Thoughts on Gay Marriage


I’m sickened by the new law in NY for gay marriage.  Five other states and DC have gay marriage but with gay marriage in New York it feels as if we are firmly on the downhill slide of that slippery slope of redefining marriage for the few.

What I do know is that this has been coming for a very long time while Christians of all stripes have chosen not to fight.  I think the gays have won.  They are not right, they are legislating immoral behavior.  But it appears they have won….through deception and the power of the state.

Marriage is God-ordained and between a man and woman.  The state sanction of “gay marriage” is not about civil rights, but about creating new rights.  Eventually, I have no doubt, that it will mean the disintegration of religious rights….particularly of those individuals who perform the marriages…but really the rights of all Christians who understand that homosexuality is a sin.  Christians understand the struggle of homosexuals and are taught to be kind….but it is not biblical and it is un-Christian to embrace the behavior.  I fear that through the courts and the long-term view of the homosexual lobby (the view of crushing a moral society) we will see courts forcing Christians to accept this behavior and require pastors, business people of conscience, and more to teach, perform and embrace what they personally deem as an abomination.  Sad.

Ultimately, this passage in New York will lead to lawsuits that are focused on FORCING gay marriage in all states through the courts….mark my words.

And, I might add, this is not just about the religious aspects of marriage, but about the breaking down of Western civilization.  Marriage is a bedrock institution of the continuity and success of Western culture.

Yes, marriage has taken a beating in our culture lately, but the decline of morality in marital issues in this country should not lead to the complete obliteration of marriage…..which will happen with so-called gay marriage.

Further, a free society (one out from under the thumb of state) only sustains itself under a moral society.  It is my belief and the belief of others that the so-called gay marriage agenda is an intentional direct hit to our moral society in an effort to make the state bigger and freedom smaller….at least this is the goal of some in power.

Ace of Spades has a great review and thoughts on the subject.  I highly encourage you to read at the link.

“The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men.” (Ps. 12:8)

Advertisements

27 Responses

  1. Be careful, look at what Perez Hilton did to Carrie Prejean, called her all manner of ugly and vile and demeaning names for sharing that same thought.

    Blessings on you and yours
    John Wilder

  2. “Marriage is God-ordained”

    And yet atheists can legally be married anywhere in the US.

    So your argument holds no water.

  3. Notascientist…. Marriage is a religious institution whether you want to acknowledge it or not. The fact is that homosexuals “marrying” is counter to God’s intentions and definition for marriage. Atheists are married according to the the laws of man, but not the laws of God. When the State redefines the meaning of marriage, it is performing a role it has no right to perform.

  4. “Atheists are married according to the the laws of man, but not the laws of God”

    And I don’t care about the laws of your god. Neither do homosexuals. They only care about governmental laws, or what I like to call “actual laws”.

  5. NotAScientist….so those of us who believe in God should suck it up and let government create the rights and redefine the relationships we believe are of God?

    At least you are honest that if it suits the homosexual lifestyle and its suits your belief and disdain for God, then the all powerful government has the right to do just about anything it wishes.

    Our founders believed that our rights came from God, not government. The Declaration of Independence says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    A state with the kind of power to generate a “human right” where there is none is the kind that produces tyranny…..and don’t believe for a minute that the state that generates rights can easily take them away….in any arena…and for or against almost any group of people…including you.

    And since you believe that “actual laws” are anything that government can create, then what “rights” will Christians have when that same government (pushed by the homosexual lobby) declares it against the law for a pastor to refuse to marry two homosexuals or a photography business refuses to do business at a so-called gay wedding?

    Is forced acceptance by legislation (or court order) of gay marriage more important than the freedom, conscience and beliefs of those who don’t embrace it?

    The gay marriage battle really boils down to gays vs. Christians. Many who advocate gay marriage feel as you do..and that is: if God is left out, if Christians are forced to accept it, then good because “we don’t care about the laws of god” or those who do!!!

    Since civil unions will resolve most, if not all, of the contractual issues that gays claim they want, the forced “gay marriage” focus is really one of redefining the religious, traditional, and societal benefits and definitions of marriage. The real goal is to force Americans to accept a lifestyle that many reject, and one that Christians do not embrace.

    As an example….If the shoe were on the other foot and you were forced by legislation to attend church or forced to pray in certain settings, you wouldn’t like it. While the example is extreme and I would never condone government coercion of pray or church attendance, it would not be unlike the debate we are having on gay marriage. If I said I didn’t care if you are an atheist and I’m happy you are forced to accept mandatory church….well…I suppose you’d feel much as I do about government’s new creation…the so-called “right” of gay marriage.

    The government has no right to define church or prayer for you just as it has no right to redefine marriage for me and millions of Americans…past, present, and future.

  6. Yeah, but we’re not a Christian nation. It’s a secular nation with many religions or not. You either believe in religious freedom or you don’t. So in a country where one can worship whatever God we choose (or not), what is the religious nature of marriage as a civic institution? I don’t think there is one. Hence, gay marriage.

    But you got one thing right: Christians have lost. They probably should get used to that in the years to come.

  7. return2thesource…I love how gays and their supporters are all about “rights”, but many, like yourself, take the opportunity to show your true colors in refusing the rights of Christians and society to embrace their beliefs…..many upon which this country was founded, in case you have forgotten.

    We are a Christian nation in the sense that our Founders were godly men who clearly believed and inserted into our founding documents the fact that our rights come from God, not government. Tough to deny that if you have ever once studied our founding.

    This does not make us a secular nation. In addition, you confuse a theocracy, which we are not, with a country that is based upon God, his laws and his teachings. Our founding fathers intended that our government can not displace the rights of the religious in our society which is predominately Christian.
    Conversely, they did not intend that that God should not be considered in legal, societal, and cultural issues if the people so wish. This is counter to the bastardized version that you preach…which says no religion should be considered in the needs of our country, laws, society, and more. Your version is based upon a lie that this country was founded upon complete separation of church and state. That belief is no where in the Constitution, and, as a matter of fact, it clearly states the FREE excercise of religion, not freedom from religion.

    Therefore, your premise that anything goes if its secular, but anything Christian is out of bounds is pure bunk. It is nothing but the idealist view of a few who refuse God and those who follow him.

    And your smug righteousness in a small victory for depravity says alot about the type of people we are unfortunately dealing with. In case you didn’t read the link in my post, we are dealing with a lack of sincerity and outright lies in the gay agenda and lobby. Your victory was won upon lies.

    But Truth will reign in the end….one way or another.

  8. “take the opportunity to show your true colors in refusing the rights of Christians and society to embrace their beliefs…..many upon which this country was founded, in case you have forgotten.”

    You have the rights to disapprove of gay marriage. You even have the right to not allow your churches to marry gay couples.

    But you don’t have the right to deny gay couples from getting legally married by the government, or by other religions that don’t share your opinion.

  9. Sharprightturn, have you actually read about our founding fathers, like Thomas Jefferson? Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_religion

    Nowhere will you see that Jefferson was a traditional Christian and, ahem, he was the first person to use separation of church and state. The idea is to make no religion, and thus nobody’s notion of God, principal. I mean, after all, considering how many sects and denominations of Christianity there are, which one would we ever use?

    The freedom of religion does also include not having one. And no one says that any church or house of worship should be forced to do something it does not want to do. But one also doesn’t have to be any particular religion to be married, whether you’re gay or straight. So if the State is what recognizes a marriage, regardless of one’s religion, then why should religion have a stake, at all, in who marries who? How would that be decided?

    The Truth is that it’s up to each citizen to discover what is the Truth for him or her, whether he or she wants to do that with the opposite sex, same sex, different religion, no religion, same race, or different race. Whatever notion of Truth you have beyond that is not in the constitution and is unAmerican. It’s unfortunate that you’re on the losing side of history.

  10. Return2 source,

    I am afraid you are woefully ill-informed yourself. Our founding fathers based our laws and structured the country’s founding around many truths, laws, and teachings of the Bible. I never claimed any founding fathers were “traditional’, nor Baptist, nor any other denomination. But the majoirty, if not all, were godly men with a respect and understanding of the book called the Bible.

    Thomas Jefferson did once use the words “separation of church and state” AND he had much more to say which puts the phrase in context. Many, like you, use the 5 words in quotes above out of context and to suit your needs.

    Perhaps you may not be aware that the 90 men who framed the First Amendment establishing the free exercise of religion never once mentioned nor discussed “separation of church and state”. But you use one founder (who was not ultimately one of those 90 men re 1st amendment) who used the 5 words in a personal letter to a church, take his words out of context….and bam….the government must keep church away from all things government.

    Reality is that Jefferson went on to affirm in this same letter that they should be entitled to their “natural rights” and that these rights were not to be harmed by government. The free exercise of religion was their right and not to be interfered with by government.

