America, the battle for the family is at your front door. Sitting it out is not an option.

February 17, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Public opinion has nothing to do with whether something is good or moral, but it’s worth noting how so-called same-sex marriage came to Alabama. It was imposed on Alabama the same way it’s been imposed on the majority of the American people—by activist judges.

It’s no surprise that progressives and liberal media are going bananas over Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore’s refusal to give in to judicial tyranny or ignore the Alabama Constitution’s marriage amendment before the Supreme Court weighs in. They are incensed that one man has the intestinal fortitude to stand for the rule of law and resist the imposition of same-sex “marriage” upon a state that voted overwhelmingly to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Liberals have been pushing the acceptance of same-sex “marriage” and gender ideology on Alabama for quite some time. They try to frame those who support marriage as similar to racists and segregationists, and use emotional manipulation to imply that disagreeing with same-sex “marriage” means you are a Christian bully or that you want to keep loving families apart.

Alabama’s marriage law didn’t ban anything; it defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Same-sex “marriage” redefines the institution of marriage itself and has far-reaching consequences.

Marriage supporters must be ready to defend marriage using charity, truth, and courage. Across the country, bakers, photographers, and wedding planners have faced considerable fines, lawsuits, and bankruptcy for refusing to participate in same-sex ceremonies. Anyone who expresses any disagreement with the gay lobby is labeled a bigot or a hater.

But believing marriage is the lifelong union of a man and a woman that brings new life into the world is anything but bigoted.

Marriage is a beautiful institution that ties kids to their parents, and allows them to learn from both their mother and their father, who each contribute to parenting in a different but valuable way.

In contrast, same-sex unions can never be marriages. Marriage brings a man and a woman together for life and to care for any children that their union produces. Marriage has been crucial to society throughout history because it connects children to their biological parents.

Although circumstances sometimes prevent children from being raised by both of their parents, decades of social science demonstrate that children have the best chance at success when married biological parents raise them. It’s an injustice to children to deliberately deny them a relationship with one or more of their biological parents.

Families are micro-societies where children learn the norms of masculinity and femininity. We must stand in solidarity with single parents whose conditions are often not through their own fault, but acknowledge that ideally, every child should be known and loved by his or her mother and father.

Marriage benefits children, who do best when raised by a married mother and father. Marriage acknowledges the biological fact that a man and a woman are necessary for reproduction.

Redefining marriage to be a union based solely on adult feelings, not the needs and rights of children, puts kids at risk. Same-sex “marriage” views children as a commodity to which adults are entitled.

Redefining marriage ultimately leads to redefining parenthood. Same-sex “marriage” undermines the notion that children are entitled to a relationship with both of their parents—a principle that was nearly universally acknowledged, especially in law, until recently.

Although not every marriage produces children, every child has a mother and a father. A married couple can still unite in a way that is ordered toward procreation; a same-sex couple cannot.

Marriage is a personal promise with a public purpose, children. Without the assistance of an additional person, same-sex unions cannot produce children. Ironically, the campaign for same-sex “marriage” in Alabama complains:

Except Khaya is not their son. He is the son of Kim McKeand and a man—his mother and his father. Claiming that two women are his parents ignores this reality.

The three essential characteristics of marriage are complementarity, exclusivity, and permanency. Complementarity allows for the two halves of humanity to bring new life into the world. Exclusivity and monogamy, marriage scholar Ryan Anderson writes, “encourage childbearing within a context that makes it most likely that children will be raised by their mother and father.”

Complementarity, exclusivity, and monogamy benefit children. Removing any of these characteristics from marriage changes the institution and benefits the whims of adults instead.

If marriage is just “a union of two people who love each other,” then two is an arbitrary number. Why not expand “marriage equality” to three people, or four? If they all love each other, then why can’t they get “married,” too?

Once marriage is no longer a complementary, conjugal union, then there’s no reason why it must be limited to just two consenting adults.

Many would have you think this battle is about “marriage equality.” It’s not. It’s about redefining marriage altogether.

Laws defining marriage do not prevent two women, two men, or various polyamorous arrangements from loving each other, living together, and spending their lives with each other. But these relationships are not marriages and should not be recognized as such.

Marriage is treated differently than other relationships under the law precisely because it is different. It benefits children—our future—and links them to their parents.

Anyone who believes that children have a right to be loved and known by both of their parents should prepare to stay in the culture war for this battle—and likely future battles over whether three or more people legally have the right to a child who is not their own.

The fight to protect the family isn’t one that can be sat out in good conscience. As society becomes increasingly secular and intolerant of people who believe mothers and fathers matter, the price we will pay for our beliefs will only be greater. The trials that come from striving to faithfully live in such a culture may not be comfortable, but we can hope that ultimately they will be worth it for future generations.

I make some general statements about my beliefs and you attack me - which leads me to believe that you have no leg to stand on.

Well, this should be entertaining if nothing else.

First off - don’t put words in my mouth and don’t tell me what forum I should or shouldn’t be on just because I happen to think that you’re jousting windmills.

Really? Protecting the SIX THOUSAND YEAR OLD sanctity of marriage is "jousting at windmills"?

