Mr. Greenhut, I'm sure you are familiar with Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.
Proposition 8
amen
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
It's one thing to be tolerant, to look the other way- and quite another to be forced to agree to, and even cheerlead for something you don't support.
Marriage and the family are the basic building blocks of society, even predating history- and you want us to agree to standing it on its head.
No sale- and I'll oppose it no matter what you write, or what abominations of law you get corrupt judges to agree to.
Enough is enough with this nonsense.
Not unless the full faith and credit clause is repealed.
OK...Let’s “Let it go”.... and then tax the hell out of the “industry” that develops for it... have ‘marriage parlors’ that have a hefty license fee to operate, and retail sales & excise taxes on the goods & services....and there’d have to be a fee for all the marriage licenses too...then we take all the revenue, and fund education with it - so we have “Gay marriage - it’s for the children”....
I don’t want my government to pretend things to be true that aren’t true. Our government used to pretend that black people aren’t people and it was called slavery. The Nazis pretended that Jewish people aren’t people and it was called the holocaust. Our government currently pretends that preborn people aren’t people and call it “choice”. We don’t need our government to pretend that homosexuality is normal. It isn’t.
/sarcasm
Nobody EVER said same-sex "marriage" would destroy some individual strong, committed marriage. Fake marriage devalues marriage in society's view, especially in the message it conveys to children. It devalues it much the same way that counterfeit money devalues legitimate currency. Divorce also devalues marriage - so what's the point the idiot Greenhut is trying to make?
“most opponents of gay marriage rely on religious judgment to justify their position.”
Religious judgement? How about God’s direct word through Jesus Christ?
““Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? “ Matthew 19: 4-5
How about God’s revelation through the inspired writings of the Apostle Paul?
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.” I Corinthians 6:9-10
Earthquakes happen. But I do find it a bit ironic that the heart of homosexual activism sits on the San Andreas fault.
The author’s basic assumption that marriage is simply a contract in secular terms is flawed. Marriage is not something the state merely rubberstamps to promote religion. Marriage between a man and a woman is a unique institution that provides defined and unique benefits to the state, which the state recognizes and rewards with a unique status. Marriage benefits the state in that it not only binds together legally two individuals, but also binds together legally and genetically two separate families. All governments suffer from family or tribal fighting and stability is a definite government goal and benefit. When a man and woman marry, they are agents for binding what was two tribes into one tribe, not through the marriage itself but through the children from that marriage. Thus, even if the marriage itself dissolves through divorce or death, the tribes are still bound and stabilized through the children. This is one of the reasons marriage partners are scrutinized by the state in the process of getting a marriage license. The state has an interest in fostering long-term stability of the legally-bound tribes rather than just the instant couple before it.
Homosexual “marriage” is different. It is a relationship between two adults without the binding effect of genetics passing to the next generation. In fact, to the extent homosexuals can have children, they must do so by separating the child from at least half its genetic tribes. It therefore bestows a lesser advantage to the state and should not be treated as equivalent or identical to heterosexual marriage. Equal protection guarantees under our various national and state constitutions should therefore not apply. This is not to say that heterosexual marriages that don’t produce children should not be given the same protections of other heterosexual marriages. Protections should be based on possibility rather than actuality in these cases.
I do agree with the writer that a lot of religious people and groups have devalued marriage and the best possible approach would be to both fight the attempt to make homosexual and heterosexual marriage identical legally and to take marriage much more seriously than we do these days. After all, if Christians don’t value marriage, why should be the state? That means, to me, that Christians needs to stop looking the other way on cohabitation, on infidelity, on fornication and other sins against the holy institution of marriage.
Now, after that rant, I see it is time for me to run off to church. Got a 7 am meeting to attend here on the Left Coast. I will check back later in the day.
How is it that for 5000 years, every society on this planet allowed marriage only between a man and a woman? The majority of these societies were not even Bible believing. Now in the last 15 years anyone who disagrees with gay marriage is suddenly a religious nut.
Apparantly lots on people think they are smarter than 5000 years of recorded history. I’m not so sure.
Well, since he tossed Genesis in the trash, why would Leviticus or anything else matter?
You simply need to have your eyes open and have basic understanding of statecraft.
At least this S.O.B., Greenhut, is honest enough to admit that polygamy will be the next shoe to drop (unlike the California State Supreme Court “Justice” who tried to rationalize that allowing gay marriage wouldn’t lead to polygamy). Most men, religious or not, don’t want to see the Brad Pitts and Don Trumps of the world freed from the burdens of “serial polygamy” by exercising the option of legally marrying Jennifer and Angelina at the same ceremony (or Ivana, Marla, and what’s her name, in Trumps’ case). And, one would suppose, that even more women would oppose the idea of being Number Three wife in a legal harem (or the only wife in a polyandry situation). Nor would many people of either sex, wish to inadvertently assist in the spread of the R.O.P. by legalizing its most popular “sacrament”.
Same-sex “marriage” is a direct attack on religious freedom. There is nothing libertarian about it.