Three more states have approved same-sex marriage

Lou Dematteis/Reuters

Rhode Island

On May 2, Rhode Island became the 10^th state to permit same-sex marriage. The House approved the bill by 56-15 (the RI Senate approved the bill on April 24 by a 26-12 vote), and the governor signed it the same day. Same-sex marriages will be legal starting August 1, 2013. 

Rhode Island had just approved civil unions two years ago, and now the new law will replace these civil unions with marriage.  The Fox News article noted that “few couples” sought civil unions.  I wonder why they think many more will seek marriage.  What people fail to understand is that most gays do not want marriage.  What they want is social acceptance of their orientation and behavior, and permitting same-sex couples to partake of the institution of marriage is one of the best ways to accomplish this. 

Delaware

 

France legalizes same-sex marriage

As expected, France legalized same-sex marriage today when their National Assembly voted 331-225 to approve a reconciled version of the bill that was passed by the Senate. They are the 14th nation to legalize same-sex marriage. Same-sex couples will be allowed to wed as early as June.

 

Florist sued for not selling flowers for same-sex wedding

Image courtesy of Bob Brawdy/Tri-City Herald/AP

A florist in the state of Washington is being sued by both the ACLU and the state Attorney General because the owner would not sell flowers to a gay couple for their wedding.  This violates the state’s anti-discrimination law, which prohibits a public business from discriminating against someone based on their sexual orientation.

The same would go for wedding photographers and videographers.  Anybody in the wedding business who cannot, in good conscience, lend their services to same-sex couples due to their personal beliefs about homosexuality or same-sex marriage, will have to make a choice to either violate their conscience, or choose a different profession.  Ah, but remember the tired old question supporters of same-sex marriage always raise: How will granting same-sex couples the right to marry affect you?!  Here is just one more instance of how it affects others, and I’m sure it will not be the last.

 

Legalize polygamy!

Photo by Kamil Krzaczynski/Reuters

Just this past Monday, Jillian Keenan wrote an article in Slate titled “Legalize Polygamy!”  She writes:

While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. … Divorce, remarriage, surrogate parents, extended relatives, and other diverse family arrangements mean families already come in all sizes—why not recognize that legally? … As women, we really can make our own choices. We just might choose things people don’t like. If a woman wants to marry a man, that’s great. If she wants to marry another woman, that’s great too. If she wants to marry a hipster, well—I suppose that’s the price of freedom.  And if she wants to marry a man with three other wives, that’s her damn choice.
…
All marriages deserve access to the support and resources they need to build happy, healthy lives, regardless of how many partners are involved. Arguments about whether a woman’s consensual sexual and romantic choices are “healthy” should have no bearing on the legal process. And while polygamy remains illegal, women who choose this lifestyle don’t have access to the protections and benefits that legal marriage provides.

 

France has approved same-sex marriage

Today, the French Senate has officially approved a bill legalizing same-sex marriage.  While their version is slightly different than the National Assembly’s that was passed in February – and will require reconciliation before being signed by the president – the deed is essentially done.  Same-sex marriage is expected to be legal by summer.

 

New Zealand is poised to approve same-sex marriage

New Zealand lawmakers have proposed a bill in support of same-sex marriage.  In the second of three votes needed to pass the measure, it passed 77-44.  The final vote is scheduled to take place in mid-April.

Does this mean Bilbo Baggins might marry Gandalf in The Hobbit part 2?

UPDATE: The bill passed 77-44 on April 17. New Zealand has become the 13th nation to legalize same-sex marriage.

 

Uruguay has approved same-sex marriage

Uruguay, a small South American country of 3.3 million people, has essentially approved same-sex marriage.  On December 11, 2012 the Uruguayan House of Representatives passed a bill approving same-sex marriage by a whopping 81-6 margin.  On April 2, 2013 the Uruguayan Senate approved a similar bill 23-8.  The bill has to go back to the House for reconciliation, and then on to the president, who has already promised to sign it into law.  It’s no longer a question of whether same-sex marriage will become legal in Uruguay, but how soon.  Once the bill is signed, Uruguay will become the 12^th country to legalize same-sex marriage (if France doesn’t beat them to it).

This was a very fast development, considering the fact that the country just approved civil unions for same-sex couples in 2009. 

The only other South American country in which same-sex marriage is legal is Argentina.

 

New endorsements for same-sex marriage

John Wesley is rolling over in his grave right about now.

Rob Bell endorses same-sex marriage. Why not, after all, given his universalism?

As for Hillary, this announcement is about as surprising as microwave popcorn.

The trend of Christian groups and political leaders supporting same-sex marriage will continue to grow.

