Northern Assault Threatens Marriage (MUST READ)

The Oklahoman ^ | June 30, 2003 | Oklahoman Editorial

[PhiKapMom]

Northern Assault Threatens Marriage

2003-06-30
Oklahoman Editorial

We thought the institution of marriage was fairly secure in the United States -- notwithstanding legislation recognizing civil unions in the republic of Vermont. If not public opinion polls showing overwhelming support for traditional marriage, then surely the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed a few years ago in Congress made it clear the one man-one woman model was to be protected in America.

Looks like we thought wrong.

The legalization of homosexual marriage in Canada and legal challenges to DOMA in this country signal new threats to traditional marriage are at hand.

In Canada, an appeals court in Ontario ruled earlier this month that the country's ban on homosexual marriage is unconstitutional. As a result, Prime Minister Jean Chretien says a law to legalize same-sex marriage is coming soon.

The effect is fairly obvious. Homosexuals married north of the border will return to the United States expecting their unions to be recognized, with all of the same rights and standing as traditional marriages.

Democrat Howard Dean, a candidate for president (and the former governor of the republic of Vermont) recently declared on NBC's "Meet the Press" that if elected he would "insist that every state find a way to recognized the same legal rights for gay couples as they do for everybody else."

Dean went on: "If a couple goes to Canada and gets married, when they come back, they should have exactly the same legal rights as every other American."

This would be even more frightening if Dean was electable. But the basic point is scary enough: Developments in Canada will put tremendous pressure on the United States to do as Dean says, to begin recognizing those unions as legal and meriting the same benefits as traditional marriages.

In this country, homosexual groups are mounting challenges to DOMA, which has been adopted in some form by 37 states, including Oklahoma. The Massachusetts Supreme Court is considering a case right now, and similar challenges will appear in other states as well.

As we say, the ground upon which traditional marriage rests again is under assault. Those in Congress who've defended marriage in the past need to gird for the next battle, which is just around the bend.

[solomangrundy]

Since the same Canadian law that recognizes marriage between heterosexual couples will also recognize the same for homosexual couples, might not any heterosexual couple married in Canada thus have their marriage NOT recognized in the USA?

I hear a lot of empty rhetoric about "destruction of the family", etc. but no one has EVER defined just how "gay marriage" can have any effect, negative or otherwise, on anyone else's marriage. I just can't see that many, if any, heterosexual couples will just throw up their hands and end their marriage because gay couples are recognized. If their marriage is that shallow, perhaps they shouldn't have been married to begin with. It also seems to me that heterosexuals have done a darn good job of destruction completely on their own. Also, nobody has EVER stated that any church or religion would be required to do anything they don't agree with or believe in. Currently in the USA, a legal marriage between a man and woman does not have to have anything whatsoever to do with any religion. A wedding doesn't have to take place in a church, the official doesn't have to be a preacher, there is no requirement that anything religious be involved at all. Athiests can be just as legally married as anyone else. So then, what business is it of any church or religion whether gay people are allowed to have their marriages recognized by the government? Whether you like it or not, gay people already get married, it is just that the government does not currently recognize those marriages.

A cousin of mine had planned her wedding (to a man, she and he are very heterosexual and very religious) for many months and had rented a local church to have the service. Three days before the wedding, after all the invitations had long since been mailed and all the other plans made, the preacher at the church informed my cousin that she could not have her wedding there because he had just found out that she is a Mormon (it was a Baptist church). He refused to allow the service to happen and also refused to refund the $2000 she had paid to rent the church, saying that was a "donation" and not a rental fee. My cousin had to scramble to find another location for her wedding and call over 200 people to tell them the change of plans. Now, should the government have been able to tell the church they had to allow the service? No, even though the preacher and the church were complete and utter a**holes, it was their right. The same would be so for any "gay marriage". Just as any church currently can refuse any wedding or other service they don't like or believe, it would be no different with marriages.

[PhiKapMom]

John --

Your comments in #14 are right IMHO and need wide circulation. Everyone needs to read what you have to say to know what we are up against!

