The people of Missouri have rejected homosexual “marriage.” Great Thursday news.
Massachusetts was the first state to legalize same-sex marriage, and on Tuesday, Missouri became the first state since then to pass a constitutional amendment banning it.
While judges made the decision in Massachusetts earlier this year, voters made the decision in Missouri on Tuesday.
Around 71 percent of voters approved the constitutional amendment, which says, “to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman.”
According to press reports, at least nine other states — maybe more — will vote on similar constitutional amendments before the year is over.
The Washington Times reports that with 51 percent of precincts reporting, the amendment received 659,267 “yes” votes and 251,754 “no” votes.
I blogged about this last month (I link to previous posts for the benefit of new readers) in a post called “The Nationalization of Marriage.”:
Homosexuals currently enjoy the same civil rights as the rest of us, but marriage is not a civil right. Homosexual “marriage” has never been a civil right in America or any civilized society. Restrictions are placed on who can marry whom. Minors can’t consent to marriage. A person can’t marry someone else while they’re married. You can’t marry your dog or cat. And a man can’t marry a man, and a woman can’t marry a woman.Homosexuals can form all the unions they want, with several different people if they desire. Who cares? But what they really want is not traditional marriage but something unrelated to it. I believe their true purpose is merely to shock and mock traditional-minded and God-fearing folks and parade in public what should be kept private….
A frightening consequence of legalizing so-called same-sex marriage is that perverts will have another reason to prey on children. Joe over at Evangelical Outpost blogged about this back in March. Boys as young as 14 can marry with parental consent. I’m certain that plenty of shiftless and immoral parents would…I don’t even want to think about it! The deviants at the North American Man/Boy Love Association would be ecstatic.
God forbid it.
The only way marriage in America will be redefined is by judicial fiat and not the democratic process.
{ 14 comments }
In Oklahoma we are going to vote on a similar amendment, in spite of the fact that the Democrats, who control both houses and the Governor’s office, did everything they could to prevent that from happening.
I’m willing to bet that if that couple in Massachusetts hadn’t TRIED to redefine marriage by judicial fiat (and in a pretty obvious case of a court that had decided on the verdict- law or no- before the trial had even opened, at that), this issue never would have come up in Missouri… not to mention about six other states. The voters tend to get upset when special-interests pressure groups try write their own law without recourse to ballots. Someone gambled, and they have lost more than they have gained.
Having gay-rights spokescritters compare this issue to the Civil Rights movement, or liken conservatives to Nazis or the Klan for opposing it, does not seem to have conjured them many supporters, either…
DaveP
I live in MA and it was one “slick” move after another that ended up with what my state has now. Cliff note version.
1. Petition was signed by record number to put the question of the 04 ballot.
2. Gay groups used false letter writing to trick a few into thinking they were petitioning against eating horse meat.
3. Head DA did nothing even though this act was unlawful.
4. Jane Swift, our then non-elected gov, showed up the day the petition was to be “discussed” and closed the session after it had already be pushed back a number of times.
5. This move eliminated any chance for a vote until ‘06
6. With that out of the way, lawsuit was filed.
Quite disgusting how it played out in our state.
take care.
Here’s the irony of the *cough8 Democrats that endorse this:
If one judge or one mayor rules that gay marriage is legal, it’s democracy in action and the voice of the people….
…yet…
if a MAJORITY of people vote to not legalize it, it’s the result of homophobes spreading hate, discontent, and LIES by way of GOP money.
LaShawn, did you hear that a superior court judge has ruled in Washington State that homosexual couples have the right to marry. This was in spite of the state’s DOMA. Like we’ve been saying this is why the constitution must be amended. Anything else and in time it will simply be struck down with a couple of words from some liberal possessed “judge”.
In light of DL’s comment. I would like to hear an explanation of why a government MUST follow a judge’s edict?
Judges have no power of enforcement and there is precedent for facing down or ignoring a judge–of course this option must be used judiciously. Nevertheless, this is/was a viable option for Mitt Romey to countermand the court by executive order, is it not? Likewise, if congress was so inclined, they could also impeach such judges for overreaching and not backing down.
Judge Moore, in spite of whether his reactions were right or wrong, was drummed out essentially over a copy of the 10 Commandments. Yet no one has the nads to block judges gone wild on redefining the institution of marriage and the social fabric over the will of the people. Pathetic sense of proportions.
Hello,
Just wanted to discuss this quote…”
Homosexuals can form all the unions they want, with several different people if they desire. Who cares? But what they really want is not traditional marriage but something unrelated to it. I believe their true purpose is merely to shock and mock traditional-minded and God-fearing folks and parade in public what should be kept private….
A frightening consequence of legalizing so-called same-sex marriage is that perverts will have another reason to prey on children.”