    It wasn’t until middle of the last century that a wayward court took these 5 words from one personal letter written by Jefferson out of context….just like you….and set a damaging precedent that has deteriorated the free exercise of religion in this country.
    We are not to have a government that secures a freedom FROM religion as you claim but a FREE exercise of it. That freedom does not make us a theocracy but a country that respects religious freedom even from the highest offices of government.

    As far as a religious marriage vs. a civil marriage—-

    Let’s review the value of real marriage in society from the state’s viewpoint?
    The perpetuation of society and the state depend upon enduring heterosexual unions. The endurance of a society (and the state) depends greatly upon the volume of (real) marriages and the reproduction that takes place there, not to mention the stability it brings. That should be apparent to everyone (without a gay agenda).

    The role of government in marriage has been to nurture this huge building block of society we call (real) marriage. One could honestly argue if government should play even that role in marriage, but it currently does. Other than that role, government has no right to redefine nor change the status of real marriage in this country. After all, only real marriage naturally fulfills the perpetuation of society and, arguably, the stability of the family structure. And a state sanction of “gay marriage” is a historically unprecedented attempt at redefining marriage and making up a new role for the state.

    Christians and other religions have religious basis for marriage. We know that the gay focus is not for a “religious” marriage. So it is not even arguable. You’ve done your best to confuse the religious and civil meanings of marriage. The religious argument on this gay marriage issue becomes hugely pertinent when this same gay lobby begins to demand that churches perform “gay” marriage (stripping away their free exercise of religion), that those in “marriage” businesses can’t refuse to do business for “gay” marriages based on religious conscience, etc….

    Gays want marriage sanctioned by a state whose role in real marriage has been and should only be limited to the advancement ,stabilty, and perpetuation of society/state. Some even believe government should get out of the marriage business an there may be a valid case to be made there.

    This is the primary factor, from a non-religious or state perspective, which rules out the necessity for state-sanctioned “gay marriage”—- It is impossible for “gay marriage” to fill the same role in a society as a real marriage.

    And no, I am not on the losing side of history….since marriage has never been redefined in this way until now. History is on my side in the definition of marriage from a societal or a religious viewpoint.

  11. NotasCientist —
    “You have the rights to disapprove of gay marriage. You even have the right to not allow your churches to marry gay couples.”

    Currently I do possess both of those privileges. The first is clearly expressed on this blog.
    But, at what point do I no longer have this privliege? After all, as was pointed out in the second link in this post above (if you read it), the gay lobby has been painfully deceitful in obtaining their “gay marriage” victories….why should I believe they won’t push for suppression of my thoughts, my religion, and even criminalizing the refusal to marry gays in church?

    “But you don’t have the right to deny gay couples from getting legally married by the government, or by other religions that don’t share your opinion.”

    Currently in NY, I guess it would be against the law to deny gay couples now….but in 44 other states I have the right to deny gay couples from redefining marriage. And I will fight like hell to keep gay marriage out of those states and to overturn it in the others. In all cases so far, when this issue is taken to a vote of the people, gay marriage is turned down.

    I can tell you that in my state it will never pass in a legislature nor by a vote. It will only come, if ever, with a fiat judge that is enlisted by the gay lobby…..a judge much like in California (who overturned the will of the people) and Iowa (who overturned the laws of that state).

  12. “But, at what point do I no longer have this privliege?”

    At the same point that your church is forced to marry two Jews or two Muslims.

    “And I will fight like hell to keep gay marriage out of those states and to overturn it in the others. ”

    Then be prepared for a losing battle.

  13. NotasCientist —
    “At the same point that your church is forced to marry two Jews or two Muslims.”

    Last time I checked there was no Jew or Muslim lobby working to change the definition of marriage nor to force Christians to marry them.

  14. “nor to force Christians to marry them.”

    No one is trying to force Christians to marry them.

    There are Christian denominations that have zero problem marrying gay couples. They are free to do so.

    Now, where you might be confused, if a church rents out its facilities to anyone for wedding ceremonies, it can’t not allow gay couples to rent it if it’s legal for them to get married. But this is because they’re tax-exempt, and thus must provided services to the entire community, not just the part that agrees with them.

    If they’d like to only rent their facilities to certain people, all they need to do is pay taxes.

    But again, no one is trying to force Christians to marry gay people. That worry is just in your head.

  15. NotAscientist –

    No one is working to force Christians to live against their beliefs?