Your comparing this to Roe vs. Wade seems to be exactly what is happening which is scarey. This whole movement's agenda needs stopped in its tracks!

The comments you have just made are the best I have seen on this and actually deserve their own thread so everyone will read them.

[PhiKapMom]

How convenient -- this ruling comes out last week and you show up today after the weekend of "Gay" Pride celebrations! Sorry -- I don't believe in coincidences.

As for your cousin, that is a far stretch since up front the parties have to give their religious affiliation when marrying in a Church. Morman marrying in a Baptist Church? Renting a church for $2000 for a wedding ceremony -- please forward the name of that Church! That defies my probability meter as well!

[steve-b]

In that case, I would say that it was the church's responsibility to check before signing a legal contract, and that if they failed to do so, they can either fulfil their obligation under the rental arrangement or pay the cost (including last-minute notifications) for someone else to fulfil it in their stead.

[solomangrundy]

My showing up here has nothing to do with "gay pride". I stayed home all weekend doing yardwork, I didn't have much time to celebrate anything.

As to my cousin, the story is most definitely true, it happened last summer in the small town of Bassett Virginia. Are you saying there is some legal requirement that "parties have to give their religious affiliation when marrying in a Church"? Because there is such a small number of Mormons in the area, they do not have a church building (they use a business property owned by a member to hold their services). The Baptist church is frequently used by many people other than its members simply because of its size and convenience. The preacher at the Baptist church was not asked to perform the ceremony. It wasn't until the Mormon preacher came to the church to look over the layout that the Baptist preacher even bothered to ask their denomination. It was then he made the statement that "only Christians can use their church." He had the opinion that Mormons are not Christian.

Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant. I've found from reading many things from people such as you that anytime you're confronted with something you don't like you simply decide it must be a lie. I can't decide whether that is a matter of convenience or immaturity. Perhaps both.

[freeangel]

later

[solomangrundy]

Unfortunately there was no signed contract. Things in that area of the country are generally done on a handshake or verbal agreement. You don't really consider that a church is going to swindle you out of money (well, my cousin wouldn't at least...). Several attempts to get her money back were met with considerable scorn from the church and preacher, who suddenly claimed that the rental fee was not a "fee" it was a "donation" and thus not subject to refund. I consider that stealing, but the Christians in the Baptist church in Bassett Virginia seem to feel otherwise.

[SevenDaysInMay]

This Northern Assault is actually the Southern Mounted Strategy, always attacks at the rear.

Treaty is the method for destroying our national values expressed in law, and our legal structure under the Law of the Land.

It is time for western Canadian provences to split from EUtopia Lite and jihad staging to join Americans as it is time for We the People to consent only to statutory, regulatory, and bench laws which are Constitutional rather than submit to court orders by those deluded into thinking that their unlimited power is for life.

The Ontario and most of the East is lost, content as subjects. Quebec is just French.

[bereanway]

Not only that it will destroy marriage (because you are attempting to redefine something in a perverse manner which is established as far back as Genesis 2) but it will undermine the very cornerstone of our society. By redefiniton it is no longer marriage but rather some construct of the state designed to satiate the deviant desires of a small minority. You are are attempting to somehow give legal sanction to activity which has been shown over and over to result in disease, death and dramtically shortened life spans (certainly in the case of male homosexuality).

[solomangrundy]

Isn't marriage already a construct of the state? Isn't that exactly what we are attempting to address? Currently marriage in the USA has two "parts". There is the "official" part which is recognized by the government. That part is required. Then there is the religious part. That part is optional, there is no requirement that a legal marriage have anything whatsoever to do with any religion.

Nobody has ever suggested altering anyone's religious views, but only in what our government recognizes. As to your other statements, you exaggerate far too much. You should read more reputable and reliable sources, that "shorter life span" thing was debunked as a complete and utter lie a long time ago.

[steve-b]

In that case, my condolences -- you're just big-red-capital-Superman-"S" screwed.

