Getting the picture on gay marriage

News-Observer(NC) ^ | August 5, 2006 | Ellen Goodman

[Dane]

Getting the picture on gay marriage

Ellen Goodman, Washington Post Writers Group BOSTON - Now I got it. After hours spent poring over Washington state's Supreme Court decision upholding the ban on same-sex marriage, I've finally figured it out. The court wasn't just ruling against same-sex marriage. It was ruling in favor of "procreationist marriage."

This is the heart of the opinion written by Justice Barbara Madsen: "Limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children's biological parents." In short, the state's wedding bells are ringing for procreators.

Well if that's true, isn't it time for the legislatures in Washington and in New York, which issued a similar ruling against same-sex marriage this summer, to follow their own logic? If marriage is for procreation, shouldn't they refuse to wed anyone past menopause? Shouldn't they withhold a license, let alone blessings and benefits, from anyone who is infertile? As for those who choose to be childless? Nothing borrowed or blue for them. Indeed the state could offer young couples licenses with sunset clauses. After five years they have to put up (kids) or split up.

Of course the states' other interest is in families "headed by the children's biological parents." Why then give licenses to the couples who are raising 1.5 million adopted children? We can ban those blended families like, say, the Brady Bunch. And surely we should release partners from their vows upon delivery of their offspring to the nearest college campus.

[Dane]

Nothing like the smell of bitter liberal rantings in the morning.

[RSmithOpt]

"Nothing like the smell of bitter liberal rantings in the morning."

Yup.....liberal diatribe manure so potent the smell can gag a maggot in a gut wagon at 1/2 mile.

[ClearCase_guy]

I've spent hours reading this thing ...
And I've come to the wrong conclusion ...
I've decided to use my faulty conclusion as a premise ...
From which I will spin a long list of absurd and illogical conclusions ...
In an effort to show ...
That those who diagree with me are idiots.

How'm I doin'?

[Carry_Okie]

If marriage is for procreation, shouldn't they refuse to wed anyone past menopause?

I'd go for that as long as marriage laws with children involved were much more stringent about divorce, with and actually enforced the terms of court ordered dissolutions. Marriage has become a joke.

Personally, I have advocated two-tier marriage laws entirely upon those lines.

[Dane]

How'm I doin'?

Darn good.

Ms. Goodman is pulling "arguements" from her ass, rather than her brain, as every good liberal does.

[traditional1]

"I've finally figured it out. The court wasn't just ruling against same-sex marriage. It was ruling in favor of "procreationist marriage."

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZtTTTTTTTTTTTTT, WRONG.

You haven't figured it out at all; you have NO clue.

[Elsie]

Nothing like the smell of bitter liberal rantings in the morning.

 

TADA!!!

 

Genesis 13:13
  Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD.
 

Genesis 18:20-21
 20.  Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous
 21.  that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

Genesis 19:4-7
 4.  Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house. 
 5.  They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
 6.  Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him
 7.  and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.

 

Psa. 12:8 8 The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men.

         More?

Isaiah 3:9
   The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves.

 

Ezekiel 16:49-50
 49.  "`Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
 50.  They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

 

---

---

But there IS hope!!!

---

---

 

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

 9.  Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
 10.  nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 
 11.  And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

 

---

---

If you could NOT change, you would be in most pitiful shape.....

TADA!!!

[xzins]

shouldn't they refuse to wed anyone past menopause?

Obviously, not.

The court is correct. Marriage being for man and woman due to procreation defines it. Since most male/female relationships can potentially lead to procreation, and since zero male/male or female/female relationships can lead to procreation, then the state has a vested interest in marriage in heterosexual relationships and can define it as such. It is a purely secular interest.

[moonman]

'I've finally figured it out. The court wasn't just ruling against same-sex marriage. It was ruling in favor of "procreationist marriage."'

Your opinion of the ruling is wrong, therefore, your whole reasoning hence forward, is ... WRONG!

Quit wasting valuable newspaper space, they need all the advertisements they can get because of low readership due to editorials and opinions like yours.

[xzins]

Outstanding post #7, Elsie. Thanks.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

[Rummyfan]

Getting the picture on gay marriage

I'd rather not.....

[beachn4fun]

LOL

Ain't that the truth!