    In America – http://americaswatchtower.com/2007/07/09/lesbians-to-sue-church-for-discrimination/

    In Canada – a pastor and Christian organization lose in the courts for speaking out against homosexuality. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2007/11/30/boissoin-ruling.html

    Business forced to go against beliefs – https://www.alliancedefensefund.org/Home/Detail/4333?referral=E0910B3F

    It doesn’t matter the country or the state…the gay lobby is pushing hard for us all to be forced to accept their behavior and so-called marriage. To claim otherwise is ignorance, naivety, or choosing not to see it.

    Besides, once the state has gotten involved in redefining religious terms (ie marriage), we all knew that the gay argument for forcing churches to accept it would be tax exempt status. In addition, we all knew that including “sexual orientation” in business and other entities as a basis for discrimination would lead to using it as an excuse to force Chrisitan businesses to adhere to homosexual demands. Simple as that.

    Further to your point, though, I guess the financial benefits that same sex couples supposedly seek in “gay marriage” are more important than the benefits a church receives as a pillar for a strong society.
    Benefits for me but not for thee….

    Oh and when the abortion mill Planned Parenthood has its federal money completely stripped, then we’ll talk about the financial benefits that a church may have.

    “If they’d like to only rent their facilities to certain people, all they need to do is pay taxes.”

    If gays just want benefits then all they need is a contract. Not a redefinition of marriage.

  16. I notice how none of your examples are Christians being forced to marry gay people in their churches. Which is what you claimed to be worried about.

    “involved in redefining religious terms (ie marriage)”

    You mean religious terms that existed before your religion did? And religious terms that have been redefined several times since your religion started using it?

    “it as an excuse to force Chrisitan businesses to adhere to homosexual demands.”

    Only if they want to stay tax-exempt.

    “Oh and when the abortion mill Planned Parenthood has its federal money completely stripped”

    First of all, abortion is still legal. Unless or until that changes, you can’t justify removing funding from a group that does it.

    Secondly, only a small percentage of what is done by Planned Parenthood is abortion. To call them an ‘abortion mill’ makes just as much sense as calling the Catholic church a ‘pedophile mill’.

    “Not a redefinition of marriage.”

    You’re right.

    The Romans are terribly mad at you for redefining the marriage that they came up with.

  17. “Which is what you claimed to be worried about.”

    I claim to be worried about any forced acceptance of gay marriage or the lifestyle. In addition, the first link was about forcing clergy to perform a civil union….Do you think the gay lobby will stop at that? I gave 3 perfect examples of what is the future of every Christian in this country if gay marriage gains further foothold.

    “Only if they want to stay tax-exempt.”
    The photography business was not tax-exempt. Nor are most small PRIVATE businesses that may reject to serving same sex couples.

    “First of all, abortion is still legal. Unless or until that changes, you can’t justify removing funding from a group that does it.”

    Well Christianity is also still legal. Until homosexuals demand that be changed, you can’t justify removing tax exempt status from a pillar of society.
    IN addition, I use abortion because it was made legal throughout the US by a rogue court. Much like has happened and likely will continue to happen with so-called gay marriage.

    “only a small percentage of what is done by Planned Parenthood”

    2006: 289,750 abortionts were perfomed in 287 PP clinics that perform them.

    The is about 4 abortions per day per clinic. Assume an eight hour work day and those clinics spend an inordinate amount of time performing abortions.
    And nearly 50% of their funding that year was from government grants and contracts.

  18. The census no longer asks people what their marital status is supposedly because it is irrelevant.
    When a govt conducts a census which is mandated by the Constitution and has no interest in who is married or not, why would that govt want to legitimize an institution it considers irrelevant?
    This liberal/progressive/socialist govt and its twins at the state level is determined to kowtow to the homosexual lobby, to hell with the consequences.
    When a govt engages in social engineering without regard to the long term effects of its policies, it is sowing potentially, the seeds of its own demise.
    Example: When at the turn of last the century “enlightened” courts began awarding children to the mother when the parents were divorcing the effect was: Easier divorces as the father became “single” again; less responsibility for the fathers; more children raised in poverty. The fatherless home rates among whites was higher than for Blacks until the 1930s. Now it’s more than double for Blacks compared to Whites… and the latter are catching up quickly, accelerated by ill-conceived social programs which perpetuate the problem…
    Our culture is committing suicide gladly… but sociologists and psychologists know better…

  19. It’s amazing how conservatives at history. It’s a good thing that you’re losing your grip on “society.” Welcome to the 21st century. I shudder to wonder how you all thought about interracial marriages that were also dictated by states until federal laws overturned that too. Again, welcome to the 21st century and the end of your era.

