Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited

 

The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?

 

READ ABOUT IT...

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Attacks on Marriage on Horizon in Five States

A homosexual publication says attacks on marriage are expected soon in five states.

Bills that would legalize same-sex marriage are expected to be taken up by law makers in five states when the new sessions of the legislatures begin. In three of the states - New York, New Jersey and New Hampshire -LGBT rights groups say there is a strong indication they will be passed.

Two other states also are likely to have marriage equality bills: Rhode Island and Maryland.

A bill to allow same-sex marriage was filed in the Maryland legislature in January, but failed to gain traction. It is expected to be refiled in the next session, but its fate is unknown. Legislation is also expected in Rhode Island.

Pro-family folks in these states had better mobilize NOW if they want to prevent marriage from being counterfeited in their states.

In fact, they should not only work to counter these assaults, but move forward with marriage protection amendments such as Proposition 8 just passed in California.

The states in question do not have marriage protection amendments in their state constitutions, and most do not even have a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to provide legal protection.

The number of states without marriage protection amendment is dwindling; with the recent passage of such amendments in California, Florida and Arizona, now 30 states have constitutionally protected the institution of marriage.

Homosexual activist Tim Gill and his allies have been busy in several of these states. The Gill Action Fund strategy works at a state level to get homosexual-friendly legislators elected to advance the homosexual agenda at the state level.

So far this agenda has mostly involved things like "restroom chaos" bills, "hate crime" laws and attempts to legislatively silence Christian criticism of homosexual behavior.

I will say one thing positive about this news: for once, it appears homosexual activists and their "useful idiots" are going about their attacks on marriage in the only manner suitable for our representative democracy.

Previous attempts to hijack marriage and force the concept of homosexual "marriage" on the people have always involved judicial activism with judges who acted like legislators and "created law" out of thin air.

But there's a reason they've gone the judicial route: legislators face re-election while judges usually do not.

And when given a choice, the people will almost never stand for the counterfeiting of society's most important institution: marriage.


12 comments:

Anonymous said...

The whole purpose of marriage in society is the declaration of a new breeding pair. I've never been anti-gayrights before but I don't see them as a hard done to minority this time, I just see them as being unreasonable. Stand together, protect the meaning of our ancient institutions, marriage is not a tax break or a ticket to citizenship.

Anonymous said...

Your article is PATHETIC - it reflects nothing more than the rantings of a homophobe who does not have a clue what he is talking about! I suggest you do some credible research and try to get at least the vaguest idea what gay men and women are asking for: EQUAL RIGHTS!! NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS!

How would you like it if you were forced to go against your nature and have sex with another man? That is the situation with homosexuals - people like you enforcing your views and laws upon a minority group and telling them they have to live a lie!

What do we want? EQUAL RIGHTS! When do we want? We WANT IT NOW!

Bob Ellis said...

Anonymous 7:47, I'm really not homophobic at all; I have no fear of sameness whatsoever.

Maybe it escaped you, but homosexuals already have the same rights as everyone else. Homosexuals have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that heterosexuals do.

They do not, however, have a specialright to call their sexual union with someone of the same sex "marriage." That is a relationship which requires a man and a woman. You can't call a maple leaf a $20 bill, can you? Neither can you legitimately call two men or two women a "marriage."

Equal rights? You already have them. But you have no right to undermine marriage and the family. They are too important to counterfeit in order to make someone feel better about an immoral and unhealthy sexual practice.

Anonymous said...

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what specific rights and privileges straight couples will lose if gays can marry each other.

Anonymous said...

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me the specific rights and privileges straight couples will lose if gay relationships become legally recognized.

Bob Ellis said...

Anonymous 9:03 - who said there were any?

Anonymous said...

So you admit that married couples don't stand to lose a single federal right or privilege?

Bob Ellis said...

Who said they would?

Anonymous said...

Nobody, which makes people like you all the more cynical, self-centered, and un-American. Gay couples are not taking anything away from you. They are not actively restricting your personal liberty, voting for amendments that would nullify your marriage, or saying that you and your spouse are not entitled to legal permanence.

Why not spend your time addressing things that ACTUALLY threaten and destroy marriage? Where are all the articles about divorce, domestic violence, gender inequality within marriage, the subjugation of women, and adultery? Why not talk to your fellow heterosexuals about how to bring sanctity BACK to the institution you so vociferously defend before trampling all over people who pose no legal threat to you or your family?

Bob Ellis said...

If you were a little more discerning or a little more honest you would realize or admit that no one has to lose a "federal right or privilege" for something to be bad, immoral, or harmful to society. Your attempt to take the issue in that direction was nothing but a transparent straw man.

Only a man and a woman can constitute a marriage. Anything else is a lie. Anything else attempts to counterfeit the most important institution in any culture. If two men or two women want to sodomize one another, I don't think anyone is going to stand in their way.

But when homosexuals attempt to hijack marriage, they are attempting to undermine the meaning and value of what any society depends on for stability and raising the next generation of citizens.

That is far too important to allow it to be undermined simply because somebody wants to feel legitimate in a relationship that is immoral, unnatural and unhealthy. As you pointed out, marriage is already under enough of an assault already; we don't need to totally devastate it by allowing people to call a relationship which clearly does not in any fashion meet the definition a "marriage."

Unlike marriage, homosexual relationships provide absolutely no useful service or function to society whatsoever. Accordingly, there is no reason whatsoever for society to award any special recognition or consideration to such a relationship.

Anonymous said...

I don't think it's a straw man argument at all. I just pointed out that unlike you, gay people do not want to restrict personal liberty or nullify anyone's legal relationship. I think what you're worried about is how people will begin to perceive marriage if it's redefined. If that's the case, that's your problem. But if you still insist that marriage will become "counterfeit," the least you could do is substantiate your claim with evidence. Because all you have right now is a baseless slippery-slope argument that borders on fear-mongering. And keep in mind that if marriage is truly an institution designed and sanctioned by God, no man-made law can ever tarnish or destroy it. Have a little more faith in your faith! :-)

You are living proof that just because gay relationships are recognized in certain areas, intolerance and prejudice will not magically disappear (and I use those terms neutrally, as one would be intolerant of and prejudiced toward anything they perceive as wrong), and most people will still define it as "one man, one woman" regardless of what the law says.

No one is threatening your right to raise your kids the way you think they should be raised. Besides, if your kids grow up to be homosexual, I don't think banning same-sex marriage will prevent them from being in same-sex relationships (as evidenced by the thousands of gay people who already do exactly that). And if they grow up to be heterosexual, they would have no reason to pursue same-sex relationships anyway, so there would be nothing to worry about.

Also, since you admit that you can't stop two men or two women from sodomizing each other (do yourself a favor and learn that sex is not the only thing gay people care about), wouldn't a logical conclusion be that if you can't stop them, you can at least encourage them to be monogamous? Or are you the type of person who would rather ignore reality?

And I'll say again, if you care so much about marriage, why don't you write about any of the other issues I brought up? Just as an observation, you seem to obsess over preventing marriage from getting worse (in your eyes) rather than actively seek to improve it. Is the status quo of a 50% divorce rate acceptable to you, or would you like to see that number decrease? If you do, here's a hint: banning gay marriage ain't gonna solve the problem.

Bob Ellis said...

Anonymous 1:54, homosexuals have the same liberty to marry someone of the opposite sex that heterosexuals do. They do not, have the right to call something "marriage" when it clearly does not meet the requirement.

The dictionary defines counterfeit: "made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive" That is a perfect definition of the concept of homosexual "marriage." It attempts to imitate the real thing with intent to deceive people into believing it is a legitimate relationship which has some value to society--none of which is true.

Who ever said the actions of man can't destroy or tarnish something God has made? You apparently have as poor an understanding of theology as you do rights, privileges, immorality and marriage itself. God in his great mercy allows human beings the opportunity to choose good or evil, both for themselves and collectively for a civilization. We can choose to tarnish and devastate marriage just as human beings can and have devastated life, charity, honesty, good government, and entire civilizations. But God has laid out his law for all human beings to follow, and has instructed those who follow him to be the "salt and light" to a dark and decaying world; he expects us to oppose assaults on his precepts and institutions. Why don't you get on the good side and join us?

Prejudice involves pre-judging a matter before all information is known. I've studied homosexuality fairly extensively and have found that all evidence indicates that it is an immoral, unnatural and unhealthy practice which provides no positive benefit to society whatsoever. So having thoroughly investigated the matter from a scientific, medical and theological perspective, I am clearly not prejudiced against homosexuality.

As for "intolerance," I've seen examples of the homosexual idea of "tolerance" here and here and here. No thanks; I'll just stick with telling the truth about an immoral and unhealthy sexual practice.

When someone counterfeits U.S. currency, say, making fake $20 bills, they aren't hurting me, are they? They aren't taking away any rights or privileges from me, are they? No harm done, right? So why does the government outlaw counterfeiting and expend considerable resources fighting counterfeiting? Because it DOES harm society, and ultimately every individual, by devaluing something that is very valuable, something useful to society and something in which public trust is needed in order to keep our civilization running smoothly.

Absolutely the same thing is true of marriage. Allowing it to be counterfeited devalues the original...and actually, the institution of marriage is even more important and valuable than our currency.

Interesting that you mention monogamy. I read an article by a pro-homosexual researcher a few months ago who found that even among homosexuals who claim to be "monogamous," their relationships usually involve outside sexual partners. Apparently homosexuals are as loose with the definition of "monogamy" as they are the definition of "marriage." But despite their fantasies, involving outside partners isn't "monogamy" and two men or two women isn't "marriage." Monogamy among homosexuals would be an improvement over the existing tremendous promiscuity rates...but as I just stated, apparently even the illusion of commitment isn't enough to accomplish that. And it would still be an immoral, unnatural and unhealthy practice regardless. The "since you can't stop them..." argument is akin to expecting the government to endorse clean needles for intravenous drug users "since you can't stop them;" government shouldn't be in the business of lending any legitimacy to immoral and unhealthy behavior, and neither should good people.

Finally, why don't I write about divorce and other problems facing the institution of marriage? Apparently you haven't read Dakota Voice very much, because I do. Often.

But you should consider this: I don't know of anyone who is promoting divorce as normal. I don't know of anyone promoting divorce as natural. I don't know of anyone promoting divorce as healthy. I don't know of anyone demanding special rights for divorced people. I don't know of anyone demanding that we recognize divorce as "marriage."

What does that mean? It means while divorce undermines marriage, allowing homosexuals to counterfeit marriage takes the assault on marriage to a whole new level, comprising an all-out attack on the very meaning and value of marriage itself.

Here's a hint: allowing homosexuals to counterfeit marriage isn't going to improve the problems the institution of marriage faces. But it would be the most devastating blow to the legitimacy and value of the institution yet. Here's another hint: that would be absolutely terrible for society.

Life is much better when you're trying to improve things than when you're championing the lowest common denominator. So why don't you get out of the camp that's trying to destroy marriage and undermine our civilization and get on the side that's trying to shore up and preserve both?

 
Clicky Web Analytics