Gay Marriage Thorny Issue for Obama

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Sam

On Fox news I saw today that those polled were basically even when it came to approving gay or same sex marriage. 50 percent were against and 48 percent were for it. I don't know who did the poll and whom they polled. The North Carolina issue passed by about 61 percent.

If the issue ever comes to the Supreme Court I expect the Supreme Court to legalize gay/same sex marriage (unless they duck the question and send it back to a lower court until it dies).

In my opinion, if the GLBT folks wait a little longer, same sex marriage will become more and more acceptable until the prohibition of same sex marriage will be considered as out moded and discriminatory as the prohibition of marriage between two people of different races which used to be illegal some places.

Has any culture ever survived after embracing same sex sin as natural???

[aegsm76]

I will say it again.
As soon as marriage is re-defined to include same-sex unions, the next step will be multiple partner marriages.
And that way lies madness.
However, the darker the world gets the brighter the church should be.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

...As soon as marriage is re-defined to include same-sex unions, the next step will be multiple partner marriages. ...

and we can follow in the steps of father Abraham by having more than one wife and in the steps of David, a man after God's own heart.

I realize the original pattern was one woman and one man. Adam was in charge but he was the only human. All the other creatures had mates. I don't know if some animals had multiple mates like some do now or not. Adam could see that the animals were males and females and that he was male but had no compatible female so God made one for him. Jesus said that in the beginning God made humans as male and female and that a man would leave father and mother, cleave to his wife, and the two would be one flesh. So it seems as though that was the original pattern for humans even if not for some animals. Under the law, provision was made for more than one wife (Exodus 21:10)

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Sam

Mittens says that he opposed it in Massachusetts.
Is he honest about this or was it passed by a legislature over his veto or was it passed by a majority of the people and he had to accept it? I don't know the background of that law in Massachusetts.

Originally Posted by canam

simply not true po http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governo...of_Mitt_Romney http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...PEU_story.html

Originally Posted by crakjak

There you go again, PO, distorting the true.The reason is because the state government is Mass is 65% Democrat, not you are being disingenuous to blame that vote on Mitt. As governor, he could not pass anything that they didn't want nor could he hinder anything that they wanted.

When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney declared his opposition to same-sex marriage. "Call me old fashioned, but I don't support gay marriage nor do I support civil union," said Romney in an October 2002 gubernatorial debate.

Who cares what he "said", Crakjak. I care about what he "does".

Will Massachusetts, the cradle of American liberty, let four lawyers don the robes of oligarchy, override the wishes of the majority of the people, usurp the powers of their elected representatives, and sabotage the institution of marriage? Where is the zeal for a fight that manifested itself in Massachusetts men at the battles of Bunker Hill, Lexington and Concord?

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled 4-to-3 to legalize same-sex marriages in the case called Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health . With elitist arrogance, the slim four-person majority bragged: "Certainly our decision today marks a significant change in the definition of marriage as it has been inherited from the common law, and understood by many societies for centuries."

Governor Mitt Romney is trying to walk a tight rope of compromise. While supporting a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage, he said: "We obviously have to follow the law as provided by the Supreme Judicial Court, even if we don't agree with it," and we need to decide "what kind of statute we can fashion which is consistent with the law." But what "law"? There is no law that requires or even allows same-sex marriages. The judges enunciated only special-interest advocacy masquerading as legal reasoning. - Phyllis Schafley

http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2003/dec03/psrdec03.html

In its decision on November 18, 2003, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its ruling regarding same-sex marriage, the court acknowledged that marriage has always been understood as the “union of one man and one woman”, but the court then redefined marriage to mean the “union of two persons.” In doing so, the court usurped the power of the Executive and Legislative branches of government and therefore violated the Guarantee Clause.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has no more authority to redefine marriage than a Utah court has to authorize polygamy.