    Am I smug? Yes, definitely.
    Am I wrong? No. You’re doomed.
    Will you be able to do anything about it? No, because people of me use reason instead of just raw conviction or biblical exegesis/BS.

    So you can call it a “gay lobby,” but you’re lobby too. But here’s the difference: a “gay lobby” can give logical, “civil” reasons for their right to rights. Whatchu got? Conjecture on social experimentation, scripture (of your religion, which socially no one is obligated to hold, even yourselves obviously), and anecdotes. Good luck with that in court or any legislature.

    Did I mention that you’re doomed?

  20. Boria,
    You make some very different points than I and they are great.
    Thanks.

    I love the census point you made. We have state governments that have condoned the break up of marriage and families for years. Now all of a sudden they are interested in redefining the whole institution of marriage and families for the whims of a few.
    Excellent point.

    There is nothing progressive about “progressives”. The only thing that seems to progress under their ideas, whims, and forced “norms” is further decay of this country and its foundations.

  21. return2thesource–
    “I shudder to wonder how you all thought about interracial marriages that were also dictated by states until federal laws overturned that too.”

    Slavery and its offshoot of laws against interracial marriages, among other things, are, thankfully, issues that have been made right in this country….but it really has nothing to do with this argument on gay marriage.

    To compare the obliteration of human rights in the case of blacks with any “gay” agenda is a slap in the face to all who suffered through the issues surrounding slavery. Blacks, in our history, were denied the basic rights to life, liberty, and happiness…in many forms.
    Gays have EVERY SINGLE RIGHT in this country that others do and always have, including marriage to the opposite sex. You can choose to exercise that right or not.
    To claim some great suffering for gays to the real suffering of blacks is just dishonest and inaccurate.

    “Again, welcome to the 21st century and the end of your era.”
    The end of MY era? The one where the ideal is for men and women join in marriage and procreate to further society and strengthen its foundation.
    So sorry to hear that you are not a fan of centuries, even millenia, of history.

    “But here’s the difference: a “gay lobby” can give logical, “civil” reasons for their right to rights.”

    I think I have given very sold “civil” reasons against so-called gay marriage. Perhaps another read through these comments might be worth your while.

  22. Oh, the parallels between denying interracial marriages and same sex marriage are very strong. Listen to your arguments and some of the arguments that were used against interracial marriages: “it’s unnatural,” “it weakens the foundations of society”; “you’re free to do what you want…as long as you do what society says”; “the children will be screwed up”; “it will sterilize the human race.” (If you don’t get that, then explore the etymology of the word mulatto. I’ll give you a hint: the word mule (a sterile animal) is involved.

    And what purely rational reasons have you given me? Let’s do quick review.

    You’ve talked about the history of marriage as between men and women. Have you looked at the history of marriage? I mean really? First off, marriage was rarely formal for most folks for most of human history. You kind of just shacked up. Second, marriage can’t evolve? Cuz it has. I mean which models of marriage are we talking about from history? Arranged marriages? Marriages between children (as has been legal until last century in the West)? Marriages w/ multiple partners as is still legal in some countries? Marriages where I can divorce my wife because she failed to produce me an heir? Or the marriages where the woman can’t divorce her husband because he never has performed any of his husbandly duties and she can’t prove he’s doing it w/ someone else? Or the marriages where I couldn’t marry out of my class, caste or race? Or the marriages where I couldn’t marry because I was married before and divorced? Or the marriage that Father Abraham had when tried to pass off his wife to a Pharaoh for safe passage? Or maybe the kind of marriage that King Solomon had? Now, that I think of it, can you think of many positive role models for marriage in the Bible? LOL!

    Lastly, do you really think marriage is only about propagation? Then most of the White people need to get divorced because ain’t none of y’all producing enough. Propagation has nothing to do w/ marriage. By the way, you do know that two men can raise a child w/ a surrogate mother, right? Same w/ two women who actually can carry children, with a surrogate father. How are they so drastically different from couples who have artificial insemination or adopt or have surrogate mothers?

    So unless you can specify some iconic tradition of marriage that probably never existed I think you’re just romanticizing marriage…as a veiled way of suppressing people who have a right to be married. Otherwise, you’re just being ahistorical as to justify homophobia.

