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 ...
“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.
Freegards
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 .
placemark
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...
the infowarrior
FAIRBANKS????.....NO....Siberia!
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:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2843523/posts?page=48#48
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.
We don’t own Siberia.
Yes, thanks to Gov. Reagan.
You obviously get it. But it won't stop with "marriage" - far from it.
The sodomites won't stop until they've mandated unwavering approval from every corner of society, at the point of a gun. This includes every Christian Church and organization.
GLSEN has these ads on during the NBA games about that. It features Grant Hill. I mute the TV when they come on.
Don't worry Daisy, we'll be able to marry soon. I can feel it."
minor detail..../s
minor detail..../s......while we are dreaming of sending them ANYWHERE...that’s where I’d want them to go!
Agreed
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.
