Skip to comments.“Marriage Equality” Spells “Marriage Extinction”
Posted on 03/25/2013 8:57:25 AM PDT by Olog-hai
This week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on two of the most critical cases of our time. On Tuesday, March 26, attorneys will make the pitch both for and against Californias Proposition 8. This, of course, is the Golden States pro-marriage amendment. It maintained the timeless definition of natural marriage as between man and wife.
Then, on Wednesday, March 27, the high court will consider the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996 with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. It, likewise, secured the definition of legitimate marriage for purposes of federal law.
The stakes could not be higher. Of central concern is whether the Supreme Court will put its official stamp of approval on that cartoonish contradiction-in-terms labeled same-sex marriage. Ultimately, these nine justices will decide either to recklessly deconstruct, radically redefine and render functionally trivial the age-old institution of natural marriageor leave it alone.
Theyd better leave it alone.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Marriage is a sacriment of the Church (or synagogue).
What the earthly government decides is “marriage” is irrelevant to me. They might as well pass a law stating the sky is green and water dry.
The earthly government is responsible to God too, whether they realize it or not.
Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But, if it is flat, will the King’s command make it round? And, if it is round, will the King’s command flatten it?
-Robert Bolt in Man For All Seasons (Thomas More’s character)
The state has no business in Sacraments of the Church, whether recognizing them or TAXING them, as all states do.
Those who believe God is powerless to protect a Sacrament against the State may as well be atheists. I wonder what kind of god they worship.
Well, I predict some 5-4 votes on these cases.
Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor will vote for homosexual marriage, no question on them.
Alito, Scalia, and Thomas will vote that there is no constitutional right to homosexual marriage.
Justices Kennedy and John Roberts will be the deciding votes, which ever way it goes.
It really disturbs me that these cases are discussed in terms of policy, i.e. activists in favor of gay marriage want the judges to vote for same, rather than on any legal grounds. The homosexual activists want them to vote for same sex marriage as a policy matter. They want the Court to ignore all manner of legal proceedings, laws passed by numerous states on the subject of marriage, etc. They want the Court to rule that states have no right to make marriage and family law, because of the need to impose homosexual marriage as an explicit policy of this country.
I mention family law too, because if homosexual marriage is imposed by these rulings, then follow up lawsuits on subjects such as homosexual adoption will follow. Again, states will be in a position in which they will be told they are not allowed to make family law or policy, because such laws or policies may conflict with what homosexual activists want.
While I am completely against gay marriage, perspective demands that we keep sight of what is ACTUALLY killing marriage....
Those words, “until death do us part” mean absolutely nothing to most people today. I cannot believe the casualness with which people I work with discuss divorce. I’m afraid that to much (if not most) of our society, marriage has fallen into the same category as leasing a car. We’ll try it for a while, and if we don’t like it, just cancel the contract.
Kagan and Sotomayer are both carpet-munchers.
It’s a given how they will vote.
Kennedy and Roberts? They will go the liberal route.
Divorce is not nearly as wide spread as the media would have you believe -— the “1/2 of all marriages end in divorce” line is particularly misleading.
Most originally-married people stay married, but divorced people tend to get married-and-divorced mutiple times. It throws off the statistics.
The so-called “no-fault revolution” has resulted in marriages in the US lasting an average of 11 years. Used to be much harder to obtain divorce, and quite often the only legitimate grounds were things like adultery, abandonment or suchlike.
Could be correct, but perhaps aviation is bad for marriage as I would put the number closer to 60-70% where I work, and not much if any better where my wife works.
Funny you should mention that. Our secretary was talking once and commented, “I probably shouldn’t have divorced my second husband so quickly, and I may still try to get back together with him sometime but right now he is married.”
Almost like saying, well, ‘I know he’ll be divorced again and I’ll be divorced again so if we are both divorced at the same time maybe we’ll try again’. I swear it is just as if they are talking about a time share condo or a car lease.
>> I swear it is just as if they are talking about a time share condo or a car lease.<<
Or, sadly, custody of a child...
So, I agree with this article, that same-sex "marriage" is the death-knell of "marriage".
For those who think that Churches will be exempted from this; think again. The gays have convinced the elites who run this country that "gay marriage" is a "civil right". That will top any of our actual Constitutional rights. Just ask the Catholic Bishops who are now suing against the Obamacare mandate on them providing contraception and abortion coverage. Religious freedom --- nah.
