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 ...
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.
whachoo say.
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.
I forgot.
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.
lol
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.
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.