Skip to comments.Why gay marriage is inevitable (The war is all but over, even as the battle continues)
Posted on 02/12/2012 6:42:34 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The year 2012 is shaping up as a big one for same-sex marriage. Last week, the Washington state Legislature passed a bill allowing gay marriage, and legislatures in Maryland and New Jersey may follow suit shortly (though New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has promised a veto). North Carolina and Minnesota are conducting referendums this year on constitutional amendments to bar gay marriage, and Maine is likely to conduct a referendum on legalizing it.
On Tuesday, the U.S. 9th Court of Appeals reminded us that courts too have something to say on the subject. In a case challenging the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, that court ruled in favor of gay marriage. Because its ruling was so narrow that it may not be applicable outside California, theU.S. Supreme Court may decide not to review this decision. Eventually, though, the Supreme Court will take a gay marriage case. How might the justices decide it when they do?
As recently as seven or eight years ago, there might not have been a single justice prepared to declare a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Opinion polls then showed that Americans opposed gay marriage by a 2-1 margin, and a Massachusetts court decision declaring a right to gay marriage under the state constitution produced an enormous political backlash in 2004, with 13 states enacting constitutional bans. Even liberal justices such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg andStephen G. Breyer, who probably sympathize with gay marriage, might well have been wary of venturing too far in advance of public opinion and stoking further political backlash.
The situation has since changed dramatically. Opinion polls now consistently show that a slender majority of Americans support gay marriage. State supreme courts in California, Connecticut and Iowa have ruled in its favor, and legislatures in five states have enacted gay-marriage statutes.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Next will be marry your Pet. Incredible! 5000 years of culture down the drain.
How many states would have queer marriage if it were left up to the people and courts didn't legislate.
Plus the 9th circuit is one huge joke.
They already married some idiot with a building in Seattle so we’re getting there..
Women have lost their “equal rights” and don’t yet know it.
It is sickening, and the country's courts and leaders who allow it are sickening.
If homosexuality is legitimized in that sense, then it won’t be long before criticism of it will be criminalized; because people will always voice criticism of something that’s wrong.
Why gay marriage is inevitable??
Africa, China and the ME will never accept it, so if the West wants to kill itself, so be it.
Looks to me like within three and a half years to four years.
Time feels short.
I am predicting a big earthquake in Washington State soon.
My bet too!
Look, let's say we get the Presidency, the House and the Senate ~ time to FIX the 9th.
I say send them to Fairbanks.
Similarly, there are no "health" benefits associated with the taking of birth control pills. This argument Obama has created is simply an attack on religion.
Coming soon - threesomes, quartets, ...n, n+1,.....”marrying”. But....God is not mocked..
Actually the battle is over because it will never be won. The public will NEVER consider homosexuals married. After homosexuals went with the “nice” term gay to describe themselves, gay became an insult among kids. That should tell you all you need to know about what will or will not happen no matter what the government defines.
People think you are married when a man and a woman join in union. The public will probably never consider two same sex people married.
So is the eventual destruction of American, but we shouldn’t be gleeful about it.
It is not inevitable. But it will lead to plural marriage and chaos - a consequence of weakening marriage. This can be concluded from the so-called Russian Experiment of the late 1930s and early 1940s where the communists set a plan to destroy the major institutions, among them the family and religion. The consequences were so devastating that they had to reverse their attacks on the traditional family.
Its not about ‘marriage’, they don’t want ‘marriage’ they want government enforced approval of their abnormal lifestyle.
It will be the “New Black” and covered by all the Civil Rights laws and associated Bureaucracy and taught in schools.
Not Fairbanks...Pyongyang perhaps?
it’s about as “inevitable” as fitting a round peg into a...round peg
Not cold enough!
There is nothing new under the sun, and God will not be mocked.
They might end up with a peice of paper, but it still ain’t marriage. That is conducted only in the eyes of God, and He made His thoughts on the whole homo thing pretty clear at Sodom and Gomorrah.
The first step was the introduction of no fault divorce.
Massachusetts is the granddaddy of the gay marriage states, having been legal due to court order for almost 8 years now.
In Massachusetts, only about 20% of homosexuals in relationships are “married”. That’s not 20% of all homosexuals, that’s 20% of homosexuals who identify as being in a relationship.
