Posted on 02/18/2015 6:58:14 AM PST by wagglebee
February 17, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Public opinion has nothing to do with whether something is good or moral, but it’s worth noting how so-called same-sex marriage came to Alabama. It was imposed on Alabama the same way it’s been imposed on the majority of the American people—by activist judges.
It’s no surprise that progressives and liberal media are going bananas over Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore’s refusal to give in to judicial tyranny or ignore the Alabama Constitution’s marriage amendment before the Supreme Court weighs in. They are incensed that one man has the intestinal fortitude to stand for the rule of law and resist the imposition of same-sex “marriage” upon a state that voted overwhelmingly to define marriage as between one man and one woman.
Liberals have been pushing the acceptance of same-sex “marriage” and gender ideology on Alabama for quite some time. They try to frame those who support marriage as similar to racists and segregationists, and use emotional manipulation to imply that disagreeing with same-sex “marriage” means you are a Christian bully or that you want to keep loving families apart.
Alabama’s marriage law didn’t ban anything; it defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Same-sex “marriage” redefines the institution of marriage itself and has far-reaching consequences.
Marriage supporters must be ready to defend marriage using charity, truth, and courage. Across the country, bakers, photographers, and wedding planners have faced considerable fines, lawsuits, and bankruptcy for refusing to participate in same-sex ceremonies. Anyone who expresses any disagreement with the gay lobby is labeled a bigot or a hater.
But believing marriage is the lifelong union of a man and a woman that brings new life into the world is anything but bigoted.
Marriage is a beautiful institution that ties kids to their parents, and allows them to learn from both their mother and their father, who each contribute to parenting in a different but valuable way.
In contrast, same-sex unions can never be marriages. Marriage brings a man and a woman together for life and to care for any children that their union produces. Marriage has been crucial to society throughout history because it connects children to their biological parents.
Although circumstances sometimes prevent children from being raised by both of their parents, decades of social science demonstrate that children have the best chance at success when married biological parents raise them. It’s an injustice to children to deliberately deny them a relationship with one or more of their biological parents.
Families are micro-societies where children learn the norms of masculinity and femininity. We must stand in solidarity with single parents whose conditions are often not through their own fault, but acknowledge that ideally, every child should be known and loved by his or her mother and father.
Marriage benefits children, who do best when raised by a married mother and father. Marriage acknowledges the biological fact that a man and a woman are necessary for reproduction.
Redefining marriage to be a union based solely on adult feelings, not the needs and rights of children, puts kids at risk. Same-sex “marriage” views children as a commodity to which adults are entitled.
Redefining marriage ultimately leads to redefining parenthood. Same-sex “marriage” undermines the notion that children are entitled to a relationship with both of their parents—a principle that was nearly universally acknowledged, especially in law, until recently.
Although not every marriage produces children, every child has a mother and a father. A married couple can still unite in a way that is ordered toward procreation; a same-sex couple cannot.
Marriage is a personal promise with a public purpose, children. Without the assistance of an additional person, same-sex unions cannot produce children. Ironically, the campaign for same-sex “marriage” in Alabama complains:
For eight long years, Cari Searcy and Kim McKeand have been trying to establish a legal bond to their son, Khaya, who they welcomed into the world in December 2005. They have filed petition after petition seeking second-parent adoption for the child, rightly asserting that there is no reason that Khaya should not be legally connected to both of his parents.
Except Khaya is not their son. He is the son of Kim McKeand and a man—his mother and his father. Claiming that two women are his parents ignores this reality.
The three essential characteristics of marriage are complementarity, exclusivity, and permanency. Complementarity allows for the two halves of humanity to bring new life into the world. Exclusivity and monogamy, marriage scholar Ryan Anderson writes, “encourage childbearing within a context that makes it most likely that children will be raised by their mother and father.”
Complementarity, exclusivity, and monogamy benefit children. Removing any of these characteristics from marriage changes the institution and benefits the whims of adults instead.
If marriage is just “a union of two people who love each other,” then two is an arbitrary number. Why not expand “marriage equality” to three people, or four? If they all love each other, then why can’t they get “married,” too?
Once marriage is no longer a complementary, conjugal union, then there’s no reason why it must be limited to just two consenting adults.
Many would have you think this battle is about “marriage equality.” It’s not. It’s about redefining marriage altogether.
Laws defining marriage do not prevent two women, two men, or various polyamorous arrangements from loving each other, living together, and spending their lives with each other. But these relationships are not marriages and should not be recognized as such.
Marriage is treated differently than other relationships under the law precisely because it is different. It benefits children—our future—and links them to their parents.
Anyone who believes that children have a right to be loved and known by both of their parents should prepare to stay in the culture war for this battle—and likely future battles over whether three or more people legally have the right to a child who is not their own.
Now is not the time to wilt.
The fight to protect the family isn’t one that can be sat out in good conscience. As society becomes increasingly secular and intolerant of people who believe mothers and fathers matter, the price we will pay for our beliefs will only be greater. The trials that come from striving to faithfully live in such a culture may not be comfortable, but we can hope that ultimately they will be worth it for future generations.
Many would have you think this battle is about “marriage equality.” It’s not. It’s about redefining marriage altogether.
The left knows this, but the majority of the public will be horrified by the demands that come next.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Gay Marriage is an incomplete expression without the word Destruction.
Their intellectuals admit that sodomite pseudomarriage is intended to destroy marriage.
http://www.sacra-pizza-man.org/who-knew-homosexual-activists-aim-to-destroy-marriage/
Sine they control education, popular culture, and the media, they can redefine anything to mean whatever they say it means. Think about it.
This article demonstrates why the “fiscal only” liberaltarian philosophy is so damning and damaging. If conservatism isn’t a unified whole, it is an impostor.
