The case involving a lesbian couple “married” in Canada but seeking a divorce in Oklahoma, where same-sex “marriage” is not recognized, is just another disingenuous attempt to further a political and social agenda, argued the head of a Christian legal group.
Cait O'Darling and Stephanie A. Griffith, a lesbian couple who said they legally “married” as a same-sex couple in Toronto in December 2002, have asked the Supreme Court of Oklahoma to recognize a divorce decree granted by a state judge. The judge, who was unaware the two parties were of the same sex, later vacated the decree, noting that Oklahoma law does not recognize “any marriage between persons of the same gender.”
Alan Sears, president of the Alliance Defense Fund, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief last Monday, says activists such as the Oklahoma lesbian couple are trying to “redefine marriage – through the avenue of ‘divorce’ – to fit their political and cultural agendas.”
In 2004, a vast majority of Oklahoma voters (76 percent) approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
The same amendment also stipulates that same-sex “marriages” from another state are not recognized as valid and binding in Oklahoma.
“By a margin of more than 3-to-1, the people of Oklahoma voted to protect marriage as a union between one man and one woman,” highlighted ADF Senior Legal Counsel Austin Nimocks in a statement. “By demanding that the court dissolve this counterfeit ‘marriage,’ these women are telling the court to ignore the laws of Oklahoma. The opponents of marriage aren’t merely trying to redefine marriage, they’re trying to eliminate marriage.”
Sears agreed that same-sex “marriage” is a “huge step” toward transforming the notion of marriage and family.
“The legal arguments of those promoting same-sex unions flow inexorably to the conclusion that marriage means everything and anything,” the ADF president stated last week.
“[A]nd once it means everything, it means nothing,” he added.
In ADF’s brief, the Christian legal group also called to the court’s attention the discrepancy in the reported date of marriage between the two women. The O’Darlings claim they “married” in December 2002, six months before same-sex “marriage” became legal in Toronto.
ADF has also filed three friend-of-the-court briefs in similar case in Rhode Island where another lesbian couple has sought for a divorce even though they were “married” in Massachusetts. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island heard arguments earlier this month and is reviewing the case.
M. Charles Bakst, a political columnist for The Providence Journal, based in Rhode Island, said in a recent column that the divorce case would increase the public’s acceptance of same-sex unions “because the case puts a personal face on gays.”
And Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said the case “is the new strategy on the part of homosexual activists,"
"They have been unsuccessful, for the most part, in creating same-sex marriage via direct constitutional challenge. So, they are using the side-door method of bringing cases around the periphery of marriage, such as divorce cases,” he said, according to Focus on the Family Action’s CitizenLink publication.
“By asking the courts to hear the case and grant the divorce, they are slowly trying to change the public policy of both of those states. Ultimately, they want to shoehorn in legislation granting same-sex marriage,” the conservative analyst added.
"The truth is, they want to destroy traditional marriage."
Currently, 45 states have either a statute or a constitutional provision prohibiting same-sex “marriage” and 5 - Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Rhode Island – have neither.
Massachusetts is the only state that has legalized same-sex "marriage."
Comments
Only the Blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ can cleanse us of all unrighteousness and filthy sin - this does include many other things, but as it pertains to this article - adultery, fornication, and yes, homosexuality. Too many in today's church want to cover up sin, and be politically relevent to today's "culture". They water-down the Wrod of God, and twist it to make it seem more "pleasant" to the ears. Many people want to hear what feesds their ego; they don;t want to hear the truth that transforms lives for their own good and for God's pleasure.
The Bible tells us that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. None of us are without sin. The Good News is that Jesus Christ became God in the flesh for us! He decended from his exalted heavenly place, and willfully shed His Prescious Blood and gave up His life so that we may have a relationship with God the Father our Creator.
We need to first acknowledge that we are all sinners; we need to repent - that is to literally and willfully choose to turn away from our old life of living in sins; we need to ask for forgiveness and accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior of our lives (this means we hand over our free will to Him, and choose toi obey His commands and teachings). We must put our total trust and confidence ino Him, and then follow Him.
The question is, have we trully repented, and turned back from our sin. That is to say, if we're willfully, and rebelliously living in sin, have we made a conscious choice to turn from that sin, die to ourselves, pick up our crosses daily and follow Christ?
None of these sins are unpardonable, but God has given us a free choice. We must choose this day whom we will serve. Are we going to choose to gratify our flesh and live in sin, or are we going to die to ourselves, and choose to follow Christ Jesus?
Whoever doesn't truly know Christ on this site, please give your life to him. You will not regret it. He will never bring up your past. We all have pasts, but God can make you a new person, and as you continue to seek after Him and as you surrender your life to Him, He will continue to mold you and make you into the vessel of honor He wants you to be. I hope this touches someone out there, and may the Lord turn your heart to repentance. God Bless You.
rcinsocal: Original, much?
Are you that ignorant of the bible, that you copy and paste the same OT passages all over this web site? Those old laws were taken care of at the cross. This disgusting, degenerate lifestyle of sodomy that you are apparently championing is condemmed as an abomination numerous times in the new testament. Try reading it sometime.
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16)
Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Traditional marriage was destroyed a long time ago. I love how Christians (I am one) can be outraged about stuff like this and want to legislate the definition of marriage but not legislate healthcare for children, food and shelter for the poor, protection for the middle class. It doesn't make any sense and certainly doesn't seem in line with the values Christ taught.
What an evil ,..devious way of doing things if these two people are actually in that frame of mind,....interesting.......