Falsehoods Can't Stop the Marriage Definition



Photo by: Dmitri Markine Wedding Day Session, Florida,USA.

Same-sex unions are “not an expansion but a dismantling of the institution.”     Matthew J. Frank /  FIRST THINGS

On May 8th, primary day for North Carolina voters, Marriage Amendment 1 was voted as law. This further solidifies marriage in NC between “one woman and one man”. As an institution in place even before the Constitution, it will be highly difficult for activist judges to alter NC’s definition of marriage.

Opposition has released huge amounts of false information on the Amendment just prior to the vote. Statements about ‘Further discrimination against homosexuals’, and ‘voting for the Amendment will eliminate rights for homosexuals’ were rampant prior to the election. As a result some thought the Amendment had to be defeated to fight discrimination.

Age-Old Tradition Thrown into Waste Can

In Asheville (NC) the tradition of Marriage may have just been altered beyond comprehension. Some people are screaming that they just want equal treatment. But with marriage, people are given a privilege, not a right. But many consider Asheville a bump in the road and an exception to the rule. It's been said that up to 12% of Asheville's population is gay, lesbian, transgender, or bisexual. Many of those cohabitate. Does that mean if they were granted the privilege to "marry" as so many other couples do (one woman and one man), all problems would disappear because they were treated equally?

On 2/22/11, the City of Asheville approved a resolution that would “allow same-sex couples to share fully and equally in the familial rights and responsibilities of civil marriage”. But what does that really mean?

An easy interpretation of the resolution is it’s legal to “marry”, or to form a recognized union, with someone of the same sex.  The resolution also included a city preference list for homosexuals. Interpretation: “The City of Asheville would be openly discriminating in favor of homosexuals in employment.” That would be making homosexuality a “civil right”. The Constitution, Declaration, or even a dictionary writer ever called homosexuality a civil right.

Filed under: 

Obama Begins Work to Repeal DOMA

Word came out yesterday that the Obama Administration has filed court papers declaring that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) discriminates against homosexuals.

As reported by Concerned Women for America, a Department of Justice official, Tracy Schmaier, called the DOMA "discriminatory" because it "prevents equal rights and benefits."

Of course. How dare they say that marriage is only between a man and a woman? If a man and a woman can do something, then by golly two men or two women have the right to call their confumacious coupling the same thing, have it recognized as marriage and be awarded the exact same benefits of all married couples.

Nope, you can't exclude anybody from anything. If a boy wants to play Alice in Wonderland, he should have that right. Boys have the right to be a prom queen if they so desire or anything else that anybody else does. And people should be able to use any bathroom that they like. That is the only way to have a just society.

Filed under: 
Syndicate content