    So, yup, you’re still losing and conservatives, as we know them, are doomed.

  23. return2thesource–

    Arguments against interracial marriage are not pertinent to the discussion about gay marriage.
    Blacks were wrongly denied, in many ways, just because of skin color. Gays want “special rights” because of their behavior and desires

    Until gays have been denied, by law, their basic rights as blacks were, then we can talk about comparisons between gays and blacks. Until then you are just creating diversions.

    You said, “I mean which models of marriage are we talking about from history?”

    In every situation you cited, the basic model of opposite sexes marrying did not change. Not one. There is no same-sex marriage in any of your examples. Marriage between a man and woman was not redefined in any of the examples. (Except, perhaps polygamy which, arguably still includes man/woman sex and is a whole other discussion)
    So, no, the model of marriage between a man and a woman has not changed.
    Has real marriage always been perfectly practiced by every single individual in marriage, by cultures, or in historical timeframes? No. But the model and reasons for real marriage are ideal and have stood the test of time.

    you said, “do you really think marriage is only about propagation?”

    No and I didn’t say it was. I have explained ad nauseum, however, from the point of view of the state/govt, that the reasons for supporting real marriage is propagation of society/state and stability. Gay marriage offers neither of those naturally. Thus, the state has no reason to intervene in the matter nor do they have the right to redefine real marriage.
    The reasons for religious marriage are a different discussion.

    you said, “Propagation has nothing to do w/ marriage. ”

    That is a quite laughable response. Then I guess all of the real marriages that produce children naturally, which is almost all of them, are flukes of nature….

    you said, “By the way, you do know that two men can raise a child w/ a surrogate mother, right? ”

    I don’t believe I’ve ever said they can’t. Do they need to redefine marriage to do so? No.

    Bottom line…..I enjoy discussing these issues and have accommodated a discussion with you.

    However, as is usually the case….those actively lobbying for a redefinition of marriage, like you, demand that others defend their view on real marriage and still accuse them of homophobia for defending what is a God-ordained institution and building block of society. Conversely, those in favor are unable and unwilling to explain in much great detail why marriage should be redefined.

    Gay marriage supporters themselves should exhaustively be defending their reasons for redefining marriage with historical, civic, and even religious basis. I have given many reasons and beliefs that encompass religion, state, history, and society throughout these comments.
    I believe the defense argument is thin for supporters of gay marriage because it amounts to little more than emotions, forcing acceptance, elusive “benefits”, and corrupting the ideal of Christian marriage.

  24. That’s just it: Marriage isn’t a “Christian” idea or ideal. It’s one of your sacraments as well as the sacrament of many other religions. But it also something that’s older than all these religions, so the concept is not beholden to any of them. It’s always been a State practice than a sacrament.

    Gays don’t want special rights. They want the same thing that heterosexuals have “naturally,” because…wait for it…they’re heterosexual. That’s it.

    And my point about using all those examples about marriage was to show how fluid the concept of marriage is. You’re right to point out that many of those kinds of marriages were about man/woman, but that doesn’t mean they have to be. Why do they have to be? There’s enough breeding for us not to worry that the “tribe” is in danger of extinction. The world won’t suddenly or even ultimately go “gay” because of gay marriage. For instance, interracial marriages didn’t stop Blacks from marrying Blacks or Whites from marrying Whites as was feared.

    All of this is about fear and a rewriting of a history that’s never been, at least by conservatives. There’s never been a single model for marriage, nor does there have to be now. You don’t like gay marriage? Then don’t be gay and don’t marry any. No one’s asking you to.

    This is not about emotion because I don’t plan on having a gay marriage. However, I can’t find one logical reason why someone else can’t. And you certainly haven’t provided any that make sense. I listen to reason…when used.

  25. […] You may think this is just another “Left Coast thing”…but I can guarantee you that the information in those textbooks will make its way all over public schools in this country.  Similarly, this very idea of raising the status of sexual alternatives above Christian beliefs, with legislation, can fall over us like a domino to many areas of the country if passed in California.  It already has with gay marriage in New York. […]

  26. […] You may think this is just another “Left Coast thing”…but I can guarantee you that the information in those textbooks will make its way all over public schools in this country.  Similarly, this very idea of raising the status of sexual alternatives above Christian beliefs, with legislation, can fall over us like a domino to many areas of the country if passed in California.  It already has with gay marriage in New York. […]

  27. […] for some reason, every few weeks, we hear another story about gays trying to shut down the behavior or speech of […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: