Posted on 02/14/2014 10:59:55 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
“We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn't that what marriage is? ... I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry. Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the ‘wrong kind of person’ for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. ... I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.” — Mildred Loving, "Loving for All"
Last night, only days after hearing oral arguments in the case, a Virginia federal judge struck down the state ban on same-sex marriage, writing unequivocally that “[t]radition is revered in the Commonwealth, and often rightly so. However, tradition alone cannot justify denying same-sex couples the right to marry any more than it could justify Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage.” The judge opened her opinion with the quote, above, from Mildred Loving, the plaintiff in the 1967 challenge to Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage. She thus joined a unanimous and ever-expanding collection of federal judges who have chosen to answer the question left up in the air by the Supreme Court last Spring....
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
It’s an ugly, yet still complex, situation.
Ask most homosexuals and they’ll frankly tell you, faux-marriage is a buzz kill.
This isn’t even wild-grass roots. This is a group of sad weak sheeple being led by a few pied piper loud mouths.
It’s these loud mouths that strike me as approaching “Sodom grade.” I note the startling observation in that account that “all the men of the town” gathered for the proposed rape of the angel. Now sometimes my “sanctified imagination” can go wild so please don’t take this as anything authoritative, but I have to wonder if they had managed to make a city law making such group rapes de rigueur. This is only a rape of the social honor of marriage, so it is much weaker than it could get. It’s God’s warning to us about where self-love will go when the love of the Lord isn’t welcomed.
Exactly. And my belief is their anger is based on the deep and undeniable knowledge they aren’t normal. As such, if they’re going to remain miserable, so must everyone around them.
Soon these psychos are going to demand Christian churches recognize their sham “marriages.”
I’m not sure all of them even CARE about “being not normal.”
It’s gone beyond that in many cases. Now it’s whee, what sort of fun can we have punking society?
This said, we can’t validly lump everyone who commits this sin into a single category. Some may still be very dismayed at themselves, but find scant if any help around them. All they see is a society busy going to hell too. This is a golden opportunity for the church if it only realized it and could rise above calling the entire homosexual world nothing but pests. As far as Christ is concerned, sinner = potential saint. It is an acceptance of salvation away. It’s also something that Satan emphatically doesn’t want to happen and any Christians approaching the scene can expect opposition on every hand, even from ignorant Christians. This would be to carry redemption to some of what Satan had intended to be his biggest prizes.
To defy the devil is something Christians don’t have a lot of practice at today. To be outspoken and to let the world hate them and to prosper anyhow through a series of miraculous divine helps. Christ calls it bearing a cross. And the function of the cross is to suffer for the sake of bringing redemptive goodness to others.
God makes marriages. The state legalizes contracts. God is not ruled by judges of any nation, but they will all be judged by Him.
First, “Matrimony” should be the term used for Christian Weddings since its root is the word “mater” which means mother. Etymologically, it means something akin to the “the state provided for mothering”. That gets to the heart of the “holy state of matrimony” better than any court case so far.
Second, P-Marlowe is correct. There should be a civil and a religious ceremony that are separate. When a friend married in Germany over a decade ago, she had to separately go for a civil binding and then separately to a matrimonial ceremony. It didn’t hurt their record keeping at all. As a pastor, I would insist that “Holy Matrimony” be first.
Third, we can count on the fake liberal churches to copy what we do in an effort to distort the truth of its message. The truth will be, though, that MATRIMONY will always require a heterosexual couple. As already mentioned, the word “matrimony” itself defies pollution by a homosexual couple because they are incapable of the potentional for procreation via wed mother/father. Also, it defies polygamist pollution because the best security and well-being for both mother and child is in a monogamous pair loving each other and their natural-born children. Historically, it also defies polygamist pollution thanks to our Catholic and Orthodox Church brethren who have steadfastly held to “one man/one woman” throughout their history. (I say this as a Methodist, so don’t think I’m pushing anyone toward Catholicism/Orthodoxy. I’m speaking of historic Christian fact.)
While it is true that we live in unusual times, my understanding of the Greek/Roman culture is that it wasn’t really much different.
Christianity exploded in that culture when Christianity itself was the counter-cultural choice with its own churches, leadership, and affirmations of faith and lifestyle.
But I agree with you. We need divine intervention.
May he develop a permanent erection, depriving him forever the bliss of sleeping on his stomach.............
Has any judge provided a definition of what gay “marriage” is?
Legal marriage provides a legal framework to protect a biological relationship between a mated pair, with the intent of protecting the offspring from such a pair.
Since homosexuals cannot form a mated pair and certainly won’t produce offspring, what, exactly, is the rationale for letting them go through the legal motions?
