Prop 8 found to be unconstitutional...struck down!

[CatholicGerman]

Because oftentimes these people are in these relationships for YEARS. When one of them gets sick, her partner sits by her bedside, nursing her to health, helping her get around, changing depends if she is unable, going to doctor appts with her, etc. How can we deny that partner the right to be in the hospital room, to be considered the person the doctor can talk with about the sick partner, the person who automatically gets the home, etc.?

Because I’m just a big meanie, I suppose.

Have you ever stopped to think that people who protect marriage do so, not because they are cruel and unfeeling, but because they value the protections that such a marriage provides to children? That they are tired of seeing marriage turned into a mockery and a mere political favor?

The same bleeding hearts going on and on about the “poor lesbians” were once moaning and whining about:

• the poor women who were tired of pregnancy, to push through contraception
• the poor women who died in unsafe abortions, to push through “choice”
• the poor women who didn’t like their husbands, to push through no-fault divorce
• the poor women who needed Baby Daddy money they never earned through chastity, to push through extra-marital child support (and now palimony)

Perhaps we’re tired of putting women’s personal autonomy before morality, children, and society! Ever thought of that? Ever thought that sometimes feminists and their gay buddies are just going to have to learn to deal with it, rather than change the entire society to suit themselves. When are *they *going to give a care about anybody other than themselves?

At any rate, that argument is a bunch of junk. Go to a lawyer, if they are so worried. Or is the trip to city hall shorter than the trip to a lawyer? If they can do the one, then they can do the other.

I never forced them to form such perverted relationships, so why should I care? That’s like saying I should be concerned if a gambler’s credit-line is cut off, or an alcoholic is forbidden to go to a bar for one last drink. They should never have been together in the first place, so why should the government be rewarding them for it, as if they are performing some public service? They knew what they were getting into in the beginning, and now they are free to deal with it. That’s part of being a grown up.

 

[CatholicGerman]

Why would you care if polygamy were legal? It was legal in OT times, and though it certainly isn’t our Christian view of God’s calling of marriage (as ss marriage isn’t either), it certainly isn’t our business if other religions view it as legitimate.

Polygamy is a form of marriage, but it is one forbidden by Christianity. Polygamists actually have more of a legal ground to stand on than gay marriage does, but they are less-sympathetic figures to the general public.

 

[DawnInTexas]

Click Here: Spiritual Attack on the Institution of Marriage

When the Disciples suggested that it was better not to marry if there was no way of escape from marital bondage if one so desired, Messiah Yahshua stated that not everyone will accept this truth, except those to whom it has been revealed (Mt. 19:10-12)…

The Bishops (Shepherds) of the Catholic Church are clear. Serious, Practicing Catholics must be obedient:

usccb.org/comm/archives/2010/10-145.shtml

Archbishop Kurtz Joins Cardinal George in Criticism
Notes That Voters Have Upheld Traditional Marriage at Every Turn
Calls Marriage Essential to Well Being of Society

WASHINGTON—Cardinal Francis George, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, decried the August 4 decision of a federal judge to overturn California voters’ 2008 initiative that protected marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

**“Marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock of any society. The misuse of law to change the nature of marriage undermines the common good,” **Cardinal George said. **“It is tragic that a federal judge would overturn the clear and expressed will of the people in their support for the institution of marriage. No court of civil law has the authority to reach into areas of human experience that nature itself has defined.” **

Joining Cardinal George in his criticism of the court decision was Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage. Archbishop Kurtz noted that **“Citizens of this nation have uniformly voted to uphold the understanding of marriage as a union of one man and one woman in every jurisdiction where the issue has been on the ballot. This understanding is neither irrational nor unlawful,” **he said. “Marriage is more fundamental and essential to the well being of society than perhaps any other institution. It is simply unimaginable that the court could now claim a conflict between marriage and the Constitution.”​

Keywords: Cardinal Francis George, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, gay marriage, same-sex marriage, religious liberty, Proposition 8

God’s Law supercedes man’s.

God Bless.
+Immaculate Heart of Mary, I Place all my Trust in You!
Love, Dawn

 

[Elizabeth502]

“Rights” are meaningless when every variety of person (in terms of self-created, invented “class” based on preference, lifestyle, orientation, personal habits, and endless other “reasons”) can claim a “civil right” based on new definitions and categories every week.

At least one poster said it earlier, but it bears repeating: this is not about “rights,” since homosexuals do not want merely the same “civil rights” and economic “rights” that heterosexually married couples have. They want the title, because the title (“marriage”)institutionalizes homosexuality for the entire nation, and in their goals, the world. They want to require social acceptance through manipulation of language and biological reality. It has always been about that, and nothing less.

And as far as parenting, the movement is no less self-serving than unpartnered heterosexual females in their early 40’s deciding it’s their “right” to go to a sperm bank, select anonymous sperm donors as “fathers” of their children, and “raise” those children alone, deprived of the other gender. Hey, after all, it’s their “right.” Their right to “equal status,” their right to “have the pleasures of parenthood,” however immorally (without regard to the needs of these fatherless children) engineered.

For the activist gay community, t’s about the capture of language and the deliberate disintegration of traditional structures in the effort to replace those structures with new ones of their own creation.

Again, quoting Fr. Corapi:

The truth is whatever I want it to be.

It has nothing to do wth biological truth, the truth of childhood, and least of all has it anything to do with real love.

 

[nordskoven]

Props to all the “homosexuals” who have rejected homosexual marriage as absurd. Prop 8 isn’t singling out a class of “gay and lesbian” citizens and denying equal protection. Marriage is gender-determinate. It has been so since the beginning of recorded history and universally in every culture. Marriage is pre-Muslim; pre-Christian; pre-Hindu; pre-Jewish. Regardless of the sexual orientation, any male and female of the age of consent may marry. America has determined that the Mormon (and Muslim) plural marriage is illegal. America has determined that the Mormon and Islam child brides are illegal. This is not against the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

“Gay and lesbian” is a sham. This is self-identified and not objective language. “Homosexual” is similarly fuzzy. Once a person is not engaging in heterosexual mating behavior, everything else is a grab bag of behavior. The opposite of heterosexual isn’t homosexual because there is no opposite of mating behavior. There’s just “everything else.”

What challenge is there in bonding gender-to-gender? Madness. The great miracle and the bond of culture is a male and female publicly pledging to unite. Male and female relations are the basis for all peace. Those cultures most inimical to women, Islam for example, are most war-like. “No hetero-gender marriage, no peace.” “Gays” and “lesbians” are so inimical to each other they refuse the mutual title of “homosexual.” And don’t forget Sappho from Lesbos was just a teacher hitting on her young pupils. That’s now ensconced in the legal language with the use of the term “lesbian.”

There are no “homosexuals.” There are molested and abused children who don’t bond with their same-gender parent. This is a diagnosis, not a lifestyle. “Gays” and “lesbians” have refused legal protection for their household stability and demanded cultural cross-dressing in seeking “marriage.” Co-opted culture includes snitching the rainbow, God’s covenant sign after the Flood of Noah. Now marriage, the first sacrament of Genesis 2, is being snitched. Women have had their culture co-opted by homosexual men. Now that singular protection for vulnerable females, marriage, is going to be gutted, and women, as with “no-fault divorce” will become more endangered. God forbid. The only homosexual marriage on the planet has been Nero’s wedding of his boy servant, who resembled the wife he kicked to death. May the Good Shepherd swiftly cleanse us from this profaning of marriage.

Blessed Virgin Mary of the Immaculate Heart, pierced with a sword of sorrow that the thoughts of all may be revealed, expose all thoughts; cleansing them in the fire of love which is your Son Jesus Christ’s Sacred Heart. AMEN

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

How about these, for starters:

Deuteronomy 22:5
"A woman shall not wear an article proper to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s dress; for anyone who does such things is an abomination to the LORD, your God.

1 Timothy 2:9
Similarly, (too,) women should adorn themselves with proper conduct, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hairstyles and gold ornaments, or pearls, or expensive clothes,

Sure, there are Christian groups where the women can’t even wear wedding rings of gold, or any other jewelry, not wear make-up, and must wear their hair piled up on top of their heads. You see such people from time to time, but does the Catholic Church ask or require Catholic women to follow Timothy’s instruction? Is it in the Catechism as part of our faith requirements?

As for a woman not wear an article proper to a man, the instruction is very indefinite. I’d think that wearing the sort of prayer shawls men wore at the synagogue would be such an article forbidden to woman or the tefillin only pious men wore.

 

[CatholicGerman]

I can’t tell if you are joking or not, but are you saying that women who dress in man-like clothing they will go to hell?

There are other places in the forum for answering such questions. But I will indulge you, just this once:

Deuteronomy 22:5 (King James Version)

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Of course, what each society considers men’s garments will be different.

 

[CatholicGerman]

Yes, Sacramental marriage will still be the beautiful, Christ-filled creation of a family. In a way, this pigeon-holes Christians (along with Mulims, most Jews and many other people of faith). A Sacramental marriage won’t be our own participation in the larger institution of marriage but will be a “Church thing” like going to Mass on Sunday. What Catholics do at Mass on Sunday is very different than how most people spend their Sundays. Marriage will become the same. What Christians do and feel about marriage will be much different than what marriage is societally. This will be a great loss to society and a great loss to our children.

I hate to tell you this, but we are already there. Marriage is largely meaningless to many people, which is why they are indifferent to, or supportive of, gay marriage. They shrug their shoulders and say, “Yeah, sure. Why not? Would you like fries with that?”

I know cohabiting couples that don’t bother getting married because… they don’t bother. Really, they have no reason against it. It just seems like a lot of effort for nothing to them. They see it as a positive thing, mostly, but not as an important thing. That is the way things are going. Marriage as a “nice to have” instead of an essential. Sort of like a new hair cut, or a bigger tv.

Actually, no. They’d make more effort for a bigger tv. Especially if it were a flat-screen with unlimited cable and Netflix. I know one guy who got in line in front of a store at 5am in November to get a humungous tv on sale. But he can’t bother to get married. Maybe next year. You know. Whatever.

 

[Brooklyn]

I’m not sure if everyone understands this is a civil liberties issue the court is dealing (and rightly so) not a morality issue. An American is an American is an American…right?

After all, there is a difference between a civil marriage and a spiritual marriage.

What about civil unions? Objections to that as well?

I notice that you state your religion is Catholic. Therefore, I would presume that you live your life according to the teachings of the Church, and the Church specifically teaches that any sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin. As a Catholic, this will always be a moral issue, not a “civil liberties” issue. Civil liberties is whether you can discriminate in hiring or selling your house or renting, etc. Marriage is a moral issue. What does “an American is an American” have to do with it? I think the spiritual state of souls is much more important than that.

Do you, as a Catholic, believe that homosexuality is wrong? If you don’t, you are outside of the Church.

And yes, I vehemently object to “civil unions.” It is sex outside of marriage and a same sex union, both condemned by the Catholic Church.

 

[DawnInTexas]

Romans 1:24-27
24 Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies.
25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.

1 Corinthians 11:3-15
3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of Christ.
4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head.
5 But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved.
6 For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil.
7 A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.
8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
9 nor was man created for woman, but woman for man;
10 for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority 6 on her head, because of the angels.
11 Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord.
12 For just as woman came from man, so man is born of woman; but all things are from God.
13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled?
14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears his hair long it is a disgrace to him,
15 whereas if a woman has long hair it is her glory, because long hair has been given (her) for a covering?

usccb.org/nab/bible/index.shtml

God Bless.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn

1 Corinthians 14:40
40 but everything must be done properly and in order.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Great post - #1051. Thank you.

 

[irishpatrick]

I hate to tell you this, but we are already there. Marriage is largely meaningless to many people, which is why they are indifferent to, or supportive of, gay marriage. They shrug their shoulders and say, “Yeah, sure. Why not? Would you like fries with that?”

I know cohabiting couples that don’t bother getting married because… they don’t bother. Really, they have no reason against it. It just seems like a lot of effort for nothing to them. They see it as a positive thing, mostly, but not as an important thing. That is the way things are going. Marriage as a “nice to have” instead of an essential. Sort of like a new hair cut, or a bigger tv.

Actually, no. They’d make more effort for a bigger tv. Especially if it were a flat-screen with unlimited cable and Netflix. I know one guy who got in line in front of a store at 5am in November to get a humungous tv on sale. But he can’t bother to get married. Maybe next year. You know. Whatever.

Well over 2,000,000 couples get married every year in the USA. Obviously, that means well over 4,000,000 choose to be married every year.

The left tries to propagate the lie that marriage is a absolute lost cause, which is amusing considering they push for same sex marriage so hard. Why should they bother pushing to enter a “lost cause?” It is because they KNOW marriage is still quite healthy, far more so than the left and the media want to portray.

Couples, and especially women, still want the closeness, committment and security of having one person of the opposite gender at their side throughout their lives…people still seek that because it is a built-in desire. Built-in by God!

 

[Suudy]

In the 40s people would have voted no for the rights of African Americans. Thank God we didn’t rely on public opinion then.

Indeed. We rely upon right reason and knowledge. And both tell us that homosexuality is disordered. Indeed. Thank God that he gave us those faculties.

When it comes to the rights of a certain group of people, who want to participate in LEGAL activities and relationships, right is right and no mob mentality group of people should deny them.

Indeed. Right is right. And homosexuality is not right, no matter the legal status. Remember that slavery was legal. We no more accepted the argument that slave owners “want to participate in LEGAL activites” and that “no mob mentality group of people should deny them.” Sorry, but the legality of an act is not a basis for determining right from wrong. In fact, it is the very opposite. We should use our knowledge of right and wrong in order to derive what should be legal.

Now, obviously, if this was pedophilia, with a child victim, it would be different.

A difference in degree, but not in kind. Both are disordered. Neither should be accepted.

We are talking about a group of people who do NOT believe the state they were born in is disordered at all, and the love they seek is LEGAL in our country.

Does it matter what they believe? I believe I am the Holy Roman Emperor, and I don’t think it disordered at all. And that belief is legal in our country. Should you then accept my claim and bow before me as my subject?

Individual beliefs are important, but they are not the foundation on which to base truth. Either homosexuality is disordered or it isn’t. What a group of people believe about it is irrelevant.

 

[Robert_Bay]

1,000 post limit

Thank you to everyone for participating. Feel free to spin off other threads from this topic as long as you link to a news article about the topic.