So it seems that the homosexual activists are fighting hard for these marriage rights, then, once they gain that right, they decide they don’t really want to get married!!
So it does seem that they want governmental/societal approval of the lifestyle, but don’t really want to be “married” to their same-sex partner.
I think the real reason is so they can get on the group health plan where one of them works...(and be forced to pay for Contraception)...(snort!)
As you mention God and His plan for marriage, this brings up another issue on the horizon as homosexual marriage spreads. Namely, are churches going to be sued for discrimination if they don’t perform homosexual marriages? Is there any mainstream religion today which does not consider homosexuality a sin, much less endorse through marriage in their denomination?
I hope and pray that the homosexual activists don’t start lawsuits against churches. That could be a future battle in this whole marriage issue.
Still - STILL ! .. Not one of my liberal friends, or anyone I’ve approached on the topic, can tell me why gay people want to get married.
I’m Married, before god and the state. I married a lovely woman, and together we are actually quite powerful to create a really nice environment. It’s calm, it’s stable, and it’s fun.
But if a religion bans you from getting married, and you’re not a member of that religion anyway, Why would one want to play ? That’s pretty similar to me bitching that I can’t be handfasted, or that I can’t marry multiple women, or what-have-you. It’s simply not my culture, and I’m not that religion !
Why can’t gays just live together and wear a fancy ring? OH That’s right. There is money to be made in some form.
And while I’m on the subject : Why do people engage in this sort of behavior, which OBVIOUSLY can’t create children, then demand to have children ? Doesn’t the decision sort of preclude progeny ?
If I decided to be single for the rest of my life - Fine. But then to demand a child from my decision ? Like it’s somehow owed to me ? That’s foolish.
First step was contraception.
You've got that right. It is natural women who mate with men that are most at risk in this proposition.
The first step was palimony. Then came no-fault divorce. Both products of Californica.
You both make a good point. It’s not the freaks that are threatening marriage, it’s heterosexuals who aren’t thoroughly commited.
Exactly. As I like to say: The love that dare not speak its name has become the love that won’t STFU.
“The first step was the introduction of no fault divorce.”
I think that has a lot to do with it. More broadly, I think the general decline came when folks were conditioned to think that the state defines marriage instead of recognizing the institution, that it is simply a contract that can be broken and resumed as long as the state says it can. Folks don’t respect their welfare checks either, why should they respect a piece of paper from the state as being meaningful when it is just another lousy gubberment contract?
The second the state got involved, at least in modern times, marriage became whatever judges, pols or the majority thought it could be at any one time. Prop. 8 passsed by 52% in 2008, does it even pass now? In 10 years will it simply be repealed by the amendment process? That’s even if our black robed masters don’t cut out the middlemen.
Fake marriage is every bit as much an affront on the First amendment as this new contraception thing is, complete with so called “hate crimes laws”, that many in both parties support. It is high time Churches push back on ALL of the violations to our God given right, and the trampling of the first amendment .
We have an election coming and FR must be up and running and healthy if we are going to make a difference.
All contributions are for the Current Quarter Expenses.
In other words, FR could go away if the expenses for this quarter are not met.
Where would you go?
Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Point in fact. The lesbian couple that forced the issue in Massachusetts got their marriage, and a few years later, were quietly divorced. They had achieved their goal, which wasn't marriage at all, but a government 'stamp of approval' on their lifestyle...
This is why the abortifactent/contraception issue is so important right now. If the Government is permitted, even through accounting tricks, to force a church to go against its basic principles (a violation of the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment), then there is no limit to the degree government will decree church policy.
FOr all the babble of the 'wall of separation', there will be none, the State will have usurped the powere of the church to determine doctrine.
It used to be that if you didn't like what was on the menu, you were free to go elsewhere. Now everyone has to serve the whole state-approved fare.
It is the difference between equality of rights and equality of results.
Nonsense, I read the back of the book. We win.
Once more into the breach, dear FRiends.
This article is late to the party.
I posted about this subject a number of days ago:
I’m gonna start fighting for polygamy. That will be awesome. Now if I can find just one woman who would walk across the street to spit on my shoes, I will have begun.