I am, however, reminded of Jay Leno's joke about the Phoenix bishop hit-and-run case. "You'd think he'd be worried that somebody might have seen him. Like, maybe... God?"

[Mo1]

The Baptist church is frequently used by many people other than its members simply because of its size and convenience. The preacher at the Baptist church was not asked to perform the ceremony.

I also question this and ALL of the details .. I'm not a Baptist and I don't know all the rules of their church

But in the Catholic Church they don't just lend out their church to other religious faiths to perform a wedding ceremony

At least one of the couple has to be a catholic to be married in the church, and if one of the couple is not a Catholic there is a likely hood of not having a high mass performed.

There are many other rules .. one of them being asked if any of them are catholic ...

As I stated, I don't know all the rules of the Baptist Church with regards to a wedding .. but something tells me your friend was not up front and truthfull with the Preacher ...

[solomangrundy]

So again, when you don't agree with something you assume it must be a lie. How very convenient for you.

A small-town Baptist church doesn't generally operate like the Catholic church. My cousin wasn't asked her religion, and the church has hosted weddings for people of other faiths such as Methodists, Lutherans, and even Catholics (I personally have attended a Catholic wedding there).

[bereanway]

No, marriage is an institution created by God and recognized by the state. The institution of marriage predates our consitiutional republic by several millenia. What you are talking about is not marriage but some sort of civil union designed to placate the deviants.

[Mo1]

A Catholic Wedding in a Baptist Church?

What is the name of this church?

And I didn't say you lied .. I just question of ALL the details

See, I have a liberal sister who tends to get upset with me when I ask questions. See she does tell the truth .. problem is .. she doesn't tell the WHOLE truth .. she tends to leave parts of her story out.

[solomangrundy]

Yes, a Catholic wedding in a Baptist church. The area of southwestern Virginia does not have a large enough population of Catholics or Mormons to sustain a large church building, they generally meet in small offices or such. The closest large Catholic church is 70 miles away. Most people in the area are either Baptist or Methodist, with Presbyterians and Lutherans making up the next group. Jewish people are even less numerous than Catholics and Mormons there.

Have you ever been to rural areas?

[Snuffington]

IMO there will be an all out assault on President Bush from the Gay community and their lapdogs in the Liberal wing of the Clinton DemocRAT Party because of the upcoming SCOTUS appointments.

Bush can handle that. I'm more worried about "friendly fire" from those within the party who either insist Bush must lead the charge in favor of homosexual marriage (a la Andrew Sullivan), or insist he must avoid getting too involved, so as not to offend potential gay supporters (a la David Horowitz).

Very hard for Bush to stand up for traditional marriage and appease the gay lobby at the same time. And I believe the campaign will force him to pick sides.

[solomangrundy]

Are heterosexuals who are not married in a church and have no religious beliefs or affiliation married? Or is their marriage just a "civil union"?

Are you suggesting that a marriage MUST be performed in a church by a religious official before the government can recognize it as legal?

[PhiKapMom]

I only questioned because that is the first question asked in Baptist Churches here in OK and believe me we have a lot of Baptist Churches!

What the minister did was wrong if that is what happened but I have a hard time seeing how it equates to recognizing Gay Marriage.

If I were your cousin, I would have written to the head of that particular church's governing body and probably visited until I got my $2,000 back. I wouldn't take it lying down and I hope she did just that.

You have to realize that time and time again many of us have been attacked on here by new posters. I lost track how many times I personally have been on the receiving end because I a Bush supporter, Republican, and Conservative.

[proud American in Canada]

"Looking for suggestions on ping lists -- need to know if you object to this list being used for articles on the assault on DOMA by the gay and lesbian community for their agenda of making Gay Marriage legal which is fast becoming a hot topic for the 2004 elections. If so, then I will start a new list!"

Please add me to this ping list!

It's unbelievable that three appointed judges (there is no confirmation process up here), the Ontario Court of Appeals, has set in motion such chaos.

I'm all for a constitutional amendment!