FDRQ delenda est...
Posted on 08/18/2008 3:57:15 PM PDT by Tzimisce
When she used the term “religious right” in the first paragraph, my “bilge-alert” sign went on and I immediately quit reading.
No matter what they call it they cannot ever have what I have had. If they call this abomination marriage then I will call mine a “traditional marriage”.
My thoughts exactly. She should lecture God on what a waste of His time it was to blow Sodom and Gomorrah off the map. He obviously thought it was an important issue, eh?
Fighting global warming?
I couldn't agree more. This is why God instituted Marriage in the Garden BEFORE the Fall.
No, they shouldn’t. Gay marriage is an assault upon the basic foundation of civilization and as such it is a moral evil.
Who is Lord of the Marriage Rings? Middle Ground Need in Kalifornia Same-Sex Marriage Issue to Preserve Democracy
From CaliforniaRepublic.org 7-18-08
T he California Supreme Court’s recent reckless ruling validating same-sex marriage is like a fictional battle in J.R.R. Tolkien’s fantasy story The Lord of the Rings – only in this case the battle is over who is the lord of the marriage rings.
Tolkien’s fantasy stories and movies chronicle the struggle to control the continent of Middle Earth. The players in Tolkien’s drama are the angelic Valar and his Elves on one side and the demonic Morgoth and his minions the Orcs and dragons and enslaved men on the other side. Onlookers involved in the struggle are the Dwarves, Ents, and the famous Hobbits (Halflings or hole-dwellers).
Gauging by letters to editors of most of the local newspapers in California on the topic of same-sex marriage, most of the public cannot conceive of any middle ground (Middle Earth) in this contentious issue. And apparently neither can the courts. But democracy requires a middle ground on marriage between the relativists (”everything goes in marriage”) and the fundamentalists (“same-sex marriage should be discriminated against”).
Contrary to prevailing public opinion, our form of democracy and the Constitution does not require a strict separation, but a compromise, between church and state, especially on the same-sex marriage issue. In a democracy neither a Stalinist-like secular totalitarianism nor an Islamic-like religious fundamentalism shall solely rule the day. Secular Stalinist Russia forbade clergy to perform certain marriage rites while fundamentalist Islam sanctions only arranged marriages. A middle ground on marriage in a modern democracy respects both church and state and individual choice. Withdrawal from a middle position would result in a pull out from democracy and modernity and a temptation toward totalitarian backlash.
The necessity of a political middle ground on same-sex marriage, and a host of other issues in order to preserve democracy, originates from a recent project called the Relativism-Fundamentalism Study by the eminent sociologist of religion, Dr. Peter Berger, at the Institute on Culture, Religion and World Affairs, together with the Pew Research Center . The major finding of the project is that both relativism and fundamentalism are two sides of the same coin that threaten the basic social order and liberal democracy. Relativism makes the social order a capricious game, and fundamentalism Balkanizes and dehumanizes society into mutually hostile camps that cannot communicate with each other.
A paradoxical finding of their research is that it is secular Relativists who are the most fanatic and absolutist about same-sex marriage and it is so-called Fundamentalist (i.e., evangelical) religionists who are the more tolerant, as long as they are given the option of sectarian enclaves from same-sex marriage. The California Supreme Court decision dangerously signals the likely end of sectarian withdrawal and pluralism and the rise of totalitarianism in public schools, eventually extending into even private institutions.
As soon as the California Supreme Court reached its decision, the fundamentalist same-sex marriage advocates launched incursions into the courts to train police and prosecutors about insensitivity to same-sex domestic violence. They have protested in front of private businesses whose owners or employees have contributed large sums to battle against same-sex marriage. Last year even before the California Supreme Court’s ruling, the online dating service eharmony California was sued for excluding gays. Today it is the Relativists, not the religious Fundamentalists, who are fanatically intolerant, militant, and litigious. And the courts and pandering politicians are giving them sway.
Prior to the recent poorly judged decision of the State Supreme Court we had a widely accepted democratic middle ground for marriage — majority rule, minority rights. This meant marriage between a man and woman was the norm but civil unions and property-sharing between same sex partners were respected.
Now fanatic same-sex marriage activists dangerously want to created a void where this successful middle ground on marriage existed. Metaphorically, they want to marry a fanatic Islamic female suicide bomber with an atheistic Happy Hooker. This will not be a marriage made in heaven. It will eventually gravitate to a society organized on the basis of fanaticism, or what we call totalitarianism. We can deal with religious sectarians and traditionalists; not with secular totalitarians (although religiously liberal churches oddly are now also giving legitimacy to the same-sex marriage cause).