 

Bill Clinton op-ed supporting the demise of DOMA

Bill Clinton has written an op-ed in The Washington Post throwing his support behind the overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act — a bill he signed into law 17 years ago. His timing is clearly political, given the fact that the Supreme Court will hear arguments for overturning DOMA on March 27. While the justices should not be influenced by his opinions, his actions carry symbolic weight that the Supreme Court justices cannot help but to notice. After all, if the very President who signed the bill into law no longer supports it, that speaks volumes.

I find it interesting that he justifies his signing of the law in 1996 on the grounds that “it was a very different time” then, but also claims that the law is “incompatible with our Constitution.”  Has the Constitution changed?  No.  So how could a law be constitutional 17 years ago but unconstitutional today?  It’s because Clinton subscribes to the “living document” view of the Constitution in which the meaning of the Constitution changes with the culture, though the words remain the same.  I think this philosophy of Constitutional interpretation is flawed.  The Constitution means what its drafters intended it to mean, and what its signers and ratifiers understood it to mean.  The meaning of a document does not change over time.  If the Constitution can mean whatever we want it to mean, and if the Constitution can be interpreted in light of cultural changes, then the Constitution cannot protect any of us because it doesn’t mean anything in particular.  It is just silly putty in the hands of the judiciary.

 

Now France is on the Verge of Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage

First Britain, now France.  France has allowed civil unions that confer many of the benefits of marriage since 1999.  Today, France’s National Assembly – its lower house of parliament – approved a bill (329-229) that would define marriage as contract between two people regardless of their sex, and allow same-sex couples to adopt children.  Now it goes to the Senate, where it is expected to pass as well.  If it does, France will become the 12^th country to legalize same-sex marriage following:

 

Why the word “marriage” is worth fighting for: Britain is one step closer to legalizing same-sex marriage

A proposal to legalize same-sex marriage in Britain in 2014 has passed its first major hurdle to becoming law when the lower house of Parliament passed the proposal 400-175 on Tuesday.

British law already allows for civil unions, which offer the exact same rights and privileges of marriage.  Since same-sex marriage is already recognized in England in-all-but-name, the legal ramifications of this law should be negligible.  The real impact of this law will be social.  I’ll explain how, but first let me make the case against calling same-sex unions “marriage” even if they enjoy the exact same rights afforded to married couples.

Treated as equals vs. being thought of as equals

Personally, I oppose any legal recognition and/or regulation of same-sex relationships, including civil unions.  If you are going to create civil unions as an alternative institution to marriage, however, it is foolish to make it identical to marriage in every respect but the name.  It’s like saying “you can work at the same place I work at, make the same money I make, get the same health insurance I have, but you can’t call it a ‘job.’”[1]  Nevertheless, that is what England and other countries (including various states in the U.S.) have done.  They have created two institutions that are identical in all-but-name.

 

Civil Marriage is Not a Right, so Same-Sex Marriage Cannot be a Right

While there exists a natural right to form marriages, and while we have a right to form those marriages without government interference (a negative right), we do not have the right to government recognition of our marriages (a positive right).  The State regulates marriage because it is in their best interest to manage the procreative potential of opposite sex couples, not because they have a moral obligation to do so.  The institution of marriage is a natural union that exists prior to, and wholly independent of government recognition.

What basis is there, then, for SSM advocates to claim they have a right to civil marriage?  While those with homosexual orientations have a right to form same-sex relationships[1], they have no corresponding right to have their relationships recognized and regulated by the government.

 

Pastor withdraws from Obama inauguration after sermon on homosexuality surfaces

That’s the headline.  Perhaps it should have read “Christian pastor withdraws from Obama inauguration after it is discovered that he’s a Christian.”

A website, ThinkProgress, published a sermon Reverend Louie Giglio preached in the 90’s in which he said these “shocking” words:

If you look at the counsel of the word of God, Old Testament, New Testament, you come quickly to the conclusion that homosexuality is not an alternate lifestyle… homosexuality is not just a sexual preference, homosexuality is not gay, but homosexuality is sin. It is sin in the eyes of God, and it is sin according to the word of God. You come to only one conclusion: homosexuality is less than God’s best for his creation.”

 

Another Example of How Same-Sex Marriage Won’t Affect Anyone

Oh the irony!  The chief diversity officer at Gallaudet, a university in Washington D.C. that serves the deaf, was put on a leave of absence for signing a petition to get an initiative on the ballot to decide the legality of same-sex marriage.

Apparently the school is not interested in diversity.  Everyone must subscribe the politically correct viewpoint.  But remember, the government’s sanction of same-sex relationships will have no affect on those who disagree.  And I’ve got beachfront property in Nevada to sell you too.

