This may get me in trouble here, but I’ll fire away.
These amendments are a waste of time. They will be overturned at best in the next few years.
It would be better if both sides of the argument would get together and remove the legal definition of *marriage* from all state and federal laws.
We Christians see these defeats as an attack on our faith, and the people across the isle mean it as so.
Let marriage be a term bestowed on a union by our clergy, as it should be. Let the union of household members as considered by the state be something separately, but that is a superset of what us Christians call marriage.
If we don’t do this, marriage is going to be completely tainted in its terminology in 10 years, because we are not going to win the issue in the courts, no matter what anyone here may think.
Even more trouble for me: I am going to vote against this amendment, because it’s just more government dabbling in everyone’s personal lives, and in the end, will serve to weaken Christianity.
And Polygamy is coming, you can bet on it. It’s the next wide open frontier of family re-engineering.
I disagree. We hve to fight this tooth-and-nail. If the GOP had fought this better a decade ago, we could have stopped it sooner. Never, never, never, never give in. Our civilization depends on it. We have to make sure the U.S. Supreme Court becomes more conservative to prevent back door imposition of same-sex marriage.
You make perfect sense. I think it’s silly that the state is involved with this. I’m a Catholic and I think only my church gets to decide what is the definition of marriage.
We got “civil unions” here in 2000. The deal was that there would be equal “marriage” rights for everyone but the terminology would be different (civil unions for deviants, marriage for regular folks). Many moderates went along with this idea but the ink was barely dry before the lavender mafia went right after redefining marriage to include any couple.
Their aim is to destroy the family as it has been since passing abortion on demand, no fault divorce, gay adoption, and on and on.
I hear what you are saying, and in a perfect world, marriage would only be a union bestowed by clergy. But, marriage is also in our civil laws. But, the homosexual activists, and polygamy/polyamory activists to follow in the years ahead, are determined to change the defintion of marriage.
Is there any way that the homosexual activists at this point would agree to just abolish marriage altogether, and stop trying to force this issue through the courts? They are hell bent on changing the definition. It’s hard to imagine that they would agree to not having any definition of marriage at all in our civil laws.
I’ve also heard people make similar proposals to yours, to the effect that everyone should get a civil union license from the state, and then, if they want to get married in a church, go ahead and take that extra step. The problem with that is, again, that the homosexual activists are not going to allow that sort of thing to happen. The battle is joined. They are hell bent on shoving this down our throats. If they win, it will make it more likely, not less likely, that we end up with legalized polygamy and legalized group marriage.