While gays and lesbians probably make up 2% of the population (I know, they say 10%, but anybody with eyes can look around and see that 1 out of 10 people they know aren’t gay), according to the census, only 1% of the “couples” in this country are same-sex couples. So it seems that even when it comes to “shacking up” (as most of these couples are, since gay marriage still isn’t widely accepted), gays enter committed relationships at half the rate of opposite-sex couples.
Nobody is really maintaining a good statistic on gays who choose to actually get married where it is legal, compared to normal marriages. Or the divorce rate in those families compared to normal families. Because that wouldn’t help the cause.
Making divorce easier was one of the left’s first salvos in the Communist-Manifesto-proscribed “abolition of the family”. Those who regard themselves as conservative need to recognize that, because without strong families, society falls apart.
This is exactly the behavior that has gotten us to the point where we are seriously discussing homosexual "marriage". Heterosexuals need to look in the mirror at our own behavior and lack of seriousness when it comes to marriage. We are the ones who put all of us on this road. Sometimes, I just hate my generation. They pull down the institutions and then replace them with stuff that doesn't work nearly as well -- probably because they are always government-based.
Another probably more interesting statistic. These are all from the Census, so they are based on private data, these people aren’t admitting to things publicly.
But if you look at where people say they are couples, the percentages are higher in states where the gay agenda is actively pushed on the populace. Which could be interpreted as showing that people tend to be gay if it is “acceptable” at higher rates than they would be if it was not.
Of course, that goes against the “it’s never a choice” argument.
Of course, it could be that people just move to where it is acceptable. That’s a good interpretation as well, and shows how important it would be to allow each state to decide for themselves, and not make gay marriage a federal law.
Gary marriage is coming ....sooner rather than later, roughly by June.
And gay John Roberts is going to lead the charge.
Kennedy, I think votes with the minority (the good guys).
Gay John Roberts is completely in the tank.
The most momentous / drastic SC case in history and all because Roberts pretended to be something that he is not (conservative and straight).
We might throw in here: George W. Bush. The gift that keeps on giving. (Sometimes, honestly, I wonder about what it is about the Bushes and the gay men around them. 41 puts Souter on the court. Then GWB does this...and there’s all that about his Yale roommate who is a big time fag who he made into an ambassador. I don’t know. Maybe it’s a Skull and Bones thing).
Interesting. Does this explain why the Muslims are quiet about this ruling in the U.S.?
Does this mean the U.S. will eventually legally recognize up to four wives for a Muslim adult U.S. citizen or immigrant?
Does this mean the U.S. will be paying out welfare benefits for up to four wives and all of their children?
In the U.K. some Muslim immigrants have four wives and twenty children. What would be the housing solution in the U.S.?
I would rather do away with marriage completely than have homosexual marriage. Do away with tax benefits, estate benefits, etc., then everyone would be equal.
I am sick to death of this homosexual crap everywhere!!! I can’t turn on the TV without seeing it or pick up a magazine or go on the internet. And then you see liberal France with thousands of people protesting against it.
America is doomed.
“Justices Kennedy and John Roberts will be the deciding votes, which ever way it goes.”
And that is the problem.
The gay marriage proponents only need one of the “swing votes” while the Pro Family side will need both swing votes.
I’m thinking there is a 75% chance that Kennedy will vote with the liberals and a 60% chance Roberts votes with the liberals.
the SCOTUS math is rather depressing.
I was a teenager when ‘no fault divorce’ entered the American lexicon. As I recall the arguments, somehow this was going to help women because now they would be able to get out of ‘abusive’ marriages. I also recall a story in the local newspaper about a decade later pointing out that the unintended results had been to actually make it easier for men to get free of a wife and kids.
Another of those modern ‘improvements’ that doesn’t seem to have improved anything.
Roberts will vote the right way. Kennedy leans libertarian...that’S a problem.
Doing away with marriage completely is one of the goals of the left, though. Handing them the victory is our defeat.
FR was all in favor of Roberts though the blame bush crowd likes to forget that.
Sometimes we get fooled.
I’ve read statistics that state its less than half. Despite what McCatskull and Portmanteau and these other morons say, ‘loving relationships’ are scarce. Most homosexuals prefer polyamory, open relationships, and anonymous sex. Also interesting, among homosexual couples, domestic abuse is prevelant in half of those relationships. So half of less than half of 2% are the reason for destroying our sacred, ancient institutions... just sad. Sad and pathetic.
not all....I remember it very well. And I remember that snarky bitch ohioWfan and her self-righteous condescension. Unbeleivable.