In the past we had both secular and religious fundamentalist activists who carved out a stable middle ground on civil rights and marriage (e.g., Susan B. Anthony, Jane Addams, Martin Luther King, etc). Today, both secular and religious fundamentalists wish to destroy a middle ground on marriage for political opportunism all in the name of eliminating discrimination. It all seems part of the manufactured zeitgeist of progressive “change.”
Today’s fundamentalist same-sex marriage activists are militant relativists who would risk destroying democracy and inciting a dangerous totalitarian-like backlash that would likely result in the flight of many affluent “bourgeouise” families and religious families from our public schools.
The militant same-sex marriage advocates unintentionally would incite discrimination against gays. Parents who are presently laid-back about same-sex marriage will become more persuasive against the same-sex option with their children once it is mandated in public and private institutions. This is probably why most major newspapers in California are opposed to the recent reckless Supreme Court ruling.
Religious traditionalists and Fundamentalists are prone to see the same-sex marriage issue in moral terms; while Relativists are more prone to frame it as a civil rights discrimination issue. Both frame the issue in an attempt to win the moral high ground. Both suffer from misleading perceptions of the situation at hand.
Moderates of all political persuasions need to unite against judicial and secular fundamentalist extremism. It is not discrimination against same sex marriage or sexual immorality per se that is at stake, but democracy and freedom.
For the metaphorical Elves, Dwarves, Ents, and Hobbits of the public who are onlookers into this culture war over marriage and may vote on a California election proposition to enshrine traditional marriage in the state constitution, it is necessary to keep in mind that democracy is what hangs in the balance of finding a middle ground on the same-sex marriage issue. Without a middle ground, the Middle Earth may eventually succumb to a giant sink hole of fanaticism and totalitarianism. CRO
Does she do pro bono work for the World Council of Churches or does she just chair the MidWest KUM BY YA Society?
Got it in one. Nothing in the way of a mind to see here. Move along.
Got it in one.
Nothing in the way of a mind to see here. Move along.
No thanks, homosexuals can not marry and we serve a greater master than perverse lust of the flesh.
She forgets, or conveniently misconstrues the fact, that same-sex marriage advocates are the aggressors on the status quo institution of marriage. Don't ever let some leftist idiot turn this around on us. THEY are attacking, viciously and with unrelenting fury. We are defending.
I guess the author believes everytime a traditional value is threatened b y the left, the right should all lay down and let the left walk all over us. He couldn't be more wrong.
FDRQ delenda est...
“Why are so many squandering precious time in an attempt to outlaw gay marriage?”
Because everything the left does has the effect and intent of destroying the traditional family.
Welcome, doctors being sued for not giving IVF to lesbo couples. Welcome, condoms on cucumbers class. Welcome gay Scoutmasters. Welcome Harvey Milk Day, public nudity, pornographic public ads, and gay beaches. Welcome to the shut churches, forbidden to preach about this sacred topic! Welcome to Christian photographers being sued for refusing gay weddings - cake bakers, florists, officiants, you name it!! Welcome Christian adoption agencies, closing because they can’t in good conscience place babies with gay couples! Welcome “hate crimes” of any description!! Welcome Christian publications, or even secular, being shut down for refusing gay porn ads! Singles registries shut for refusing a same sex section?
Good grief, does this woman ever read the news?
By analogy, those who find murder offensive to their sensibilities cannot prohibit murderous relationships altogether,......but then again,..maybe, just maybe they can be made illegitimate such that those who disobey they law face the consequences of their behavior.
In the case of homosexual relationships, the homosexual owes the heterosexual spouse substantial recompense for the destruction of marriage as well as familial members for destruction of their families.
IMHO, every homosexual has committed an infraction upon the familial rights of all older generations and younger generations twice removed.
Marriage is not a civil right, it is a Social Institution. What is pissing us off is that courts are riding roughshod over the notion of a self-governing society by excluding the people from the process of defining their own values. There are no “rights” available to a married couple that cannot be legally secured by contract for a gay couple. What is being seized from us at the point of a gavel is our approval. We are being told, not that same-sex couples can exist, but that we will regard it with reverence whether we like it or not, because People Don’t Know What’s Good For Them.
This isn’t about God’s Law, it’s about Man’s Law, and how it is made. In the United States, the power to make law is supposed to come from the People. This is being done the way it is being done because the Gay community has utterly failed to convince the people of any state that this is a good idea.
I used to have a great deal of tolerance for homosexuals. They have completely depleted my supply of goodwill by their narcissistic behavior. They have alienated me beyond retrieval.
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.