Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The American Partisan ^ | 27 November 2003 | Timothy Rollins

Posted on 11/26/2003 12:44:56 PM PST by MrBallroom

Discuss this on our boards!E-mail the AuthorAuthor's Bio

In Memory of The Fallen 9-11-2001QUEER AMERICA
by Timothy Rollins, Editor and Publisher

November 27, 2003

Timothy Rollins - Beneath the Surface

I wrote a column earlier this year by the name of 'Queer Nation' in reference to our Canadian friends and the perverted action taken by the Ontario Court of Appeal as it pertained to same-sex couples and allowing 'so-called' gay couples to 'marry'. Why is it perverted from this perspective? Simple. Because marriage has been from the beginning of recorded history - regardless of what belief system you may ascribe to - the union of men and women. It wasn't Adam and Steve nor was it Madam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, if you catch my drift. Gay couples cannot naturally reproduce, which is one of the primary purposes of matrimony. While I personally do not care what folks do in private behind closed doors, as that is between them and their Creator and something for which they will one day account, I am nonetheless adamantly opposed to socially legitimizing sodomite behavior, whether it be two men or two women. Regardless of what the radical factions at GLAAD, QUEER NATION, ACT UP, NOW or other radical groups of their ilk may seek to indoctrinate you with in their vicious pack of lies, marriage is designed to be between one man and one woman, despite what they may try to ramrod down your throat.

It seems that perverted reasoning has now spread its judicial contagion south of the Canadian border and has leaked or rather oozed its way to Boston, where our mind-warped colleagues of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, who in their lack of wisdom and their bent on being judicial activists seeking to make new law rather than being interpreters thereof of existing law, have declared the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman as unconstitutional. And to nobody's surprise, the radical elements within the Democratic Party - who are as out of touch with the American mainstream as they can get and still be on the planet, took orgasmic glee with said ruling. Whose vote are they out for other than their own?

Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) (AP)By taking such an action, the Massachusetts legislature now has a political 'hot potato' in its collective lap that is now at flash temperature. The incumbent Governor - Mitt Romney - a Republican (right) and one who is sorely lacking a backbone on this issue, calls for 'civil unions' such as neighboring Vermont currently has, but not for legal marriages as a sort of 'middle ground' as a means of appeasing the court ruling rather than challenging it head-on. To me, that's a copout, pure and simple. When asked about it, Romney replied, "I believe their decision indicates that a provision which provides that benefits, obligations, rights and responsibilities which are consistent with marriage but perhaps could be called by a different name would be in conformity with their decision," continuing, "Under that opinion, I believe a civil-union type provision would be sufficient."

Either way, it's six of one or half a dozen of the other, and Romney, being a Mormon and all, should know better - and it's not a case of inflicting his religion on the rest of the state either. Given Massachusetts' history as an overwhelmingly Catholic state, the position of the Catholic Church on gay marriage is identical to that of the Mormons. One cannot separate their religion from who and what they are, especially Romney and his wealth of Church leadership experience. In his (more than likely) ten-plus years combined church leadership service in which he first presided over a congregation of roughly 500 or so as a bishop and later over six to eight (or perhaps more) congregations as a stake president - in other words, upwards of 4000 or more members, he more than likely personally counseled a number of people who had difficulty experiencing feelings of attraction towards those of their own gender. Because of his previous level of church responsibility, he KNOWS his own Church's position on both homosexuality and same-gender marriages and is directly flying in the face of established Church position on this issue.

The position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as expressed in its 1995 proclamation "The Family: A Proclamation to the World", clearly and unequivocally states in part: "The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ." Continuing, it adds towards the end: "We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

As it pertains to 'so-called' gay marriages, the Church has not only been unequivocally opposed to them as expressed as in the Proclamation, the Church has also made it crystal clear that it's completely opposed to the homosexual lifestyle, whether the participants be male or female. By espousing 'civil unions' for gay and lesbian couples and not staying true to his own principles but rather in fact opposing them, Romney shows himself to be a sell-out of the first order, and not a man of true integrity - in other words, just another politician with ethics for sale to the highest bidder. In addition, his efforts in either espousing or rather, actively endorsing so-called 'civil unions' not only goes against Church teachings and policy on this issue, but also directly undermines the considerable time, money and efforts the Church and its members - individually and collectively - have spent in previous years to defeat similar proposals in California and Hawaii among other states.

Some may say that it's political expediency to get the legislature to work with him. I say that's wrong, especially given the way the ruling came down from the Boston Supremes. It leaves no wiggle room in their activist demand that gays get equal rights to enter into a marriage contract. Because of Democrats' continual use of obstructionist tactics to ensure their activist buddies use the bench to get ruled into law by judicial fiat or litigation what they are unsuccessful at getting passed by floor votes in legislatures or at the ballot box, we now have a Pandora's Box wide open ironically enough, in the very birthplace of America.

Unless Romney and other governors across America grow up and use the backbone they were endowed with at birth and rally the people to go after these judicial nutcases, then we are indeed sliding - or rather freefalling - down the slippery slope of Sodom and Gomorrah, and we all know what happened there.

Don't we, boys and girls? ***

© 2003 Timothy Rollins

EDITOR'S NOTE: Before this article went to posting, the Governor's Office in Boston was contacted for comment. A spokeswoman offered the following specific comment in reaction to an advance copy of this article with which they were furnished:

"It is plain wrong to suggest that the Governor would impose his religious views on any matter of public policy."

In addition, the following statement was released by the Governor's Office on 18 November 2003 in reaction to the court ruling:

"I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to make that expressly clear. Of course, we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman."

President Gordon B. Hinckley of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day SaintsAs to the position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on this issue, in addition to the Proclamation referenced above, there are the following statements from Church President Gordon B. Hinckley (left) in response to asked questions:

What is your Church's attitude toward homosexuality?

"In the first place, we believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. We believe that marriage may be eternal through exercise of the power of the everlasting priesthood in the house of the Lord.

People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.

We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families." -- President Gordon B. Hinckley, "What Are People Asking About Us?" (ENSIGN, November 1998)

also this one:

Why does the Church become involved in issues that come before the legislature and the electorate?

"I hasten to add that we deal only with those legislative matters which are of a strictly moral nature or which directly affect the welfare of the Church. We have opposed gambling and liquor and will continue to do so. We regard it as not only our right but our duty to oppose those forces which we feel undermine the moral fiber of society. Much of our effort, a very great deal of it, is in association with others whose interests are similar. We have worked with Jewish groups, Catholics, Muslims, Protestants, and those of no particular religious affiliation, in coalitions formed to advocate positions on vital moral issues. Such is currently the case in California, where Latter-day Saints are working as part of a coalition to safeguard traditional marriage from forces in our society which are attempting to redefine that sacred institution. God-sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman has been the basis of civilization for thousands of years. There is no justification to redefine what marriage is. Such is not our right, and those who try will find themselves answerable to God.

Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out.

Nevertheless, and I emphasize this, I wish to say that our opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group. As I said from this pulpit one year ago, our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church. It is expected, however, that they follow the same God-given rules of conduct that apply to everyone else, whether single or married." -- President Gordon B. Hinckley, "Why We Do Some of the Things We Do" (ENSIGN, November 1999)

All writers retain rights to their work.

TOPICS: Canada; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: California; US: Hawaii; US: Massachusetts; US: Utah; US: Wisconsin
KEYWORDS: activism; appeasing; capitulation; catholiclist; editorial; gays; homosexualagenda; homosexuality; homosexualvice; juducuary; leftism; lesbians; marriage; mormonpropoganda; pandering; politicians; sodomites
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last

1 posted on 11/26/2003 12:44:56 PM PST by MrBallroom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MrBallroom
2 posted on 11/26/2003 12:48:37 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrBallroom
Why Judaism Rejected Homosexuality
3 posted on 11/26/2003 12:48:40 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrBallroom
My question is this: if two lesbians get married, how does one introduce their "partner?" Or, if two men get married?

Who is the "husband" and who is the "wife?"
4 posted on 11/26/2003 12:50:49 PM PST by appleton14
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
JESUS DEFINES MARRIAGE: "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore, they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." -from THE BIBLE: Matthew 19:4-6
International Healing Foundation


5 posted on 11/26/2003 12:58:42 PM PST by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: appleton14
Who is the "husband" and who is the "wife?"

