Tuesday, July 15, 2008

More marriage lunacy!

More twisted fairy tales from our good friends at Protect Marriage.



In this section learn more about the legal and legislative issues surrounding the ProtectMarriage.com Amendment, review frequently asked questions (FAQs) and read articles related to protecting marriage.

Why It’s Needed

1. Children need the love of both a father and a mother.


Which, of course, means that anything other than the love of both a mother and a father is full blown torturing the child. We're talking the equivalent of putting the tyke into a room with Sayid Jarrah from Lost and telling Sayid to use "any means necessary" here. Clearly no child raised with out the love of both a mother and a father (and I'm talking about a female parent and a male parent here) has been anything but a traumatized, homicidal drain on our society.

The body of research-proof is overwhelming and consistent. (Read Glenn Stanton’s writings on the Focus on the Family Web site for more information.)

By all means consult a conservative Christian corporation for all of your research! That's a great idea! Oh....wait a minute...it's not.

2. Traditional marriage deserves protection because of its contributions to societal well-being. The historic purpose for governmental recognition of marriage has been about children and society, not the relationship of two adults. (For more information, consult the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.)

Yep, no need to give good, loving, caring, hardworking adults those governmental protections! Why would we do a silly thing like that?!?

3. Expanding the definition of marriage by including homosexual relationships adds to the continued disregard for marriage’s ultimate purpose.

No. It would continue to disregard what marriage means to you and your religion. There's a difference! The really neat part is that we have religious freedom in the USA so we don't have to pay attention to what a particular religion thinks about a secular, legal condition. And that protection is what keeps the government from stomping on your religion!

Where it has been legalized, same-sex marriage decreases the total number of marriages while increasing illegitimacy. Nine European nations have had same-sex marriage since the early 90s—and just 2 percent of same-sex couples in these countries ever bother to marry, while there has been a 46 percent increase in out-of-wedlock births. (Read more)

Okay, I'm just confused. If the argument is that gay couples won't get married anyway, then that's an argument to go ahead and save your money on the campaign. If they aren't going to take advantage of getting married after all, there's no reason to try to stop them from doing so. Really, get your arguments straight here!

4. Expanding the definition of marriage begs the question: Why stop at same-sex couples? What legal basis would remain to limit the number of partners in marriage?

Common sense comes to mind.

5. Legalizing same-sex marriage necessarily mandates changes to all California public-school curriculum. Children will be subjected to a mandatory acceptance of homosexuality and all of its practices. Public school curriculum will actively discriminate against the values of the majority of its community’s families.

Schools teaching tolerance is a good thing. Really! It is!

6. Religious freedom has been the cornerstone of success for the United States of America. It is na├»ve to believe that when acceptance of same-sex marriage is legislatively or judicially forced upon citizens via employment law, education, or other government mandates, rights of religious liberty won’t decrease.

I hope you're not saying that you think that you have the right to descriminate against others. We were having such a good conversation up until this point! * sigh *

Did you know…?

…that just eight years ago, California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 22, by 61.4% of the vote, to keep marriage only between a man and a woman.


You don't say!

So why do we now need to amend the state constitution?

Because you just found out that it supersedes statewide propositions!

On May 15, the California Supreme Court ruled that the statutory changes made by Propositoin 22 were invalid. The only way to overturn this is decision is with a Constitutional Amendment. See our news release on this decision. (Read the decision.) The Court declared a right to “same-sex marriage” in direct opposition to the definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman, established by Proposition 22.

Not to point out the obvious here, but usually when a court strikes down a law, it does so in direct opposition to that law. I'm just saying.

In the majority decision authored by Chief Justice Ronald George, he wrote “an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.”

Yay for equality!

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter stated, “…marriage is, as it always has been, the right of a woman and an unrelated man to marry each other.” Baxter added “…there is no deeply rooted tradition of same-sex marriage, in the nation or in this state.”

True!

Prop 22 added a regular statute to the California Family Code (not the state constitution) to keep marriage between a man and a woman and prevent the state Legislature from redefining marriage without a vote of the people. Since then however, politicians and judges have chipped away at Prop 22 and ignored the will of the voters. For example:

• In 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom thumbed his nose at California voters by issuing marriage licenses to thousands of homosexual couples in open defiance of Proposition 22. Ultimately, the courts declared those so-called “marriages” to be invalid, but left the door open to a future constitutional challenge against traditional marriage.


An elected representative did what he felt was the right thing?!? Now I've seen it all!


• Additionally, the courts have undermined Proposition 22 and marriage by upholding an act of the Legislature that gave homosexual “domestic partners” the full legal status of married spouses. A San Francisco judge ruled that Proposition 22, a regular statute, violates the California Constitution and ordered the licensing of same-sex “marriages.” On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court overruled Proposition 22 and declared that homosexuals have a constitutional right to marry.

Wow...a court overturned an unconstitutional law. Who do they think they are? A judge or something?!?



Seriously, this one is really simple. There are people who love and care for each other who just happen to be the same gender. The purpose of life is happiness: we should just let them be happy with each other. If allowing them to get married helps them on the universal path to their own happiness, it should be our pleasure to open that door for them.

The greatest damage religion can do is to make good people do bad things. These couples are not encroaching on anyone else's life by asking to get married. Standing in the way of their happiness is bad.

No comments: