Proponents of homosexual “marriage” are noted for their rejection of tradition (millennia of it!) when it comes to the male-female nature of marriage, but note their departure from this line of thinking when asked why the numerical requirement for marriage should remain if the gender requirement is being overturned. At last week’s oral arguments on the case at the Supreme Court, here’s what happened when SS”M” proponents were asked why the changes in law they were asking for shouldn’t apply to those who wanted to marry in groups of three or four:
When asked that very question by Justice Alito, Mary Bonauto, an attorney arguing in favor of same-sex marriage, responded, first, that “multiple people joining into a relationship … is not the same thing we’ve had in marriage, which is … the mutual support and consent of two people.” (Source: Why Same-Sex Marriage Arguments Are So Terrible)
Thus the lawyers in favor of SS”M” thought the tradition of “two” in marriage was sufficient reason to keep the number to two, while the tradition of male-female was insufficient reason to keep the gender to male-female.
Clearly, proponents of homosexual marriage are driven to their position by something other than logic.
On April 28, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether same-sex “marriage” should be legal in every state. As articulated by Justice Kennedy, gay and lesbians have a powerful motivation for their claim, namely, human dignity: “Same-sex couples say, of course, we understand the nobility and the sacredness of the marriage. We know we can’t …
Source: Why Same-Sex “Marriage” Arguments are So Terrible – Crisis Magazine
I’ve written before to call attention to the plight of Melissa and Aaron Klein, the Oregon bakers who because of conscience turned down the request to bake a cake for a homosexual “marriage” ceremony. Here’s Mark Hemingway’s account of the story. It’s almost unbelievable. Sadly, it must be believed.
(4 min read; 838 words)
Source: Bake Me a Cake—or Else | The Weekly Standard
Here’s an essay written by a homosexual man in which he demonstrates a true understanding of the fact that a homosexual relationship can never be equal to marriage.
Same-sex relationships, by design, require children to be removed from one or more of their biological parents and raised absent a father or mother. This hardly seems fair. So much of what we do as a society prioritizes the needs of adults over the needs of children. Social Security and Medicare rob the young to pay the old. The Affordable Care Act requires young and healthy people to buy insurance to subsidize the cost for the old and sick. Our schools seem more concerned with keeping the teachers unions happy than they are educating our children. Haven’t children suffered enough to make adults’ lives more convenient? For once, it would be nice to see our society put the needs of children first. Let’s raise them in homes where they can enjoy having both a mom and a dad. We owe them that.
(4 min read; 1,009 words)
Source: I’m Gay, And I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage
Jennifer Roback Morse has it right on the impotence and inappropriateness of religious liberty arguments in the current evironment. By contrast, Albert Mohler, Russell Moore, and other Christian leaders are making religious liberty one of their key points – a big mistake.
In the current environment, an argument for religious liberty essentially says to the secular culture, “You ought not persecute us for disagreeing with you.”
Jesus didn’t plead for mercy from His persecutors. Rather, He warned them that they were inviting judgment upon themselves and their children. Let us walk in His steps.
(6 min read; 1,385 words)
I want to thank those who took the time to respond to my recent article, “Why Religious Liberty Arguments Aren’t Working.” Our focus at the Ruth Institute is crafting sound arguments and clarifying the proper context for their use. Religious liberty arguments are a case in point. While there is merit in religious liberty arguments, …
Source: Religious Liberty Is Not Enough – Crisis Magazine