Posted on 03/13/2004 9:31:11 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
Tenn. (BP)–-If the New York Times editorial board is correct, then it is only a matter of time before the nation embraces same-sex “marriage.” The board, which has opined on same-sex “marriage” several times in recent months, wrote a 1,300-word editorial for the March 7 edition explaining how homosexual “marriage” legalization will transpire. “The idea of marriage between two people of the same sex is still very new, and for some unsettling, but we have been down this road before,” the newspaper stated. “This debate follows the same narrative arc as women’s liberation, racial integration, disability rights and every other march of marginalized Americans into the mainstream. “Same-sex marriage seems destined to have the same trajectory: from being too outlandish to be taken seriously, to being branded offensive and lawless, to eventual acceptance.” As an example of the issue’s widening appeal, the board mentioned the pro-same-sex “marriage” editorial by Baylor University’s student newspaper. The Times editorial compared bans on same-sex “marriage” to bans on interracial marriage, which were struck down in 1967 by the U.S. Supreme Court. “Calling marriage one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ the Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that Virginia had to let interracial couples marry,” The Times’ editorial board asserted. “Thirty-seven years from now, the reasons for opposing gay marriage will no doubt feel just as archaic, and the right to enter into it will be just as widely accepted.” The Defense of Marriage Act, which gives states the option of not recognizing another state’s same-sex “marriage,” should be struck down as unconstitutional, the editorial argued. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have pointed to the law while saying that a federal constitutional marriage amendment isn’t needed. “But the law has not been tested, and it should eventually be found to violate the constitutional requirement that states respect each other’s legal acts,” the editorial read. “As a practical matter, the nation is too tightly bound today for people’s marriages to dissolve, and child custody arrangements to change, merely because they move to another state.” LAWSUITS FILED -- Liberty Counsel and the American Family Association filed joint lawsuits March 11 in Multnomah County, Ore., and Seattle. The Oregon lawsuit, filed with the Oregon Supreme Court, seeks to stop Multnomah County from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Seattle lawsuit seeks to stop Mayor Greg Nickels from giving benefits to city employees who “marry” elsewhere. OPINION IN CONN. –- Even though same-sex “marriages” haven’t been attempted in his state, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal says he will issue an opinion on their legality within the next month. “These legal issues are tremendously significant and merit careful and thorough research and analysis,” he said, according to The Stamford (Conn.) Advocate. “The statutes may not be definitive or absolutely clear on this, and there may be constitutional questions of very substantial magnitude and complexity.” THE NEXT SAN FRAN.? -- Since the California Supreme Court’s March 11 order to San Francisco officials to cease issuing same-sex “marriage” licenses, Multnomah County, Ore., is the only place currently issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. However, other localities may soon follow. The San Jose, Calif., city council voted 8-1 March 9 to recognize same-sex “marriages” performed elsewhere. In Pennsylvania, council members for the town of New Hope passed a resolution March 9 by a 5-0 vote favoring same-sex “marriage” legalization, although it carries no legal weight, according to the Associated Press. Same-sex “marriage” supporters have filed lawsuits in several states recently, including California, New York, Tennessee and Washington. PUPPY LOVE -- Entertainer Barbara Streisand criticized President Bush for supporting a constitutional marriage amendment, telling a gathering of the Human Rights Campaign that “happiness can be many things,” even a warm puppy. HRC is the nation’s largest homosexual rights organization. “The law cannot dictate matters of the heart,” she said, according to Talon News. “When two people form a deep bond, there is usually a soul connection, and the soul has no gender. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are fundamental rights in this country. Happiness can be many things -- a good meal, a good friend, a warm puppy, and certainly ... love. How can anyone legislate who you can love? That is a human right, the right to love and be loved.” VIRGINIA BILL PASSES -- The Virginia Senate passed a bill March 10 that would ban both same-sex “marriage” and civil unions. It passed by a vote of 28-10 and now goes to Gov. Mark R. Warner for his signature, according to The Virginia-Pilot. It already passed the House. Virginia has a ban on same-sex “marriage,” although legislators believe the state needs a broader ban that prohibits other types of contracts, such as those that exist in Vermont. WIS. HURDLE CLEARED -- The Wisconsin Senate passed a constitutional marriage amendment on a 20-13 vote March 11, clearing the first step in a three-step process to amend the state constitution. It already passed the state House. It now must pass in the next legislative session before going to the voters. Wisconsin has no ban on same-sex “marriage.” WINS, LOSSES -- Legislators in Kentucky, Minnesota and New Hampshire saw bills banning same-sex “marriage” advance in voting March 8-12, while legislators in Michigan, Maryland and Idaho saw bans fail. In Kentucky, the Senate passed by a vote of 33-4 an amendment that would ban both same-sex “marriage” and civil unions. A similar version is pending in the House. In Minnesota, a House committee passed a marriage amendment by an 8-4 vote. In New Hampshire, the Senate passed a statute banning same-sex “marriage” by a 16-7 vote. In Maryland, a House of Delegates committee voted down a statute and an amendment that would have banned same-sex “marriage,” the Associated Press reported. In Michigan, the full House failed to pass an amendment when a vote fell short of the required two-thirds majority. Needing 73 votes, the bill received 65 for it, 38 against it. In Idaho, the Senate voted 20-13 not to pull a marriage amendment out of a committee, according to AP. The committee’s chair earlier said the amendment isn’t needed since President Bush backs a federal amendment. Supporters of the Idaho amendment say they will keep trying. Kentucky, Minnesota, Michigan and Idaho already have bans on same-sex “marriage,” although legislatures in the respective states are seeking to strengthen their laws against court rulings. Maryland and New Hampshire have no such protection.
Unfortunately, they had better be more specific than this (ie, the union of a person born with a penis and a person born with a vagina), as many of these behaviourly-challenged souls consider themselves to be "a man in a woman's body" and vice-versa. I can forsee the wording as it stands being twisted (ie, it depends on what the definition of 'man' or 'woman' is) to suit the dark side's agenda.
It was four years ago, and it wasn't on a talk show. National correspondent Richard Berke (since promoted to Washington editor) bragged, at the Gay and Lesbian Journalists Association's convention, that three-quarters of the honchos at meetings (i.e., much more than just the editorial board) where it is decided what will go into the next day's paper, are gay. The other day, pc media writer Eric Alterman claimed that no one on the Times editorial board is gay, but I'm not sure if you could trust Alterman to give you the correct time of day.
B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Mark 10:9)
F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut25:5-10)--
Are you upset that the fine for F is too low?
In any event, I appreciate your diligent list-making, and plan on taking up with the wife tomorrow the matter of my right to concubinage!
You're right that it was Richard Berke, and if it was 4 years ago, well, time flies. I thought, though, that I remembered Berke discussing it on some NPR-type news-in-review weekly panel show, and I thought I remembered him saying that the group that "decided the news" (you're correct about that, too) was (paraphrasing) 100% gay.
And Berke, too, is obviously gay (he wasn't hiding it, although he didn't state it explicitly) -- I remembered 'observing' that as I saw him make the statement.
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.