Opening the way to same sex marriage.
Washington state legislators approved same sex marriage Wednesday. Same sex couples will not be able to tie the knot until 90 days after the Governor signs it into law - although opponents hope to get enough signatures to counter with an anti-same sex marriage bill to block legalization. If that happens today's decision would be placed on hold - and it doesn't take much intelligence to realize the stage is set for appeals and counter appeals until who know when.
I was surprised to find out Washington state has had domestic partner legislation since 2007. Obviously it isn't enough for gay people, who are not satisfied with equity but rather demand equality. In other words, their goal is to redefine marriage.
Churchmen who harbor the mistaken notion that civil unions and domestic partnership allowances are the way to save marriage better wake up. It will never stop there.
Things would never have come this far if traditional marriage had been protected and defended throughout the 20th century.
I was surprised to find out Washington state has had domestic partner legislation since 2007. Obviously it isn't enough for gay people, who are not satisfied with equity but rather demand equality. In other words, their goal is to redefine marriage.
Churchmen who harbor the mistaken notion that civil unions and domestic partnership allowances are the way to save marriage better wake up. It will never stop there.
Things would never have come this far if traditional marriage had been protected and defended throughout the 20th century.
Mark Shea had something recently about how churches WILL be forced to allow same-sex marriages on their premises. I cannot find the article now, but I'll try tomorrow. Basically, the law makes exceptions so narrow that any church that does anything BUT hold religious services will be held accountable under discrimination laws if they do not allow same sex couples to use their facilities.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteOh, and the French version of the Supreme Court recently said that gay marriage makes no sense based on simple natural and social principles (it's not a religious issue only), whatever one feels about homosexuality. Their point was that marriage as a social institution makes no sense when it departs from tge male/female, since it has NO social function, and therefore need not be awarded special privileges.
ReplyDeleteTerry & Co., here is the article Mark Shea linked to:
ReplyDeletehttp://catholiclane.com/gay-marriage-coming-after-the-church/
Here is the kicker, the exemption clause to the non-discrimination part of the law:
"Consistent with the law against discrimination [RCW 49.60], no religious organization is required to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage ***unless the organization offers admission, occupancy, or use of these accommodations or facilities to the public for a fee, or offers those advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale.***"
Basically, if you ever let non-parishoners use the the facilities (esp. for a fee), if you operate a school or daycare, if you have church fairs, bake sales, or even operate a soda machine, you have no protection under the anti-discrimination laws. This includes virtually EVERY church, whether Catholic or Protestant (never been to an Orthodox bake sale, haha).
Also, it is true that the French Supreme Court rejected gay marriage AND homosexual adoption of children out of hand back in 2007, based on purely secular reasoning (as the French government is wont to do). Of particular concern is the effect on children, and the French court basically said that children have the right to be raised by a mother and a father.
ReplyDeleteSome excerpts from the commission report they based their decision on:
“Marriage is not merely the contractual recognition of the love between a couple, it is a framework that imposes rights and duties and that is designed to provide for the care and harmonious development of the child.”
“This corresponds to a biological reality, that same-sex couples are naturally infertile and to an imperative, that of helping the child develop his/her identity as necessarily coming from the union of a man and a woman.”
No religious argumentation there. Just plain and simple logic. But the gay lobby hates that L word.
Thanks much Mercury - I appreciate the information. France does have a sort of civil union package - I forget now what it is called - interestingly enough hetero-couples use it more than others. To me that demonstrates that the real problem is marriage itself - the institution has become meaningless to many - which is why homosexuals believe they have a right to redefine it.
ReplyDeleteAnyone with half a brain can see where this is going.
ReplyDeleteTerry - Washington is pretty much ruled by the libbies in the Seattle area. Spokane (my close neighbor) is fairly conservative.
Mercury - the largest bake sale in our town is held by the Orthodox church that is spitting distance from my house. It's gotten so large they place pre-order blanks in all the church bulletins (like ours.) Catholics buy lots and lots of the Greek goodies.
In 50 years people will wonder what the big deal was, just like young people now can't believe that Jim Crow and bans on interracial marriage ever existed.
ReplyDeleteNo one is going to force the RCC to carry out same sex marriages--though I think eventually they'll do it voluntarily as many other Christian denominations are moving towards (Episcopalians, UCC, Lutherans, Presbyterians etc).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Mercury both blacks and LGBTs have been victims of vicious discrimination and hate by the dominant, mainstream culture.
ReplyDeleteBoth, for example, have been subjected to lynching, the latter up until this very day. Remember Matthew Shephard. Remember those LGBT teens who are committing suicide due to bullying by their straight peers (often at the behest of religion).
Read this just for one example:
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/239832/20111029/shocking-assault-video-gay-teen-beaten-classroom.htm
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMethinks the lady protests too much.
ReplyDeleteAnd talks about anal sex more than many gay men that I know.
Not only that, but gay men don't necessarily engage in anal sex. Oh, and many mixed-sex couples do, in fact, engage in anal sex.
ReplyDeleteTrue, RC.
ReplyDeleteBesides, I thought we were talking about marriage?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that seemingly whatever is written, it always, always, always comes back to sex for you. Terry posts a saint- you wring your hands over sex. Terry posts about marriage- you wring your hands over sex.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't take very long to see a pattern here, and your frequent mention of "butthole sex" (yes I'm quoting you) are telling.
Just an observation. You sorta kill your credibility.
Yes, Thom, it's true. I have issues - deep issues with scrupulosity over sexual matters. In fact you may find that I often delete my comments out of stupidity and unfairness to the Church or the Saints.
ReplyDeleteWhat "pattern", Thom? I'd like to know? Oooohh, maybe I'm gay myself and I just don't know it? Oh no!
I only mention that term, and use that ugly name for it when people start pretending it's morally good or ambivalent.
Quite frankly, Mercury, it's none of your business what sex positions people use (and I often wonder why Yahweh would be so obsessed with our sex acts, too. Wouldn't an all-powerful God have better things to do than order us how to have sex and with whom?)
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, a lot of people that loudly protest against gay sex often get caught doing it themselves. Remember Ted Haggard? Eddie Long? Larry Craig?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"What "pattern", Thom? I'd like to know? Oooohh, maybe I'm gay myself and I just don't know it? Oh no!"
ReplyDeleteNope. I never said that you might be gay, nor did I imply it.
You are, however, obsessed- truly obsessed- with sex acts, both your own and those of others.
Besides Pablo (hi Pablo), you're one of the rudest, unapproachable people who comments here.
Forgive my candid sharing, but at least I'm man enough to use my real name and an actual photo of myself. Most here cannot say the same.
I'm out.
Thom, I do have a miserable fear and obsession with sexuality, yes.
ReplyDeleteI removed my comments, except for those that are informative and those which are self-incriminating. Sorry to be rude.
ReplyDelete"No one is going to force the RCC to carry out same sex marriages--"
ReplyDeleteNo one? You're sure? Gosh, not too long ago, no one would have thought that the Catholic Church would be forced to go against its own teachings by procuring insurance policies that covered procedures/drugs considered immoral. Or in adoption matters. You have such a touching faith in the restraint of government....
"--though I think eventually they'll do it voluntarily as many other Christian denominations are moving towards (Episcopalians, UCC, Lutherans, Presbyterians etc)."
Dream on. It's not going to happen. You don't understand the Catholic Church very well if you truly believe that.
"Mercury both blacks and LGBTs have been victims of vicious discrimination and hate by the dominant, mainstream culture."
Which is relevant to the question of same-sex "marriage" -- how?