I have always tried to argue that there is a very serious civil outcome to redefining marriage, and it has nothing to do with religious liberty or the idea of "sacramental marriage."
Since marriage is society's primary way of acknowledging and understanding parenthood, redefining marriage redefines parenthood. Here in California, the affects of "SSM" and redefining parenthood are rapidly making their way through the legislature. Last year, Gov. Brown signed a bill allowing three or more legal parents for children, which was inspired by a "SSM" custody dispute.
Now we have this: AB 1951. This bill will change birth certificates to allow for a gender-neutral option for parents. Gay couples will be able to list both of themselves on the child's birth certificate. California recently did away with the terms "husband" and "wife," because of "SSM," and the lead legislator for that measure said that those terms were outdated and biased. I suppose we can infer the same thing for "mother" and "father." more >>
While supporters of traditional marriage are often presented as driven by emotion and religiosity and supporters of same-sex marriage are often presented as voices of rationality and reason, the reality is quite different. Traditional marriage supporters have presented a view, complete with foundational principles, for state recognition of conjugal marriage while same-sex marriage supporters have failed to answer two questions that are central to the issue.
Traditional marriage (TM) supporters have explained their view of what marriage is, why it matters for society and why government should recognize traditional marriage, for example, here, here, and here.
Same-sex marriage (SSM) supporters, on the other hand, have failed to address why they believe that reasoning is invalid, and to answer these two questions put to them by TM supporters: more >>
The fact that some people change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual (some as a result of professional therapy) is a problem for the homosexual movement. It seriously undermines the myth that homosexuality is a characteristic like race, which people are born with and can never change.
Homosexual activists have attacked the ex-gay movement, using legislation to outlaw "sexual orientation change efforts" (or "SOCE") with minors by licensed mental health providers. Such bills have passed in California and New Jersey, but have died or remain pending in several other jurisdictions—including the District of Columbia.
Most "sexual reorientation therapy" today consists of "talk therapy"—a client simply talking with a counselor about his or her feelings, experiences, relationships with parents and peers, etc. Some therapists add other positive techniques that have been validated in a variety of contexts—not just SOCE. more >>
Even though the citizens of Florida voted in a 2008 referendum to define marriage as between one man and one woman in their state's constitution, yet another federal district judge has ruled that amendment is unconstitutional because it does not let Floridians marry someone of their same gender.
U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle came to the same conclusion Thursday as judges from four other districts in Florida previously found. Hinkle ruled that labeling marriage as only "between a man and a woman" was in violation of 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as it does not provide a guarantee of equal protection and due process under the law.
In his reasoning, Hinkle used the frequently used argument that same-sex marriage is inevitable, or, as some same-sex marriage supporters put it, opponents are on the "wrong side of history." more >>
The U.S. Supreme Court has granted a stay in a lower court decision ruling the Commonwealth of Virginia's same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional.
The nation's highest court granted a request to delay the decision on Wednesday, which means that for the time being Virginia's constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman remains in effect.
Attorney General Mark Herring, who months back refused to defend the Commonwealth's ban, nonetheless said in a statement that he approved of the delay. more >>
Judges who have been overturning marriage laws are misreading the U.S. Supreme Court rulings and ignoring counterarguments in order to promote their own ideological agenda, Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, told The Christian Post in a video phone interview.
"This is a pure ideological power play by liberal judges, some of whom were Republican appointed, ... who don't like traditional morality and the traditional understanding of marriage and want to overturn it," George said. "So they're abusing their offices, they're usurping the authority of the elected representatives, ... and sometimes the people themselves acting through referendums and initiatives, to impose their own vision, their own preferences, their own political policy preferences on the American people. It's not right and it's not constitutional. Judges acting in the name of the Constitution are themselves acting unconstitutionally."
Last Summer, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in two same-sex marriage cases. One upheld a lower court ruling that struck down California's "prop 8," which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The other, U.S. vs. Windsor, ruled unconstitutional the part of the Defense of Marriage Act that said federal law will not recognize same-sex marriages in states that allow couples of the same gender to get married. Since then, many state courts, federal district courts and federal appellate courts have overturned state marriage laws, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court required, suggested or implied that they do so in the Windsor decision. more >>