Of course this is all about redefining marriage. But this article doesn’t take things to their logical conclusion. This is one of the earlier steps of social redesign being imposed by the uniparty leviathan.
If you don’t want to be a party to this redesign you’re going to have to leave.
She was intimated enough that the risk of educating ourselves and others to what is coming down the pike from these reprobates, was too much for her, too much risk of losing her business and reputation.
Yes. I have always asked the question: so, which word do you want to change the meaning of next? How about the word ‘truth’? Oh wait, truth has come to mean (in Big Media) anything a Democrat says. Leftists are changing words into unrecognizable mish-moshes. But that is the goal.
They used to say you couldn’t legislate morality, but now judges, not legislators, legislate immorality and perversion from the bench. As a result, that which was lawful has become unlawful. The wishes of the majority have been over-ridden by the minority. The judicial process in America is in chaos. The Constitution is no longer the basis for law in America.
This will continue as long as people accept it. When people start to ignore these laws and remove these judges, true justice will return to America.
I applaud judge Moore and others like him for their efforts.
There. Fixed it.
I am staying in the fight. I was at dinner with a good Christian friend in her hometown, I started in on the homosexual marriage subject and she shushed me, as she had a business in this small town and did not want anyone to know that she is against homosexual marriage.
She was intimated enough that the risk of educating ourselves and others to what is coming down the pike from these reprobates, was too much for her, too much risk of losing her business and reputation.
People everywhere see that leftists will ruin them if they don’t toe the line. And this has been going on since Anita Bryant in the 80’s. There is no one who will stand up with you if you make a stand. There is no cohesive counterforce who will help with legal costs, protection and bills.
Conservatives get the culture they deserve. They put little skin in the game.
I started to say that’s almost unbelievable, that a Christian would allow herself to be intimidated into silence regarding a sin called an “abomination”, but then I said again, no, it’s not. I wonder what her stance on speaking against abortion is.
Christians in this nation are completely unprepared for the coming-very close now-persecution. The tares will be winnowed from the wheat, with great clarity.
I see no point in defending an institution which fails 41-50% of the time on the first go around and 60-67% the second go around.
Factor in divorce court costs, costs to the system in place, emotional damage, financial damage, and what you’ve got is a social and legal albatross.
If my fellow conservatives want to get up in arms to defend a ruined castle with no walls, go right ahead, but I consider it a waste of time.
Not only that, but it’s none of my business unless freedom of religion is infringed upon.
If homosexuals want to be civilly unioned, then so be it - and may God help them because I guarantee the divorce statistics will be the same for them once it becomes commonplace - probably higher. I will defend any church’s right to refuse to marry a same sex couple, but I will also defend the legal right of any church that wishes to do so, however unchristian it may be.
Defending the American family? Look, that institution has been holding on by a very thin thread for a number of different reasons for decades now - well before this homo broohahah started - mainly because of failed marriages and unwed, single mothers.
Let people do what they’re going to do and let God judge them. It’s not our place to do so.
Actually, the ONLY time people say that is when their particular vice (drugs, prostitution, homosexuality, etc.) is the subject of legislation.
ALL legislation is about morality when you get down to the core. Crimes are an act of immorality whether we agree with them or not.
So, you don't believe in protecting our rights?
Far fewer than 50% of Americans exercise their right to keep and bear arms, do you think we should stop defending that? Or are you just employing the typical libertarian tactic of allowing the left to get everything they want through inaction?
Factor in divorce court costs, costs to the system in place, emotional damage, financial damage, and what you’ve got is a social and legal albatross.
NOBODY is required to get married. The same can be said about any business venture, do you oppose them?
If my fellow conservatives want to get up in arms to defend a ruined castle with no walls, go right ahead, but I consider it a waste of time.
Conservatives ARE ready to defend our rights, you don't understand that because YOU ARE NOT A CONSERVATIVE.
If homosexuals want to be civilly unioned, then so be it
So you are in favor of it...
nd may God help them because I guarantee the divorce statistics will be the same for them once it becomes commonplace - probably higher.
You really don't get it do you?
I will defend any church’s right to refuse to marry a same sex couple, but I will also defend the legal right of any church that wishes to do so, however unchristian it may be.
How libertarian of you.
Defending the American family? Look, that institution has been holding on by a very thin thread for a number of different reasons for decades now - well before this homo broohahah started - mainly because of failed marriages and unwed, single mothers.
And your solution seems to be abandoning it altogether which is EXACTLY what the left wants.
Let people do what they’re going to do and let God judge them. It’s not our place to do so.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. That's like say let people murder if they want and God can be the judge.
I realize you are new here, but you are clearly in the wrong forum.
And I'd add that this is a double attack, in that it is more than about the substance, but about the PROCESS.
If single judges wield the unchecked power to simple wave their wands and nullify laws, that is a terrifying prospect. A bare minority of the Supreme Court was held back from imposing requirements on a private organization (Boy Scouts) which wanted to define qualifications for membership. One more Marxist on the Court would have obliterated freedom. Who says a cadre of like minded Leftists, given critical mass, wouldn't impose same-sex "marriage" on every church?
Not only that, but it’s none of my business unless freedom of religion is infringed upon.
Not sure where the sand is Axeo has had his head in, but even a passing knowledge of current event will tell us that bakers across the country have had their religous freedoms trashed by queer friendly laws and court decisions. And its only going to get worse. Can you imagine a time when a minister or priest refuses to perform a queer marriage ceremony and they lose their license as a result?
I can.
That's a strawman. This isn't about judging people's souls. That is rightly left to God. This is about recognizing the fact that God has judged homosexual activity to be a sin, and about not being compelled to participate in that sinful act.
It’s about redefining marriage altogether.
Exactly!
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.