MARRIAGE DIGEST: N.Y. Times editorial says nation will change

BP News ^ | 3/12/04 | Michael Foust

[longtermmemmory]

For those who have not seen it:
H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26
Amendment Text:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law,
shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred
upon unmarried couples or groups.

[dr_who_2]

The NYT basically tells the rest of the country to once again "bend over".

[John Will]

That's right Accelerate the conflict between (New England and The left Coast) vs the West and South.
We may see a second civil war if this keeps up.

[Knuckle Sandwich Combo]

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

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.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

My stomach is unsettled after a long drive, so I can't read anything that has the words "New York Times" in it. Since apparently 75% of the NYT editorial board are avowed homosexuals, anything they write is nothing but pure unadulterated propaganda. But there is other info in here as well.

They can call it "gay" marriage, but what it really is, is the dismantling of what's left of civilization.

Let me know if anyone wants on/off this ping list.

[mrustow]

A top-level New York Times reporter stated, a year or two ago, in passing on a TV talk show, that the ENTIRE editorial NY Times board is gay.

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.

[mrustow]

See #26; thanks for the ping.

[breakem]

Proposed Marriage Initiative Biblical values included: A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)

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)--

[mrustow]

And your point would be ...?

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!

[breakem]

glad to help

[Eva]

The nation will never embrace same sex marriage, at least not while the constitution still guarantees the freedom of religion. The two are not compatible.

[breakem]

oh, and my point. Just to show the selective reading of the Bible by some of our more devout posters.

[goldstategop]

Rest assured I will NEVER change!

[WL-law]

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.

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.