ADF Attorney Benjamin Bull in TownHall:
"... the justices at the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled that the two French women “did not have the rights of married people, who in France have the sole right to adopt a child as a couple.”
This decision needs to be shouted from rooftops in Europe, and in the U.S. it needs to be put before American judges who have been so very fond of selectively citing foreign law to support U.S. decisions (e.g., Lawrence v. Texas). Is foreign court precedent only important when it furthers leftist priorities?
Common sense should lead us to concur with the European Court of Human Rights in at least this much: legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” diminishes, if not completely takes away, the religious liberty of those who have moral objections to such unions. And if same-sex “marriage” is indeed legalized in Britain or France, pastors who remain true to God’s Word and refuse to perform ceremonies for such unions may soon find themselves compelled, or arrested, or both."
2 Comments
Marriage, in modern western civilization, has always been a construct of the Church. Government has afforded a measure of protection to said construct because governments have long recognized that marriage, as defined, is the cornerstone of modern civilization.
Government has no right redefining that which government had no hand in creating.
I am not religious.I believe in marriage only as a secular institution,and only so long as it does not permit same-sex relationships to qualify.The public interest in securing to opposite-sex relationships the preferential treatment to which their being opposite-sex entitles them is not a religious issue.