Also - what rights are we defending? The right to marriage? Freedom of religion? You already have the right to get married.

Actually, there is no explicit right to be married, the idea that there is is what started all of this.

If a homosexual gets married in a different church or even your church, is that infringing on your rights?

YES.

You call me a libertarian. Maybe. In some ways I am.

From what I can see you are part libertarian and part liberal.

But if you think being a conservative is being a straight down the line Republican then I think YOU’RE on the wrong forum.

It's laughable to suggest that I have EVER blindly supported the GOP.

If I’m wrong, then I will absolutely leave today and never come back or post again.

Time will tell...

If I could see some sort of severe, criminal, tangible cost to our country from gay marriage, then I would say that we need to do something - but there’s no proof of that.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong.

Even if there was some sort of tangible social cost, would it be worse than the social cost heterosexual marriage already imposes on our society?

So, you're AGAINST traditional marriage and think that it imposes to many "social costs"?

How many times have you been zotted before?

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN DIVORCED?

No. I've never been pregnant either, but I have plenty of opinions on abortion.

Do you have any idea what it does to a family? How much it costs society in every sense of the word? Do you know how absolutely horrific an experience it is?

And you think "normalizing" sodomy is the solution?

It wouldn’t be so bad, but the courts have nosed their way so far into our personal lives that to get divorced is absolutely devastating in every way you can imagine. Even if you don’t believe in divorce, and the other person does, you’re screwed.

I'm really not seeing your point.

Here’s an idea there Chucky, why don’t we focus on getting the courts and the government out of our personal family lives (and stop with their little social engineering experiments through taxation loopholes for married couples and children) and people might not get divorced quite so often. THAT’S CONSERVATIVE.

I don't know who this "Chucky" is you refer to, but your "argument" is the same one the left ALWAYS uses for pushing immorality. I'm guessing you support abortion too?

Here’s what I think, slick. You don’t want small government.

Despite what you heard at the Ron Paul dope fests, "small" government IS NOT a conservative principle, limited government is and there's a huge difference.

What’s the difference between you and goofball up in NYC who bans super sized soft drinks and smoking. They’re both bad for your health, aren’t they? You drink enough of those and smoke enough cigarettes and you’ll probably kill yourself eventually and prematurely before God planned it. That’s suicide - that’s a sin. So let’s regulate it because God considers suicide a sin.

Got it, you consider the destruction of the family to be on the same level as soft drinks.

When does it stop? Where is the line between liberal and conservative? I’ll tell you where - the line starts with the liberty of the people and ends there - period. Government intervention is a sword wielded only in the most dire of circumstances. Otherwise - it’s just we the people doing our thing.

Government has been involved in the institution of marriage for over seven hundred years.

Small, unobtrusive government doesn’t care who gets married to whom.

Bullshit. And for the record, the sanctity of marriage has been a conservative principle since the days of Lincoln.

I’m not in favor of civil unions, I just don’t see how it effects me one way or the other except that those people will be paying fewer taxes because of how our tax system works - which means guys like me will probably have to pick up the slack for married (gay or otherwise) people like you? unless we get spending under control.

You idiots will never understand that the economy is a result of the breakdown of morality, not the other way around.

Why don’t you worry about that instead of making me pay higher taxes in order to support your brood and your “let’s all get married like Ozzie and Harriet” philosophy? Like those tax breaks do you? Nice aren’t they?

I don't have a clue what you're talking about, but I can assure you that I'm not benefiting from any tax breaks.

See, I don’t get those because I’m divorced and my child is 19. Instead, I have to pay a higher rate with no deductions while people all over this country can have 3,4,5 kids and get money for it.

Why aren’t you fighting that fight instead of this one?

So, you think tax cuts and deductions should be abolished?

Let’s see: Murder - check. Stealing - check. Adultery - check. Homosexual marriage - can’t find that one.

So, you think the fact that sodomy isn't explicitly mentioned in the Ten Commandments means it's okay? Read up on Sodom and Gomorrah, God made His wishes very clear.

Is it mentioned elsewhere in the scriptures - sure. I believe it’s a sin, but you’re sure as s**t cherry picking what you are fighting against and for. Where’s your righteous indignation against RAMPANT adultery in this country? Where are the laws there? Is that okay now? Is that worse or better than gay marriage? Because the way I was brought up the Ten Commandments are THE primary laws of GOD and you seem to be ignoring a whole bunch of them in favor of something that seems to rile you up.

What gives you the idea that I support adultery?

So I’ll tell you what. If you want to regulate who can and can’t get married, then you need to start incarcerating people for adultery. Because it’s a right there in your big ole dumb face 10 commandment. There needs to be a national movement against adultery. The courts need to start granting 100% rights to the cheated upon spouse. If one spouse cheats on another, the non-offending spouse gets all assets, custody, etc. automatically no exceptions. Not only that, but the spouse needs to be jailed and lose all the rights to ever marry again.

Once more, governments have been regulating marriage for seven hundred years and your attempts to minimize it do nothing other than confirm that you're a TROLL.

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.