a roof over their head and food on the table even if he has to do without something.

It may only be an analogy but it is the wrong analogy.

The rest of the family is dependent on the father. Remove the father (as the judicial and legislative activists designed in the article) and presto the destabalized memebers have to find a new place to rest their needs. The governemnt.

Perhaps a better analogy would have been steel beam. Remove a steel beam support and the structure will either collapse or need a replacement support.

it may just be tomato tomahto. One thing is certain, yesterday's ruling has kicked up the stakes a notch. The reporters are in full propaganda mode with anecdotal fluffy stories about homosexuals who raise children (as aopposed to produce them) and John Kerry's "personaly" opposition to homosexual marriage. (it however did not make him "personally" vote for doma. There are just to many kerry jokes than i can "personally" make.)

Have you ever considered the pool of judicial candidates? not just the federal judges but the ordinary working judges. Interest groups like the ABA don't have to fret because law schools work very hard to indoctrinate their law students. The odds alone do not favor finding a conservative judicial candidate.

[sr4402]

Roger you are right, there is attack on Fatherhood, but the enemy is at the gate and if we do not defend now we will lose the family as well.

There is only one solution for the folks in MA and that is to impeach the MA Supremes who voted for this.

The cry for the Marraige Amendment must be imperative. For the barbarians are at the gate and the battering rams are coming.

I lament over Fatherhood in america, pray that the Lord would interviene for our fathers and our families in America. Pray for those who are pushing this liberal agenda - "that sin would be sin utterly" and for "God's severest mercy", else our nation will go the path of the Greeks and Romans and be no more.

[sr4402]

Also weep for the children, for the target of the MA Supreme Court ruling is them. How many children will loose their fathers? How many children will be raped and abused by this ruling? One child is too many.

[N. Theknow]

If it comes down to a Constitutional ammendment that marriage should be between a man and a woman, it better have a clause in it that it refers to a genetic man and woman.
Otherwise the lawyers are gonna have a field day defining "Man" and "Woman."

Also the crowd that thinks you can walk into a garden and take an axe to a prickly pear(pair?) and make it a rose bush will have to be taken into account.