 

Should government get out of the marriage business?

That is what some Christians and secularists suggest.  They think marriage should be a private institution handled by churches and others, while the government sits by as a neutral observer.  That may salve over the current political and cultural debate over the definition of marriage, but is this a good idea?  Jennifer Roback Morse thinks not, and wrote a three-part series explaining why (1, 2, 3).  She argues that privatizing marriage is not only impossible in practice, but that it would result in more state power and would unnecessarily hurt children.

 

Can same-sex marriage be legalized without resulting in religious discrimination?

A lot of people think the government can recognize same-sex unions as “marriage” without any detrimental effects on religious institutions and religious liberties.  I think this is a delusion.  The legal recognition of same-sex unions will almost inevitably result in religious discrimination on a social level, and likely on a legal level as well.  

How can the government say on the one hand that a failure to legally recognize same-sex unions as “marriage” and treat them as equal to opposite-sex unions in every way is to engage in discriminatory behavior, and yet at the same time permit churches to discriminate against same-sex couples by refusing to marry them?  Talk about legal schizophrenia!  Consider the logic involved: 

 

Another example of how the demand for legal recognition of same-sex relationships restrict religious liberty

On January 30, 2011 the governor of Illinois signed “The Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act” into law, thereby enacting same-sex civil unions that are equal in rights and responsibilities to marriage in the state.  While religious organizations who did social service work were specifically exempted from the non-discrimination elements of the law, the State of Illinois moved to cancel more than $30 million dollars worth of contracts with Catholic charities who worked with the state to provide foster care and adoption services because they would not pair children with same-sex couples.  The state began sending referrals to other foster care agencies.  The Catholic charities challenged the state in court and lost at both the circuit and appellate levels.  They ultimately had to drop the case due to a lack of funds to appeal it further up the chain.  The lack of state cooperation and funding will virtually ascertain the closure of these adoption agencies, which have more than 90 years of experience in this area.

The lawyer who represented the Catholic charities, Peter Breen of the Thomas Moore Society, commented, “This stands as a stark lesson to the rest of the nation that legislators promising ‘religious protection’ in same sex marriage and civil union laws may not be able to deliver on those promises.”  Indeed.

 

9th Circuit Upholds Lower Court’s Ruling that Prop 8 is Unconstitutional

Yesterday, the 9^th circuit federal court of appeals upheld District Judge Vaughn Walker’s August 2010 decision that California’s Proposition 8 is unconstitutional by a 2-1 vote.  Prop 8 was a voter referendum to amend the CA constitution to declare that marriage is only valid between a man and a woman.  While the CA Supreme Court ruled that the amendment is constitutional (when judged against the California Constitution), their decision was appealed and Judge Walker ruled that it violates the U.S. Constitution.  The 9^th circuit court agrees.

 

Homosexuality indoctrination in public schools

I would highly recommend that you watch the video clips at http://www.massresistance.org/media/video/brainwashing.html. They are from a documentary showing how elementary and junior high kids can be indoctrinated to believe homosexuality and same-sex marriage are morally acceptable (something the film extols as a virtue). If you think homosexuality is wrong, but that the issue of homosexuality is a private matter that isn’t going to hurt anybody so we should just sit back and do nothing, you need to watch this video. The gay rights movement has gone beyond the “just leave us alone to do what we want to do in the privacy of our own homes” days and into the day of approval advocacy. They are not content to be allowed to live how they want to live–now they want to make sure that you approve of their lifestyle as well. It’s too difficult to change adults’ minds, so they are targeting the young.

 

The debate over same-sex marriage is about society, not homosexuals

During one of his recent radio shows, Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason made an important observation about the debate over same-sex marriage (SSM) that virtually all advocates of SSM miss: the debate over SSM has virtually nothing to do with what same-sex couples (SSCs) do, and everything to do with what we (society) do.

No one is regulating the behavior, love, living situation, or commitments of SSCs.  SSCs are free to live with one another, have sex with one another, create legal contracts with one another, and even engage in public ceremonies to celebrate their love and commitment to one another.  Being granted access to the institution of marriage would not give SSCs any additional freedoms.  What it would give them is a new social standing.  Why?  Because marriage is society’s way of putting their stamp of approval on a particular kind of relationship.  It’s society’s way of declaring what a family is.  To say SSCs can participate in the institution of marriage would be a social declaration that there is no difference between heterosexual and homosexual unions.  Whether society should make such a declaration stands at the heart of the debate over SSM.  Do we, as a society, want to declare same-sex relationships to be socially equivalent to heterosexual relationships?