Skip to comments.What is Next for Same-Sex Marriage Advocates?
Posted on 10/02/2011 8:56:54 AM PDT by IbJensen
Proponents of same-sex marriage are quick to claim that all they want is marriage equality. Nothing more. Theyll be content if they can just have equality. But we all know that reality doesnt end there. In recent weeks, same-sex advocates have finally begun to admit it themselves.
Published just days ago in a The New York Times piece, Stanford law professor Ralph Banks, asks, What now of the two remaining criminal prohibitions of intimate relationships: incest and polygamy? Even as same sex relationships are accepted, Americans are now imprisoned for incest and polygamy Over time, our moral assessments of these practices will shift Should a state be permitted to imprison two cousins because they have sex or attempt to marry? Should a man and two wives be permitted to live together as a family when they assert that their religious convictions lead them to do so? » If you like this article, please subscribe to our daily newsletter
Just the rantings of a left-wing professor? No, Professor Banks words have actually proven to be prophetic. Just days after the Governor of New York signed its same-sex marriage bill into law, a man in Utah along with his four wives were inspired to file a lawsuit challenging Utahs polygamy ban stating We only wish to live our private lives according to our beliefs.
Just equality, right?
Homosexual rights advocate Dan Savage goes even further and continues the marriage muddling, arguing, We arent wired for monogamy. He tells the New York Times magazine that America needs a more realistic view of marriage and that its the LGBT communitys responsibility to bring open relationships to the definition of marriage to create an environment thats more forgiving of the occasional affair. Savages It Gets Better homosexuality campaign targets children and teenagers and is being promoted by homosexual groups as an anti-bullying project to be used by public schools.
John Corvine, professor at Wayne State University, is heading in the same direction as Professor Banks and Mr. Savage. Reflecting on the same-sex marriage debate in New York, Professor Corvine writes, Its worth remembering that polygamy is quite traditional, even biblical. It is no more logically connected to one side of this debate than the other. The truth is that New York granted same-sex couples marriage rights not because of a radical idea, but because of an old-fashioned one: when two individuals commit to a lifetime of mutual love and care, its good to support them or at least get out of their way.
When you stray from the God-given confines of marriage, where do you draw the line? How is it fair to term one meandering relationship recognized without validating the other variations? Where does it end?
Same-sex advocates have no intention of declaring victory in New York and calling it quits. The goal is not to advance equality, the goal is to redefine marriage until existing sexual norms are no longer in existence. Counterfeit forms of marriage cheapen and undermine real marriage. The union of a man and a woman in a committed marriage is the foundation of a stable society. Traditional marriage and family are too important for society to experiment with to advance a political agenda.
Social science and history concur: men, women, and children are more likely to succeed emotionally, financially, and educationally within a two-parent, mother-father, married family. Marriage, properly defined, matters. Regardless of the agenda of left-wing advocates, The Family Foundation will continue to fight to protect the definitions and institutions of marriage and family in our Commonwealth.
rewriting schoolbooks and SAT questions that give moral equivalency to gay relations
I disagree with the argument of the article. It will not be polygamy or incest that is the next “progress” to be demanded, although that can’t be fought using the sodomites’ logic, but oppression of and the attempt to completely obliterate the Church of Jesus Christ. That has been their real target all along, because it has been Satan’s target, and Satan animates these degenerates.
“Homophobia” is not an unreasonable fear.
I agree. I define Homophobia as : “A perfectly nature fear of behavior that is patently unnatural.”
I don’t think pedophilia was nearly as common in ancient as the left wishes us to believe. From my reading older soldiers took young apprentices under their wing, I would bet the vast majority of these were not sexual at all.
It also doesn’t seem as accepted as they think either, even Wiki cites several written accounts opposing it
No, he didn't forget ......
This is a staged assault on the institution of marriage, precisely because it is normal.
Suing churches who won’t perform “marriages” for queers.
Actually, homophobia is on the list of clinical disorders -- it's an unreasoning, psychologically abnormal, morbid fear of homosexuals. However, the way homosexual propagandists and agitators throw the word around is cant and abuse, and should be challenged every time.
....and eventually purging the chaplain corps of "non-reconciling" (Levitical, full-gospel) ministers and especially Catholic priests and Orthodox rabbis.
There is a passage in the Bible about how adultery hardens the heart faster and more thoroughly than any other sin.
I think what these people are after is, quite precisely, the hardening of the human heart, throughout humanity.
They want to live in a world full of dragon's teeth.
I agree that the time to pass an Amendment has come and gone. Had the Sup Court imposed gay marriage back in the 90s, then I think the votes would have been there to pass an Amendment. That we as a society have come to the point where we believe the only legitimate remedy to a blatantly unconstitutional decision by the Sup Court is to pass an Amendment or get the Court to reverse itself is another matter altogether, but the fact is that we live with judicial supremacy.
In hindsight it might have been wise to call out all of the Republican and Democrats who voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment for the stated reason that they didn’t think it was necessary. Remember in the debates, many no votes said that they oppose gay marriage, but they claimed to see no reason to pass a FMA because the federal courts were letting the states handle the matter. How many were being honest, and how many were bluffing? So it might have been a good idea for proponents of traditional marriage had instead got behind Senator Hatch’s alternative Amendment, which did not define marriage but instead explicitly empowered the states to handle the issue. Of course that would not have helped where imperious state courts have imposed marriage and the people have not had a chance to vote, but it would have probably protected the majority of the states which have passed state marriage amendments.
I think at the time too many conservatives were either too confident of their ability to eventually pass their preferred FMA, and/or they had a principled objection to what they saw as conceding defeat on having a national standard for marriage.
For me, the main problem with Hatch’s alternative was that by passing an Amendment that basically singled out an issue as being beyond the power of the Sup Court, it sort of lends credence to the bogus view that w/o such an explicit Constitutional exclusion then the Courts rightly have jurisdiction over any and everything else. But since we’ve long since crossed that bridge, since all other branches of govt have meekly accepted the Sup Court’s outrageous power grabs, then perhaps it would have been wise to get behind a lesser Amendment of the type Hatch proposed.
“...it sort of lends credence to the bogus view that w/o such an explicit Constitutional exclusion then the Courts rightly have jurisdiction over any and everything else.”
That’s a good point. Another one that sort of goes along with it is if you start the amendment process, it will likely be for more than one issue, and not all all of them to the liking of conservatives. If it’s gotta be an amendment, and it might very well have to be, there’s the risk of other things getting in at the same time.
Placemark for pingout tomorrow.
I missed pinging this thread today. Some really good comments, too; I’ll ping it out tomorrow.
Regarding the hardening of hearts - people want to live without hearing the small voice of God inside known as the conscience. So they pile junk on - hardening their heart - but sometimes His voice still is heard, and that’s why they hate anyone saying the same thing from the outside...
Noting in passing your pessimism on the point, nevertheless the Constitutional language exists in black letters, that gives Congress the power to limit the federal courts' jurisdiction by statute.
That should be sufficient to overcome any liberal justices' waffles about "Necessary and Proper" and "General Welfare" and Marshall's various opinions on an expansive review power.
Once again, Scalia’s dissent in “Lawrence v. Texas is proving to be right on the money.
I think you might be mistaking the purpose for those two designations. Moms who are out shopping, and have little kids with them, want to be able to take them to the bathroom, if they, or she, should need to go. And we DON'T want to let our little boys go into the Men's bathroom all alone, whereas a Dad probably wouldn't be worried about about his daughter going into the Ladies' room alone. So having a 'Family' bathroom makes it easy for moms who have their little sons with them. The boys won't feel strange, because they're not going into the 'Ladies' room, they're going to the 'Family' bathroom.
Excuse me, but first, I have been an involved parent of two girls I home schooled. Second, I’ve been a janitor.
Yeah I agree, but there is no reason to expect Congress to use that power because they never do, at least not on any high-profile, contentious issue. If a Republican Congress threatened to use the power, they would be savaged as attacking the independence of our fair and impartial judiciary, and they would likely back down.
And who is to say that even if Congress had the stones to make a bold move with this power, that the Sup Court wouldn’t rule that they can’t use it that way? Who do you think would win such a Constitutional showdown? I have no doubt that the Sup Court would, especially if it were a conservative move by Congress.
So yes, I am hopelessly pessimistic about this matter. For a century now the Sup Court has been usurping power from Congress, the President, and the States. They have given themselves more power than the Framers and the Constitution ever intended. And they just keep getting away with it. The other branches and the States have not truly challenged them. We have meekly accepted it, and I see no hope that it will change.