First, let me ‘fess up to shamelessly borrowing stealing the title from Marshall Art’s place. That song is one of my all time favorites, and I can actually play it on the guitar. Sort of.
The California Supreme court “same-sex marriage” decision was predictable though unfortunate. I usually avoid bits on news that everybody is blogging on, but here are a few thoughts.
These judges over-rode the will of the people. It is as simple as that. Hopefully this will get California and other states to pass marriage amendments and get people behind a Federal Amendment as well.
“Same-sex marriage” is the oxymoron of the decade: A same-sex union of a man and a woman.
The precedent isn’t that one man can also marry one man, or that one woman can also marry one woman. Rather, it is that marriage is no longer just between one man and one woman. The judges redefined marriage to mean that it can be anything we want it to be, including polygamy, incest and bestiality. They didn’t spell that out, but it is the logical consequence of the “decision.”
As usual, the pro-gay media emphasized that this was about “love.” Nonsense. No one was preventing these people from loving each other before, or even getting married. It just means the government must recognize the unions. Does anyone seriously think that a role of the government is to get involved with love? Government primarily gets involved in marriages because by nature and design marriages produce the next generation.
I mainly feel sorry for the California school kids, who will have more of the GLBTQ “normalcy” crammed down their throats, just like in Massachussetts.
I encourage you to speak out against it while you still can legally, because by granting civil rights to deviant sexual practices it proclaims that quoting certain parts of the Bible are legally bigoted.
Here’s a piece I wrote last year:
The definition of marriage has always been a union of one man and one woman, so “traditional marriage” is a redundancy and “same sex marriage” is an oxymoron. But current events have forced the added words.
Claiming that marriage can be for two men or two women isn’t a little different than saying it is between a man and a woman, it is the opposite. It is claiming that marriage is not just between a man and a woman and that “marriage” is now whatever we want to define it to be.
I am sympathetic to hospital and estate issues of gay and lesbian couples, but I think they can be addressed without redefining marriage and generating a slew of unintended consequences.
For example, estate taxes should be done away with altogether. The government should not profit when you die, regardless of your sexual preferences. And hospital patients should be allowed to have anyone they like visit them.
I am also sympathetic to how gays and lesbians feel about many churches being soft on divorce, heterosexual adultery and fornication but not on homosexual behavior. But the answer is not to lower the bar further, it is to get back to the Biblical model of human sexuality.
The issue is often framed as if gays are being denied something. Gays are free to marry in this country and they do it every day. Some apostate churches will be glad to perform the ceremony. Whole industries are set up to help you plan and execute the festivities and set up a household. The debate is whether the government has an interest in recognizing these unions.
By nature and by design, homosexual unions cannot and will not produce the next generation. It is only by exception that these relationships involve children. Therefore, the government has no reason to interfere with or regulate those relationships. (Please spare me any arguments that heterosexuals must have kids for this reasoning to be valid. We’re talking rules, not exceptions.)
Sometimes the “but they love each other” argument is used to support same-sex unions. I realize that some gays and lesbians love each other. So what? What possible reason would the government have to be involved in a relationship just because love is involved? Plenty of marriages don’t have love. Many marriages in the world are still arranged.
Aside from the marriage question, remember that adding sex to a loving relationship doesn’t make it better. There are plenty of loving relationships (parent/child, siblings, pastor / parishoner, teacher / student) that are made worse by sex, not better. Whatever happened to just having friends of the same sex?
I realize this isn’t satisfying for them, but gays and lesbians have the exact same rights that heterosexuals do: They can marry someone of the opposite sex. Heterosexuals can’t marry someone of the same sex either.
Why it matters
People often wonder why same-sex unions are met with such opposition. The main reason for me is that when governments recognize same-sex unions then they have given civil rights for sexual preferences. This leads directly to radical changes in what children are taught in schools, and it shuts down debate. It will ultimately result to an attempted silencing of the church. All these things are either happening in the U.S. or other countries already. It has already impacted the adoption process.
If you love kids – and by love I mean that you have their long term best interests at heart – you won’t support civil rights for sexual perversions, because this will lead to more sickening things being pushed on innocent children.
Civil unions are just a smokescreen for eventually getting “same sex marriages” to be legal everywhere. It is a two-step ploy: 1. Gain Civil Union status by acting as if they would be satisfied with all the rights without the legal recognition and associated societal approval of marriage. 2. Point out how there is no difference with the rights of Civil Unions and marriage so we might as well make “same sex marriage” legal as well.
“Same sex marriage” already resulted in radical changes to adoption and parenting laws. Who is looking out for the children? Sexual preference with respect to partners is considered immutable and paramount – i.e., a gay guy can never change and he has to have another gay guy as a partner. A masculine woman just won’t do, nor will a biological female who thinks she is really a male.
But sexual preference with respect to parents is supposedly irrelevant – it doesn’t matter if a child’s parents are M/F, M/M or F/F (or who knows what combination). They are all supposedly equal in value. Let’s put the interests of the children first on this one and not repeat the big lie that adults are vulnerable but children are not.
Who is being divisive?
Charles Krauthammer said, “Until the last few years, every civilization known to man has defined marriage as between people of opposite sex. To charge with “divisiveness” those who would do nothing more than resist a radical overturning of that norm is a sign of either gross partisanship or serious dimwittedness.”
Polls continue to show that the vast majority of Americans disapprove of “same-sex marriage,” even when the wording of the questions is skewed to favor it. Even Massachussetts was afraid to let the people have a say in the matter. That speaks volumes.
The Democratic party has flailed around on this issue. Apparently they haven’t noticed that every state that has voted on the topic has affirmed traditional marriage by an average of an 70/30 ratio, because they are once again in bed (so to speak) with the gay lobby.
Howard Dean, head of the Democrats, hypocritically said that his party supported traditional marriages then back-tracked after catching heat from the pro-gay groups. He then said they wanted to leave it to the states. Now it turns out that they wanted to work behind the scenes to oppose state efforts to affirm traditional marriage. Here is my favorite part of the Dem’s 5 point plan to fight for the homosexual marriage that they supposedly weren’t fighting for:
Labeling efforts to ban homosexual marriage as “divisive” ploys by the Republicans and others to deflect voter attention from other important issues, including “the Bush’s administration’s failed policies.”
Let’s see - marriage is clearly defined as being between a man and a woman, the vast majority of Americans agree, Democrats want to change that, so the conclusion is . . . Conservatives are the ones being divisive. Of course.
I half expect the culture to come up with such ideas, but I’m disgusted at how the apostate churches and false teachers the churches have let in are pushing for same-sex marriages to be normalized. Pro-gay theology falls apart at every turn, but people continue to mock God with it. I’m hoping the Episcopal fallout emboldens Bible-believing Methodists (and those in other denominations) to stand firm in the face of the movement.
If I were black I would be really irritated that the gay rights lobby was co-opting Civil Rights language for their cause. This is a very simple proposition: There is no moral component to skin color, but there is a moral component to sexual behavior.
Don’t forget the push for polygamy and multiple gay couples raising kids. These are logical consequences of Civil Unions and/or “same sex marriage.”