Second, Governor Mitt Romney could refuse to enforce the Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling. As noted, the state constitution vests the Executive branch with authority over “causes” of marriage. While neither the Governor nor the Executive can redefine marriage from its undisputed meaning in the state constitution absent a constitutional amendment, the Executive retains authority over causes of marriage other than divorce, alimony, annulment and affirmation. Thus, the Executive has the authority to preserve the definition of marriage, and thus the authority to issue an Executive Order prohibiting the issuance, solemnization and recordation of same-sex marriage licenses.

http://www.lc.org/radiotv/nlj/nlj2004/nlj0704.htm

The legislature and Gov. Mitt Romney should ignore the court, defy the order and submit to Massachusetts voters a constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is between a man and woman, as God and nature intended.

Massachusetts has been given an opportunity to lead the nation as it did in the 1770s, in breaking the power of a tyrrany. If Bay State legislators will refuse to pass the law demanded by the court, and Romney will refuse to sign such a law and orders the bureaucracy to ignore the court, what could the court do? Order his arrest? Declare him in contempt. So what? Reasonable people already hold the Massachusetts court in contempt.

[B]It is time for elected representatives to take back powers that were never constitutionally granted to any court. For the issue here is not, "What is decided?" but, "Who decides?" In a republic, the power to write laws is given to elected representatives, not judges or justices.[.B]

http://townhall.com/columnists/patbu...ston_tea_party

Last November, the Massachusetts high court, in a 4-3 decision, gave the legislature and Romney a six-months' ultimatum to rewrite state law to give homosexuals a right to marry. Responding to a request from the state senate for advice on how to comply, the court this week ruled that civil unions would not do. Only full and equal rights for homosexuals to wed would meet the terms of the November edict. Reporters are now predicting a shower of same-sex June weddings in Provincetown. What's a governor to do?

As with Poe's "Purloined Letter," the answer is lying right on the mantle piece in front of Mitt Romney. Defy the court.

Romney should step out in front of the state press corps and read a statement that would stun America, rally social and judicial conservatives of both parties, and bring every network camera in the nation to Boston:

"I have read the court's decision, and while I respect the court, I cannot respect its decision. There is no basis for it in law. There is no basis for it in precedent. There is no basis for it in the letter or spirit of the constitution of our Commonwealth nor in the intent of the men who wrote that constitution. Whence, then, comes this opinion?

"It emanates entirely from the ideology of the majority. The court has distorted our constitution by attempting to write into state law the social views of four justices that are not shared by the people of the Bay State. They have no right to do this. And as I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the Commonwealth, I intend to disregard the court order of last November.

"I will neither propose nor will I sign any bill from the legislature that places homosexual unions on a moral and legal plane with traditional matrimony. To do so would violate my oath, conflict with my beliefs and trample upon the convictions of the people of this state."

After issuing his statement, the governor should take up leadership of the fight to put on the state ballot a constitutional amendment restricting marriage in Massachusetts to men and women.

http://www.theamericancause.org/patmittromneyprint.htm

The Missing Governor
The deeper failure must go to the man who stood as governor, holding the levers of the executive. And if it is countdown for marriage in Massachusetts, it is countdown also for Mitt Romney, whose political demise may be measured along the scale of moves he could have taken and the record of his receding, step by step, until he finally talked himself into doing nothing, or nothing much.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl.../hadley-arkes#

Santorum is Right, Romney is Still Wrong

At Thursday night’s Republican presidential debate, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum challenged Mitt Romney on the role he played in the destruction of marriage in Massachusetts while he was governor. Here was that exchange:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpL7N...layer_embedded

Romney, as he has been on so many other things over the years, is wrong.

When I contacted Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, for his response to the exchange, he sent me the following statement:

“Rick Santorum’s statement during the debate about Mitt Romney’s actions regarding same-sex marriage are correct. I litigated in Massachusetts by filing a suit in federal court to prevent the implementation of same-sex marriage. Due to federalism issues with the federal courts being asked to block a state court action, the federal courts were constrained not to get involved.