I know the homosexuals want the financial benefits, and that is a big motivator—but those benefits are meant to offset the costs of raising children that result from a mated pair relationship. It is unfair to all those raising children to allow any two random people to receive those same benefits just because they can now claim they are legally married even when they cannot possibly marry.
Knowing the mindset of liberals, I expect a LOT of fraud to occur, now that the requirement for actual marriage is being removed as the basis of this legal arrangement.
They have been doing that for decades.
California voters overwhelmingly voted a ban on giving free schooling to illegal immigrants, and the courts immediately moved to negate that vote. Now, because of courts and politicians, California is one of the most generous states to illegals.
What we need is a mechanism to ensure that judges cannot overturn the outcome of an election just because it offends their personal agenda.
The entire country is going Bat-S**t crazy with it’s obsession with political correctness.
Pretending that homosexualism is just like normal male - female relations, only a little bit different, is just as crazy as all of the other pretend facts that liberals demand we all pretend are true.
Homos can’t have children or grandchildren.
Nature made sure of that.
They are kidding themselves.
Just like they pretnd that sodomy is the same as normal herterosexual relations.
Gays are jealous and hate the blessed and well instructed.
We are not stopping them or condemning them, they are doing so to themselves and their partners and others. They condemn instruction and have successfuly embraced the dum down agenda watering down the definition of marriage.
Certain things should not be plaid with like it is a joke: calling wolf, fire alarms, using emergency supplies for a party, guns confiscation or loose sexual lifestyles.
These judges are complete idiots. Marriage is a specific cobtract just like sister and brother is a specific contract with its own specific word. Other contracts cannot be called marriage or brother.
Thus, in the name of equality you can now call your child mom or your sister daddy?
Welcome to soddoma and chaos.
Historicist lawyers who have no reference to the historical vaidity of marriage get lost in the procedural of law.
It is a bit like common core education: to solve the problem of a house on fire, you have to figure it out using their red tape. Helping out putting the fire out before the firemen come is a no no. You got the answer too quickly. HG Wells was quite foretelling in his TimeMachine movie, in the way he saw people blindly following procedure.
Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female(it is written in Genesis 1:verse 27) and said For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” (Matthew 19:4-5 citing the Law of Moses -Genesis 1:27 and 2:24) Twice in the State of Colorado ,where Law is now mocked, I have been legally married in Civil Ceremony. Both times the Judge elected to reflect Matthew 19: .Now Federal judges are told to advance the cause -to make us all as Sodom or like unto Gomorrah. Yet Justice White once published “when constitutional law is judge made and not rooted in the in the text or structure of the Constitution it is illegitimate ,root and branch.”(see the Tempting of America,Robert H. Bork ,pp.119-120
Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee have proposed the State Marriage Defense Act.I stand with them— and I stand with Roy Moore we need an amendment to the Constitution to define marriage as some 33 State have. Mark Levin on KNZZ AM 1100 yesterday spoke about how WRONG it is for Judges to be doing this. I agree with Mark Levin. I have not the status of any of these. and I would NOT ever pretend to be trained a navy SEAL but I agree with the idea — “the fight does not end.” so long as i live i will fight to defend Our constitution and way of Life against ALL enemy foreign or domestic. And I will honor the Code— I will NEVER surrender of my own free will.
Next attack is on the Bible.
These judges hate being corrected and made fool of by the Bible. Just look at Islam. We are lead by ignorant Ayatollahs.
Christ never condemned them, He only gave instruction to the willing, but the uninstructed saw that as condemnation and will lash out.
Let me figure this out:
0% of gay couples can reproduce by themselves.
90% of normal man and woman couples can reproduce by themselves[usually].
0% = 90%
oh I understand EQUALity now.
thanks.
I wuz confused there for a moment by the MATH.
Good post.
They have sued wedding cake bakers, wedding photographers and eHarmony.com, the online matchmaker. I'm waiting for them to find a way to sue Ancestry.com because the overwhelming majority of persons from past generations that they list were the products of one-man/one-woman marriages.
Truthfully, the only possible recovery at this point is for the Orthodox and conservative churches to regain their sacrament by being exclusive of secular marriage.
That is, by mutual agreement, they only recognize their own marriages, and those provided by other faiths that have the same basic rules. Importantly, this also means that they *do not recognize* either liberal church or secular marriages.
Though they can only do so in their realm does not matter. Nor if people married under their auspices also have to have a secular marriage, that is acceptable as well.
But they must sternly reject any other definition of marriage. For example, if a couple that identify themselves as Mr. and Mrs. have not married under church auspices, the church does not recognize their marriage as valid, and they do not offer them other sacraments as a couple.
The President of Uganda obviously has gotten an eye full of how absolutely evil and vindictive activist homosexuals are. He is simply showing wisdom.
Wish we could say the same of more of our leaders.
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.