Those of us who were Roberts skeptics are shown to have been right.
Of course, we would sure rather be wrong. Not much pleasure in being right when the country suffers like it has b/c of him.
I was for him as a justice.
I WAS TOTALLY AGAINST THAT NONSENSE WHEN SUDDENLY HE WAS NOMINATED FOR CHIEF JUSTICE!!!
That job should have gone to Antonin Gregory Scalia.
I just think its funny that people blame bush because they guessed wrong on Roberts.
His votes would have been the same whether he was chief or not.
I’m talking to the majority of people who were wildly in favor of the choice and now blame others.
Don’t kid yourself, the Chief Justice has a lot of influence. He basically sets the agenda for the court, and when something is be ‘considered’ on an emergency basis, he gets to decide which judge(s) will consider it. He also appoints a lot of judges to other courts, like the so called secret court.
And yea, the liberals love having one of their on as Chief Justice.
Muslims rarely have the four wives even in the Middle East and I’ve spent years over there. I think they do it more in the west so they can grow their population and also help relatives get on the dole.
Muzzies are being quiet because it furthers their goals of jihad. Their major obstacle is christianity and homos are all against christianity.
You never see homos saying anything bad against islam because the muzzie response will be swift and deadly.
I’m sure they are hoping that a lot of Americans will choose islam instead of homosexuality. They just have to sit back and watch for now.
The vote everybody is mad at him for...healthcare...would have gone the same way had he not been chief.
Yes. Think about it, what legal footing would you have to say no to this. If two men or two women are now a definition of marriage; what is so special about the number 2? Why can't a man have 4 wives, or a woman, four husbands. Then again, what is so bad about a "group marriage", with various combinations of adults.
Then, the push will be on to lower the age of consent, and, we will have child brides; and, if you are against that you are a hater. What does the psychiatric community now call pedophila? Intergenerational sex. Nice phrase. No judgement in it at all.
This is not a slippery slope, this is the edge of an abyss.
We are losing anyway. What do you think the SC will do?
I work with nurses. High divorce rate.
Are we losing? I don’t think so. The media likes to play it up that way. Remember what Sun Tzu’s Art Of War described as the “highest form of warfare”, that being to break the enemy’s resistance without fighting; don’t fall for it.
And on the spiritual side, if the devil is indeed becoming more powerful in the world, that in itself is a highly prophetic event.
Of course it is a highly prophetic event. I have no doubt we are living in the last days. In fact, I truly believe Obama is God’s judgment on America.
How marriage is defined has ramifications on the entire society. Children need their mothers. Children need their fathers. The social decay we already see is largely due to widespread divorce, out of wedlock births, and people wandering from one relationship to another.
And now the powers that be want to obliterate what is left. Bride, groom, husband, wife, mother, father - these words are to be tossed aside. The marital act? Consummation of marriage? Well that is to be considered just the same as sterile abnormal and unhealthy acts.
It isn’t irrelevant to me. This is the new world my kids are growing up in.
I understand your point, but its come time to simply ignore the government and seperate ourselves, akin to how the Amish have done.
It’s possible to do so.
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 ]
If the black robed ones decide the wrong way, we still have options. Civil disobedience. Acting on our conscience. Millions of people doing so will have an effect. Things don't go downhill forever.
Anyone wanting on/off either list, FREEPMAIL me.
Your comments have nothing to do with the situation. They’re trying to disembowel natural law. Forcing people to accept insanity as sanity, is immoral and unconstitutional. Of course people who marry still have “real” marriages, if they honor their vows. But when publically and legally and socially and politically the laws of nature are made “null and void”, this has real life affects. Such as the destruction of the lives of many children. And legally forcing all kinds of businesses to cater to mentally ill sex perverts, schools to teach immoral insanity and on and on. It’s already happening in states with same sex “marriage”.
“Yes. Think about it, what legal footing would you have to say no to this. If two men or two women are now a definition of marriage; what is so special about the number 2? Why can’t a man have 4 wives, or a woman, four husbands. Then again, what is so bad about a “group marriage”, with various combinations of adults.”
My brother and I love each other and want to marry. We’re consenting adults and unable to have children. If 2 men or 2 women can get married, then I should be able to marry my brother...or my dad...or my mother...or my sister....