Having spent considerable time reviewing the Massachusetts Constitution, drafted by John Adams, I can say that the Massachusetts Constitution is unique with respect to marriage and domestic relations by vesting the authority over marriage to the Legislature. The provision is explicitly set forth in the Massachusetts Constitution. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the Legislature should act within a certain time to implement same-sex marriage, but the Legislature refused to act. Yet, Gov. Romney on his own went ahead of the Legislature and forced the implementation of same-sex marriage. Not only was he not required to implement same-sex marriage, the Massachusetts Constitution gave him no authority to do so. Gov. Romney should not have acted until the Legislature acted as that is the body vested by the Massachusetts Constitution with authority over marriage.

Sen. Rick Santorum was right and Gov. Mitt Romney was wrong.”

http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-poli...s-still-wrong/

He's your candidate and I will leave you with him. He is no leader.

What a crazy time in politics for the Republican Party. What could they be thinking?

Thomas Sowell is right again - the only two fighters were Santorum and, "especially" Gingrich. With all of Romney's baggage, they made sure to slander and kill Gingrich. Crazy days in politics.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

You mean....gasp....he.....gulp...FLIP FLOPPED?!?!?!?!?!?

Again. All the gays love him again, not realizing this was a political move

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Sam

and we can follow in the steps of father Abraham by having more than one wife and in the steps of David, a man after God's own heart.

I realize the original pattern was one woman and one man. Adam was in charge but he was the only human. All the other creatures had mates. I don't know if some animals had multiple mates like some do now or not. Adam could see that the animals were males and females and that he was male but had no compatible female so God made one for him. Jesus said that in the beginning God made humans as male and female and that a man would leave father and mother, cleave to his wife, and the two would be one flesh. So it seems as though that was the original pattern for humans even if not for some animals. Under the law, provision was made for more than one wife (Exodus 21:10)

This was also addressed in the NT, as a Bishop could only be the husband of one wife. Also, this was also addressed many, many years ago in Judaism and resolved.
Western Christianity also resolved this issue and realized what God had intended, until the Mormons came along.
And don't forget multiple partner would also mean ONE wife and many husbands would be possible.

[deacon blues]

So the president goes on record to support gay marriage. Christians! Does voting for him, supporting him cause you to pause? He is endorsing immorality and sin! Does God turn a blind eye and say it's of no consequence? As the leader goes, so goes the nation. What kind of judgment will come our way?

[Dagwood]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

So the president goes on record to support gay marriage. Christians! Does voting for him, supporting him cause you to pause? He is endorsing immorality and sin! Does God turn a blind eye and say it's of no consequence? As the leader goes, so goes the nation. What kind of judgment will come our way?

As long as the states make the decision for supporting or oppsing, I'm fine with BO's stance. I wouldn't be saying that if he were forcing states to recognize his beliefs and follow through with amendments on it.

Bottom line: the federal government, period, needs to get out of our homes, businesses, churches, cars, pocketbooks, beds, and pants. 'Nuff said...

[scotty]

Originally Posted by Dagwood

As long as the states make the decision for supporting or oppsing, I'm fine with BO's stance. I wouldn't be saying that if he were forcing states to recognize his beliefs and follow through with amendments on it.

Bottom line: the federal government, period, needs to get out of our homes, businesses, churches, cars, pocketbooks, beds, and pants. 'Nuff said...

That'll preach.

[Dordrecht]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

So the president goes on record to support gay marriage. Christians! Does voting for him, supporting him cause you to pause? He is endorsing immorality and sin! Does God turn a blind eye and say it's of no consequence? As the leader goes, so goes the nation. What kind of judgment will come our way?

Most churches are sound asleep.

This country will go further down the drown if this abortion and homosexual promoter is elected.
Most pastors (watchmen) don't preach "politics" from the pulpit.
They are afraid to be "political incorrect".

(Tithes and offerings are important. Don't rock the boat!)