What evidence is there supporting this? It seems like a HUGE disconnected jump. The conclusion drawn is if one is gay then one is a pervert that likes young boys or some such? Say What? If homosexuals are saying they want traditional marriage, giving unsupported opinions saying otherwise is just that…unsupported. The idea here is they don’t feel they should have to keep their relationship with their spouse private and want the same FEDERAL benefits a straight couple enjoys. Personally I really don’t see what all the fuss is about. Seems like the issue here is two fold -the states that allow marriage prior to the age of 18 and the sick (IMO) organization called North American Man/Boy Love Association
Thoughts?
Mmmhmmm, that’s my home state
Matt S.
I think the point being made is the change in definition of marriage weakens marriage. Today it is a man and a woman, above the age of consent. Then it’s 2 adults above the age of consent. Next, perhaps the age of consent or its requirement for marriage will be called into question. The question is then, where will it stop?
While I favor a civil union for gays, I do not favor marriage. My sister is a homosexual, and she and her s/o and their friends have never been able to define why marriage. Most of them say they want the legal protections and inheritance protections. Fine. What they want is similar to marriage, but not marriage.
If you want a mule, get a mule, but don’t change the definition of horses to mules.
More American’s would get behind a civil union than redefining marriage.
But hey, that’s just me
SCSIwuzzy
SCSIwuzzy thanks for responding. I guess my only point would be why? Why is marriage weakened by two people who have a different lifestyle then myself stating they are married. I think if we’re in agreement for the most part over allowing benefits…then ultimately we’re just talking semantics and it seems to me there are so many more important things to argue over.
Ultimately it just seems like an effort to limit personal freedoms, but maybe there are angles I’m not seeing, but thanks for the response.
I say NO to gay marriage, too. I don’t want to marry a gay man. I want to marry a straight one(and did that, too).
OOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! That’s not what you meant. Sorry, my bad!
Like my hubby so foundly reminds me of, homosexuals can get married. A gay man can marry any woman he chooses, and a lesbian can marry any man she chooses. There’s nothing that says they can’t do that.
Matt S
First off, marriage is an institution ordained by God which symbolizes (a model of) the spiritual marriage of Christ and the Church. Also, man was created in God’s image, so were are more than mere animals or biomass. Our bodies are a temple and housing for our souls. Marriage is about spiritual and physical dedication to one another.
On the secular level, marriage is a societal mechanism for building and protecting families. Marriage is about making sacrifices for a common good and to one another.
The governmet recognizes that and for practical matters, such as social security etc, the couple is treated as one. It is a binding contract that at the core says; For me to have a sexual license with you, I will assume financial support for you and our children.
Hence if the wage earner dies, his benefits continue to the spouse and unemancipated children. This is in acknowledgement that in the “typical” family, one partner is the bread winner while the other is the homemaker. While the homemaker does not contribute to the tax base directly, nevertheless, the role is vital for raising children to be model citizens. Granted this part has been under assault from multiple directions–economic, infideliy, social disintegration, devaluement.
Contrary to NOW’s propaganda, most mothers who have to work, would love to be at home with the children, especially during the formative years. Fortunately for us, my wife and 4 kids are able to get by on my income alone. But then again I didn’t get hitched until my mid 30s. Had we done so in our teens/twenties, I don’t think it would have been as easy to do so. That’s one distinct advantage in waiting until financially able to do so. Nevertheless, my wife would love to get back to work once the kids are in school.
I have nothing against civil unions per se that grants visitation rights and personal inheritance (hate the sin, love the sinner). The issue I think is that gay marriage is foremost an assault on God’s institution and makes a mockery of His grand design.
2ndly, in terms of the rights that a couple has to social benefits, gay marriage will predominately increase the benfits burden without widening the payer base. A breadwinning/homemaking couple has to make do on one income, whereas for most gay marraiages, both are working in statistcally well paying jobs. Fast forward to retirement, how fair is it to the tax base to award “double” benefits to the survivor?
Yes, there are hetero couples that both work and never had kids (DINKs), and yes there are couples that work and have kids. But the whole social security system was designed on the breadwinning/homemaker model.
And was designed to encourage raising children. Society has a vested interest in promoting 2.1 children per couple as this is the ratio that sustains a population. Anything less, and the population will go into decline, further disrupting the economic fabric. Look at any Western European country to see the toll that low birth rates have taken on their economy. Allowing gay marriages with the full rights and benefits given to the traditional couple will only hasten our decline.
See here
for how Ake Green, a preacher in Sweden, has been sent to jail for preaching that homosexuality is sinful. Pastor Green condemned homosexuality as “abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society.”
One purpose of “gay marriage” is to make it illegal (hate speech) to say that gay sex is sinful, or abnormal.
In other words, to force their anti-religion of sexual liberation onto everybody else.
Most, maybe all, marriage benefits should be oriented towards the raising of children, not the couple of adults.
Civil unions should allow gays to easily transfer assets/ visitation rights, etc. to their long term lover.
Chills, if you’re still lurking here; what does socialist Sweden’s trailblazing portend for Canada’s anti-hate speech laws and for Canuck preachers who condemn homosexuality?
Living in peaceful harmony…yeah, right.
Comments on this entry are closed.