Really? How would eliminating state recognition of marriage address the problem of forced adoptions by homosexuals? How would it address the issue of homosexuals’ friends in the courts forcing private businesses to serve them?
These things have all happened in the absence of forced recognition of homosexual “marriage,” and there’s no reason to believe the situation will not continue to snowball.
For most of western civilization, the institution of marriage didn’t involve a government-issued marriage certificate. I have long maintained that marriage, as an institution of the church, is one in which the government does not belong. However, government IS involved in the marriage business and most likely always will be. For government to simply “get out of the marriage business” would involve re-writing several pages of state and federal law, which is not going to happen.
Those things all occurred before gay marriage. As I see it civil unions wouldn’t further or restrain any of it. Unmarried gay couples and single gay parents have been adopting children for quite awhile.
I agree with you.
At first I floated the idea that maybe it’s best to just get the government out of marriage. As I worked it out I realized that it would be a HUGE defeat and basically giving in to the enemy.
No, we must fight this at every level every time we see it. One of the ways I do it is to explain that the same thinking that makes homosexual marriage legitimate as well as the arguments used can be used to support polygamy and incest marriages. They can’t argue against that and often don’t even try.
We can’t just let them roll over us, even after multiple defeats. The bible tells us to stay diligent. If one does nothing more than refuse to apologize for marriage coming from God one is being diligent.
We all get our opinions from either personal experience or information from authorities we trust. The most trusted authority on the planet is the Bible. There is no shame in saying Marriage is from God.
If they want civil unions, that is a completely different battle. But no way will I EVER call it marriage. I also don’t call homosexuals “Gay”, I even chastized my pastor during his sermon in front of the whole church for saying it. And it was knee jerk - like swatting a mosquito. I didn’t mean to do it - he said “gay” and I said, “you mean homosexual”.
But I’m glad I did. We all need to do it. They are literally attempting a “1984” on our language. Fight back!
And they keep on pretending that "government didn't used to be involved in marriage" but when you try to pin them down they generally point to the medieval times. The problem is that the government was involved in marriage then too, if in no other way then by enforcing the rules of the church(s).
Is that what they want now?
Thank you for your cogent answer to that nonsensical suggestion.
I'm distressed at how many conservatives here on FreeRepublic reflexively act as if none of these institutions ever existed before governments began regulating them.