[redfog]

Here is what the Washington State Supreme Court decision upholding the ban on gay marriage was all about, as I recently wrote to our local newspaper:

The Supreme Court upholds the “gay marriage” ban in a 5-to-4 decision.

Great news!

Our black-robed masters have stumbled into the truth, albeit by a razor-thin margin of one vote.

This hairbreadth victory once again demonstrates the importance of electing conservative judges.

Who nearly put the kibosh on this fundamental ruling? None other than Justice Susan Owens, a former Forks District Court judge, who voted with the minority.

Justice Owens, along with fellow dissenters Chambers, Fairhurst and Bridge, believes “there is no rational basis for denying same-sex couples the right to marry.”

“Earth to Justice Owens”: Forty-five states now have either state constitutional amendments banning “gay marriage” or state statutes outlawing same-sex “weddings.”

Are they all irrational, or is it more likely that your great learning has eradicated your common sense?

Your dissenting vote represents a brazen attempt to usurp legislative powers that rightly belong to the people and their elected representatives.

In 1998 Washington passed the Defense of Marriage Act, reaffirming marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and the Legislature overrode a veto by then-Governor Gary Locke.

We have rules for changing the law: work through the Legislature or place an initiative on the ballot. Note that “enlightened judicial beliefs on what would really be swell” doesn’t qualify.

I urge all citizens to turn their calendars to November 7th and write down “Vote No on Owens and Chambers” – it’s the only way to stop judicial activist hogwash.

[goodnesswins]

Oh, goody.....another "GAY" article......how 2-4% of the population can garner so much attention by the MSM is notable. No wonder no one wants to buy their trash anymore.

[Torpedogirl]

"Today, if some straight couples cannot or do not procreate, some gay couples do"

Wrong! No gay couples reproduce. It's physically impossible. In that state of "monogamous" marriage that they so desire, they would have to always invite a third party into the scene to procreate -- whether by finding some drunk guy on the street to impregnate a lesbian, find a woman desperate for dough who will act as a surrogate to carry a gay guy's sperm, or through a clinic of some kind, using a third party's egg or sperm.

That's why marriage, in a traditional sense, completely and utterly rules out reproduction of the supposed "homosexual gene" . . . because a gay couple can not reproduce within the confines of marriage.

[Torpedogirl]

"Today, if some straight couples cannot or do not procreate, some gay couples do"

Wrong! No gay couples reproduce. It's physically impossible. In that state of "monogamous" marriage that they so desire, they would have to always invite a third party into the scene to procreate -- whether by finding some drunk guy on the street to impregnate a lesbian, find a woman desperate for dough who will act as a surrogate to carry a gay guy's sperm, or through a clinic of some kind, using a third party's egg or sperm.

That's why marriage, in a traditional sense, completely and utterly rules out reproduction of the supposed "homosexual gene" . . . because a gay couple can not reproduce within the confines of marriage.

It's also interesting, following the "gay gene" theory, that a homosexual would have to consciously go against their nature by engaging in a sex with a member of the opposite sex. If they can go against their nature in order to reproduce, what's to say they're not going against their real nature in acting gay? The genetic thing is such a crock.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Gay marriages make as much inherent sense as a pair of geese flying north for the winter, or a bear hibernating through summer.

What we term "conscience" - and "try" to train and nurture as "moral values" through (Christian) religions - is what is called instincts in the animal world.

The "repulsion" of most males ( and females) to homosexual activities is a result of 150,00 years of breeding and health. Funny, the extreme left-wing DEMANDS absolute respect be given to the murdering fanatics of Islam (as they explode their children to kill Jews and Americans according to their "religion"), but DEMANDS that Christian
rules against homosexuality (that would tend to protect health and reduce promiscuity and teenage births and out-of-wedlock births be damned to silence.
Homosexuals don't breed and MUST recruit their next generation of victims through seduction, the media, and the attraction of temporary but very real "forbidden pleasures."

[sinanju]

It's becoming more and more acknowledged that far more gays are "made" vampire fashion (childhood sexual abuse) than are "born."

[MHGinTN]

Degeneracy can't reproduce? Well I'm a amazed that this doesn't get coverage in the lamestream media! /sarc

Degeneracy is like a wave function, it propagates in the medium of society based on the frequency granted by and the amplitude provided by MEDIA WHOREDOM.