Rather than same-sex 'marriage,' the unwritten goal of the Gay Agenda has been the destruction of traditional marriage, and thus family -- the foundation of human society since Adam and Eve. The 'solution' to the polarization of America is on the horizon: the expungement of marriage in favor of civil unions for all.
-- From "A way out of Prop. 8" Editorial, Los Angeles Times 3/6/09
What if California got out of the marriage business altogether? What if the state merely licensed or just recognized private, contractual civil unions with all the benefits of marriage, and couples went to the religious or private institution of their choice to sanctify their vows? Would that resolve the legal differences between Proposition 8 and the state Supreme Court's 2008 ruling that gay and lesbian couples were entitled to the same marital rights as heterosexuals?
These were the questions [California Supreme Court] Justice Ming W. Chin posited during oral arguments on the proposition Thursday before the high court. To which both sides responded: Why, yes, it would.
. . . under this approach, religions and other belief groups could continue to sanction marriage in accordance with their definitions, and the state could concern itself with the civil rights and responsibilities of two people who decide to share life, home, family and the remote.
. . . just as marriage and family traditions have altered dramatically -- with shorter and more frequent marriages in a lifetime, couples living outside the married state and prenuptial agreements that trump customary family agreements -- it is time to consider an altered state role in domestic legalities. Justice Chin opened the discussion, and it is worth continuing.
To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.
-- From "A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage" by David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch, New York Times 2/22/09
. . . the time is ripe for a deal that could give each side what it most needs in the short run, while moving the debate onto a healthier, calmer track in the years ahead.
It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.
Our national conversation on this issue will be significantly less contentious if religious groups can be confident that they will not be forced to support or facilitate gay marriage.
. . . federal law links many important perquisites to marital status, including Social Security survivor benefits, tax-free inheritance, spousal immigration rights and protections against mutual incrimination. All of these benefits are currently denied to same-sex couples, even those living in states that permit same-sex marriage or civil unions. But these same benefits could be conferred by federally recognized civil unions.
And while most Americans who favor keeping marriage as it has customarily been would prefer no legal recognition of same-sex unions at either the federal or the state level, we believe that they can live with federal civil unions — provided that no religious groups are forced to accept them as marriages. Many of these people may come to see civil unions as a compassionate compromise. For example, a PBS poll last fall found that 58 percent of white evangelicals under age 30 favor some form of legal same-sex union.
Linking federal civil unions to guarantees of religious freedom seems a natural way to give the two sides something they would greatly value while heading off a long-term, take-no-prisoners conflict.
When a reasonable accommodation on a tough issue seems possible, both sides should have the courage to explore it.
To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.
-- From "Blankenhorn's Faustian Bargain" by Laurie Higgins, DSA Director - Illinois Family Institute 2/25/09
Does anyone stop and think about why the government is involved in marriage at all?
The government has one concern with marriage. The government seeks to support that institution that best serves the needs of the state. Our government, which reflects the collective wisdom and will of its citizenry, has rightly determined that the institution that best serves the needs of a healthy society is that which best serves the needs of children who are essential to the future success of any nation. And what best serves the needs of children is to be raised, when possible, by their biological parents.
As David Blankenhorn writes in The Future of Marriage, "In all or nearly all human societies, marriage is socially approved sexual intercourse between a woman and a man, conceived both as a personal relationship and as an institution, primarily such that any children resulting from the union are — and are understood to be — emotionally, morally, practically, and legally affiliated with both of the parents."
The fact that marriage is inextricably bound up in contractual obligations, often pertaining to financial issues, reflects the government's interest in protecting and preserving the natural family. The government has no legitimate interest in whether marital partners love each other. If the sole purpose of marriage were to publicly recognize, institutionalize, or solemnize sexual attraction and/or emotional affiliation, the government would have no business being involved with marriage at all. The government has no vested interest in whether marital partners love each other. If society is going to regain a proper understanding of marriage, citizens must be disabused of the notion that the government's involvement in marriage has anything to do with sanctioning love.
If we continue down a path toward legalized civil unions or domestic partnerships, which are based on the fundamental error that the purpose of governmental involvement in marriage is to recognize love, we will end up with polygamy and polyandry. If we accept as true the erroneous claim that government is involved in marriage in order to publicly sanction love and that government-sanctioned marriage is only peripherally or incidentally concerned with procreation and child-rearing, then there is no justification for prohibiting any people who love each other from marrying.
To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 3/16/09: Time Magazine article.
