I think the Bishops’ stance could be more correctly stated as “if the fundamental change that many people have embraced about ideas concerning marriage makes it into law, it will spread faster, permeate more deeply, and be harder to uproot.”I think that there is a fundamental problem in the line of argumentation from the Bishops (in an otherwise solid briefing) is that it mixes up cause-and-effect.** The Bishop s believe that by granting legal recognition to same-sex marriage we will be fundamentally altered; however, I believe that the general attitude towards marriage already disregards the procreative aspect of marriage.** I think that the definition has already change (in a de facto sense) and that the legal definition is just catching up. Fighting same-sex marriage in this climate is a losing battle because preventing same-sex marriage fails to deal with the root causes.
The root cause of so-called “gay marriage” is the entitlement culture.I think that there is a fundamental problem in the line of argumentation from the Bishops (in an otherwise solid briefing) is that it mixes up cause-and-effect. The Bishop s believe that by granting legal recognition to same-sex marriage we will be fundamentally altered; however, I believe that the general attitude towards marriage already disregards the procreative aspect of marriage. I think that the definition has already change (in a de facto sense) and that the legal definition is just catching up. Fighting same-sex marriage in this climate is a losing battle because preventing same-sex marriage fails to deal with the root causes.
Same sex marriage is the inevitable result of no-fault divorce and contraception and abortion.The root cause of so-called “gay marriage” is the entitlement culture.
Furthermore, the reason why it seems like we are “losing” is because the mainstream media is heavily promoting the gay rights agenda and just as important is that Christians are too eager to quote Scripture on the issue.
When that happens, the argument devolves into eating shellfish and polygamous marriage and the Old Testament and we Christians follow the New Testament.
The arguments against so-called “gay marriage” should be secular and based more on natural law than Scripture. When analyzed in this manner, there is a foolproof argument against it and the only thing gay rights advocates on the matter can say is that it marriage is some of right that should be issued by the Constitution which it cannot legally be.
I’m think that the marriage and abortion (as well as other social issues) would now be best decided by the states. By advocating for states rights, mainstream people on both sides of the issues often find that reasonable by my observation.
But if the progressives want to use the fed to force it on the states, a Constitutional Amendment is fair game.