Posted on 11/26/2003 2:21:33 PM PST by Mr. Silverback
As you heard Mark Earley report on this broadcast last week, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court called for the state legislature to endorse same-sex "marriages," the judges claimed that they were doing this in the interest of family stability. The court's decision reads, in part, "Civil marriage anchors an ordered society by encouraging stable relationships over transient ones. It is central to the way the Commonwealth identifies individuals, provides for the orderly distribution of property, [and] insures that children and adults are cared for and supported whenever possible from private rather than public funds." In other words, the court has equated gay "marriage" and traditional marriage by implying that both of them can do all of these things equally well.
The fact is that the court's decision undermines family stability rather than strengthening it. As Maggie Gallagher, author of several books on marriage, points out, "For thirty years, the sexual revolutionaries have said, 'Heck, kids are resilient; the important thing is that you do what makes you happy.' By rewriting the laws of marriage, the courts have essentially carried this logic to the ultimate conclusion: Marriage is whatever the adults want. People have a right to conduct a great social experiment on children because, well, adults want to do it, and doing your own thing is the new law of the land."
Gallagher is right. If we define marriage as "whatever the adults want," the result is harm for children, society, and for the consenting adults. This the advocates of gay "marriage" refuse to concede.
They ignore two things: the fundamental differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships and the nature of marriage itself. Same-sex "marriage" advocates often conveniently fail to mention the high rates of promiscuity in even the most "committed," so-called, homosexual relationships. Numerous studies have shown that homosexuals simply look at their relationships differently -- one well-known study discovered that only 4.5 percent of homosexual respondents in "committed" relationships had been faithful. The redefinition of marriage to include relationships with such high rates of infidelity will reshape the way we see all marriages.
And this leads directly to the other point: Same-sex "marriage" advocates fail to understand marriage. It is not simply a union of two people. It is the union of one man and one woman, who by nature complement and help to fulfill each other, and who in most cases are capable of having children without resorting to a third party.
Marriage is not something that can be made to look like whatever we want. To play around with the definition of marriage is to risk grievous consequences to families and society. It also poses a risk to religious believers who cannot condone same-sex "marriage." Already some local councils in the Netherlands are insisting that government officials perform same-sex "marriage" ceremonies, regardless of the officials' religious beliefs.
This battle is, in my opinion, the Armageddon of the culture war. Please call us at BreakPoint (1-877-322-5527). I want to send you some information about the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment so you can share it with your friends and use it as a basis to call your congressman and senators right now. They're deliberating what to do, and the president is about to announce his position. This is the time for Christians to be heard.
Great lines. I'm not sure that the amendment is the right thing to do, but I know we're in deep trouble if we go down this path.
If anyone wants on or off my BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
How else do you stop activist judges from just making up law. It is shocking what we allow a few guys in black robes to do. The President and Legislature combined don't have the power of one activist judge as far as making law goes.
In a way, you've hit it on the head. We allow this to go on. I'm not sure the political will exists to impeach a bunch of federal and state judges, but I think now is the time to find out. We may just have to spend a few decades in a battle between the legislative and judicial branches, each trying to out-legislate the other. But first, I want to see if we can put the fear of the People back into the judiciary. If we make it so that no every judge knows that legislation from the bench means impeachment, they'll stop remaking society in their own image. As I noted, however, we may not have the political will to do it.
The will isn't there. No one wanted to draw the line when the no fault divorce laws and the man-hating "family courts" gutted the American family like a trout and turned fathers into account numbers.
If anyone wonders why people aren't rallying in the streets with pitch-forks and torches to save the institution of marriage, it's probably because there isn't much left to defend.
I was of the same mind until the ruling in Massachusetts. They totally disregared the plain English of the Mass Constitution which assigned all matters of marriage to the Governor and the legislature.
There are undoubtedly 5 votes on the SCOTUS to extend homosexual marriage to all the states via the "full faith and credit clause".
Though I am an anti-federalist of the first order I see no other recourse but an Amendment that at least bars the SCOTUS from applying the full faith and credit clause to all 50 states.
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.