For lesbians, the one with the heaviest beard is the husband.
For gay men, the one with the most stooped posture is the wife.

In both cases, they will go straight to Hell.

6 posted on 11/26/2003 1:18:58 PM PST by evolved_rage (Ah yes, the cultural benefits of SF.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: appleton14
I'm sorry, I just can't understand the whole homosexual thing. How does a man look at another man's harry ass and find love?!
7 posted on 11/26/2003 2:04:17 PM PST by Orangedog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
...harry a$$???
8 posted on 11/26/2003 3:05:35 PM PST by cavtrooper21 (Liberal lawyer hunting is like varmit hunting, only easier. Theres more of 'em...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: appleton14
Who is the "husband" and who is the "wife?"

The one who makes you sad that she isn't available to be hit on is the wife.
The one who looks like she could kick your ass if you tried is the husband.
9 posted on 11/26/2003 8:19:06 PM PST by gcruse (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
How does a man look at another man's harry ass and find love?!

You might ask Andrew Dice Clay if he knows Harry Ass.
10 posted on 11/26/2003 8:20:34 PM PST by gcruse (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
OK, I think I've learned my lesson on spelling today. :)
11 posted on 11/26/2003 8:25:38 PM PST by Orangedog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cindy
There is hope for homosexuals. But it us only in Jesus - just like for the rest of us.
12 posted on 11/26/2003 8:31:26 PM PST by Gritty (Satan is in the details, not the presentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MrBallroom; GatorGirl; maryz; *Catholic_list; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; ...
A must read.
13 posted on 11/26/2003 8:34:19 PM PST by narses ("The do-it-yourself Mass is ended. Go in peace" Francis Cardinal Arinze of Nigeria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gritty
re your post no.12...

You're absolutely right. Either we follow Jesus and His commandments, one of my old graphics state: "NO ONE CAN IGNORE JESUS FOREVER!"
14 posted on 11/26/2003 8:40:17 PM PST by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Cindy
"Every knee will bow, and every tongue confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord of all."
15 posted on 11/26/2003 8:45:13 PM PST by 185JHP ( Is a Deanbacle what they're gonna get?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MrBallroom
As time goes by, the vile anti-social behavior of Queers steadily gets worse and worse . . . as this current FReeper article demonstrates!!! Therefore, allow me to repeat my own personal rant one more time:

Oak Hay, so I'm very disturbed and continually puzzled about how a small bunch of contrary to nature freaks can destroy our entire civilization. . . BUT DAMMIT, THEY'RE DOING IT !!!

These unsavory and unclean sub-human creatures delight in ramming their urine exhaust pipes into the rectal relief tubes of young boys (and of each other) !!! They brag and crow loudly about their filthy behavior !!! They demand access to our young and innocent children... so they can commit sodomy and oral sex acts upon them!!! Then they scream and holler...


... when we seek to save our children from their filthy and immoral activities!!! WHY IS THIS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE IN THIS ONCE-FREE REPUBLIC ??? DO WE NOT HAVE THE RIGHT AND MORAL DUTY TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN FROM SLIME LIKE THIS ???


16 posted on 11/26/2003 8:50:00 PM PST by GeekDejure ( LOL = Liberals Obey Lucifer !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 185JHP
17 posted on 11/26/2003 10:02:31 PM PST by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: appleton14; scripter
My question is this: if two lesbians get married, how does one introduce their "partner?" Or, if two men get married?

You will find your answer here.

Dana and Anita on their "Wedding Day"
(they both refer to each other as wife)

CHRISTIAN LESBIANS .. be sure to visit their wedding album. (but not on a full stomach)

The Catholic Church has taken a strong position on gay unions - they are wrong!


18 posted on 11/27/2003 1:15:00 AM PST by NYer (Prayer is strength for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Wow...two ugly women with cats are lesbians? I'm floored! ;-)
19 posted on 11/27/2003 1:20:20 AM PST by Fledermaus (Fascists, Totalitarians, Baathists, Communists, Socialists, Democrats - what's the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: narses; Siobhan; nickcarraway; sandyeggo; Domestic Church; Desdemona; Askel5
20 posted on 11/27/2003 10:01:30 AM PST by Maeve (Pray the Chaplet of Divine Mercy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson