NOM BLOG

Video: How Does SSM Interfere With Religious Liberty?

 

Kalley Yanta of the Minnesota Marriage Minute explains how redefining marriage affects religious liberty.

She says, "Same-sex marriage impacts the religious freedom of individuals and groups in many profound ways. If marriage is redefined to be genderless and people and groups do not accept that, they will be in conflict with the law and subject to legal consequences. This already has occurred in a variety of ways in other states."

72 Comments

  1. Posted June 13, 2012 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

    Now you're talking.

    It is vital that the astonishing homosexualist indoctrination opportunities in schools, which necessarily follow on the heels of any SS"M" victory, be widely understood by the voters in MN and elsewhere.

    This is a powerful and winning argument.

  2. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

    "When religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict, I'm having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win." Chai Feldblum

    Is constitutional illiteracy a requirement for an Obama appointment?

    This Marriage Minute is a real standout...fantastic!

  3. 14th Amend
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

    "If marriage is redefined to be genderless and people and groups do not accept that, they will be in conflict with the law and subject to legal consequences."

    Another day, another lie from NOM. There is no law that says you have to accept, approve, or like somebody else's marriage. There are people who don't accept interracial marriage, intergenerational marriage, interfaith marriage, 2nd, 3rd and 4th marriages and marriages between simply incompatible people. That doesn't mean those marriages should be banned because some people disapprove. Religious people who hold anti-gay views aren't actually harmed in any way when gay couples are legally joined. They just can't stand the fact that the law will no longer validate their predjudice. Tough s-it.

  4. Carlos
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    If homosexuality is against your religion, change your religion.

    After all, Religion is a choice.

  5. Posted June 13, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    Umm, Carlos, I gave your suggestion some thought and I decided to go ahead and just keep my religion, if it's all the same to you.

    Or even if it isn't.

  6. Posted June 13, 2012 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    14th obviously didn't bother to listen to the evidence of homosexualist indoctrination in schools where SSM has been imposed.

    This is unacceptable, and shows once again how only one view of marriage can prevail.

    The entire purpose of SS"M" is the establishment of legal foundations upon which to indoctrinate society- especially the young- in homosexual anti-values.

    It were unthinkable the American people would acquiesce in such a thing.

    And so we see why, 33 straight times, they have not.

  7. Carlos
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    Rick, feel free to keep your religion but please don't force your choice on others.

  8. Posted June 13, 2012 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

    But Carlos, forcing is not in our nature.

    It is the homosexualist who needs, at a deep level, to impose the anti-values of homosexualism on society.

    As for marriage, it is clearly the will of the people- those of faith, and those not of faith- to defend it against the homosexualist propaganda-by-redefinition-of-words strategy.

    More will be clear this November.

  9. Posted June 13, 2012 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

    Why, Carlos, live and let live is the preferred option for us, but once you targeted marriage you created a problem that I do not think most of your co-thinkers yet even begin to grasp.

    But that's OK.

    There's a final exam coming in November.

  10. David Argue
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

    'If homosexuality is against your religion, change your religion.

    After all, Religion is a choice.

    A homosexual lifestyle is also a choice. One can be a homosexual and choose not to engage in such behaviors. The gay activists would have people believe that, because we are against SSM, we hate all of them. (Hence the bigot, anti-gay, homophobe verbage I see commonly used) They use that presumption to drum up emotional support for their cause.

  11. Pete
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

    "A homosexual lifestyle is also a choice. One can be a homosexual and choose not to engage in such behaviors. "

    And yet the greater medical and psychological communities say you are wrong. And since they are far more in numbers than NOMers and much more credible, I'm going with them. And by the way, you earned all that verbiage.

  12. Pete
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

    Newt Gingrich changed his wife three times and his religion once. And Look how well he's done

  13. Posted June 13, 2012 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    Well, Pete I guess that makes you one vote for SS"M".

    We'll find a way to soldier on somehow :-)

  14. Carlos
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

    The gay activists would have people believe that, because we are against SSM, we hate all of them. (Hence the bigot, ... verbage I see commonly used).

    To be clear, definition of bigot is:

    A person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards the members of a group with intolerance.

    If the shoe fits, wear it.

  15. Randy E King
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

    Carlos,

    The very fact that you are able to pose here proves NOM's tolerance. Yet I have been banned from a half a dozen pro-marriage corruption sites - including MSNBC.

  16. 14th Amend
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    homosexualist indoctrination (noun) -
    1. the acknowledgment that gay people exist

  17. 14th Amend
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

    Rick wrote: "14th obviously didn't bother to listen to the evidence of homosexualist indoctrination in schools where SSM has been imposed."

    Your baseless claims aside, are you ok with legalized same sex marriage if the fact that gay people exist is not discussed in schools?

  18. Posted June 13, 2012 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

    Thank goodness for our Constitution. Worth protecting!

  19. 14th Amend
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    @ DOE: Agreed, it is worth protecting, especially the part about equal protection under the law. That's the part that leads courts to strike down DOMA and state level marriage bans.

  20. David Argue
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

    @Pete - Sorry to disagree, but there is no evidence of the so called 'gay' gene. If you know of a study done by a reputable source, I'd be glad to review it. As far as I know, there is only a propensity for some people to be homosexual. And even then, if you identify yourself as homosexual, it is still a choice you make to engage in homosexual activity. As Captain Kirk once said. 'We can admit we're killers, but we won't kill today' :-)

    @Carlos - you didn't include the latter part of that definition -'one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance' As I mentioned, you seem to think we hate you. Thinking we do is not being that way. We just disagree on this issue. Unfortunately, the LGBT community seems to fit this part of the definition more closely, judging from the comments I've seen.

    @14 amend - I can't claim ownership of this definition, but I only use it to counter your indoctrination one in jest:
    'Homophobe – Someone who disagrees with anything a gay rights activist says or does'

  21. Posted June 13, 2012 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

    14th asks:

    " are you ok with legalized same sex marriage if the fact that gay people exist is not discussed in schools"

    Nope. Same sex "marriage" is a contradiction in terms, like "round flatness" or "white blackness".

    But let us imagine for a moment that some way existed to preserve the innocent minds of children from the inevitable homosexualist indoctrination consequent upon the imposition of SS"M".

    Such a triage would certainly make the campaign more difficult for us.

    You guys should have thought of that..........

    Oh, that's right, you did, planning all along to gut marriage as a means of legally enforcing homosexualist indoctrination in the workplace and in schools.

    Well, it was a cute ploy but it does involve the risk of political backlash.

  22. Woody
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

    @David-

    There is no such thing as a "Christian gene" but we'll still protect the right for people to choose to be Christian.

  23. 14th Amend
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

    "Nope. Same sex "marriage" is a contradiction in terms, like "round flatness" or "white blackness".

    OK, so "indoctination" isn't your concern. We're just back to the utterly subjective "cuz it's just wrong". And sorry to break it to you... again... but same-sex marriage is not a contradiction in terms. In 7 states, its a legal reality. You're not going to win with this silly definition strategy you keep falling back on. So down goes your other argument. What else ya got?

  24. 14th Amend
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

    Oh and Rick, your indoctrination argument (your objection to simply acknowledging that some people are gay) is pure bigotry because it's based on the notion that gay people are something to be hidden, feared, and denied. It's essentially "I'm not bigoted, but gay people shouldn't have civil rights because *I* am opposed to children bring indoctrinated into the idea that gay people exist and deserve equal treatment under the law."

  25. Posted June 13, 2012 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

    Homosexuals have the prefect right to pursue their lives in the way which seems best to them.

    Homosexualists do not have the right to impose their values on our children.

    It its precisely in the marriage battle that the first objective is used as political and legal cover for the second

    There really is not much more to say, in terms of the debate.

    It has come down to a political battle between two irreconcilable world views, only one of which can prevail.

    In such circumstances it helps to have the votes, the law, and five thousand years of history on our side.

    It's enough.

  26. Austin
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

    I still do not understand what children have to do with this debate. Yes, they will learn faster than in the past that gay men and women exist and that, yes, there are various types of family structures. It is not the jobs of schools to teach these children what structure is the correct one, for many of them do not belong to what NOMer's consider ideal. It is the job of parents to instill religious values in their children, to temper the knowledge they have been given at school, to reframe it in a way consistent with their beliefs, or to acknowledge that their faith does not believe the facts.

    Religion in this country has damaged this country in ways that we cannot yet comprehend. The rest of the world actually laughs at the fact that a large population of Americans think the following:
    1. The Earth is only thousands of years old
    2. Dinosaurs never existed and are a conspiracy
    3. Human beings can never cause change to the environment because God will no allow it
    4. Science is somehow trying to destroy religion
    5. "Secular" is now a dirty word
    6. All things good come from God, and all things bad come from the devil; man has no say
    7. The Bible, a translated and retranslated book that whose existence and content was voted on by man hundreds of years after the happenings, is somehow the final word on everything.

    I live in an America where you can believe anything you want. But when you publicly try to maintain that the rest of the country should change to your religious values, then we have a problem.

  27. John Noe
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

    Carlos says:

    If homosexuality is against your religion, change your religion.

    After all, Religion is a choice.

    Now let us examine that. Our Creator almighty Yahweh thru his only son Jesus Christ says we can follow him and receive eternal life in the kingdom of God or burn in Hell and pay for our rejection. Yes religion like sexual behavior is a choice and I will stay with the choice I have made.

    He also said:
    Rick, feel free to keep your religion but please don't force your choice on others.

    Did you bother at all to watch the video? It proved it is the sodomites who are forcing their choice on us.

  28. Randy E King
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 9:09 pm | Permalink

    Religion is the first to receive heightened scrutiny protection; in that the founding fathers knew religion to be immutable and innate. Sexual depravity only warrants the same rational basis protections afforded all bottom feeders.

  29. Randy E King
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

    Correction:

    The first to receive Strict Scrutiny protection...

  30. Posted June 13, 2012 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

    Austin:

    I believe you were exactly what they had in mind when they coined the term "straw man argument".

    Your post above is truly textbook. :-)

  31. Austin
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 10:04 pm | Permalink

    Rick:

    Then why not counter my points?

    My beef is a person holding their religious beliefs as a pretext for discrimination. You might feel justified that your religion is the reason you are discriminating, but you are none the less discriminating. Once we can move past this recent shift in America where people think they have the right to take the doctrine of church into a secular society where we all play by the same rules, I think we can have a more reasonable debate.

    It is unfair for Christians to say that their religious beliefs are the reason they chose to enact laws that have but one effect: to formally and unequivocally deny the rights and responsibilities of two loving people to be recognized by the government they serve with their tax dollars. It is unequal treatment, it is unjust, and it must be opposed.

  32. Randy E King
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

    Austin,

    Being mindful of the fact that love is not quantifiable; in what way are you being discriminated against exactly?

    You do not have history or tradition to fall back on and our laws are rooted in history and tradition.

  33. Randy E King
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 10:17 pm | Permalink

    Additionally Austin,

    I will not surrender my heightened scrutiny protections just because you believe it is unfair that my faith is recognized as immutable under the U.S. Constitution; whereas your depravity is not.

  34. Austin
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

    If religion is immutable and innate, but clearly not, then why is human sexuality not considered as immutable and innate. There is nothing biological about religion, there is not even environmental factors that come into play in the selection of religion. Being a particular religion is the purest of choices and in today's world many people have chosen to change religions or give up religion all together. With such ease of change from religion to religion, why does religion still get heightened protection from our country when a minority whose characteristics are at the very least environmentally influenced and at most biological, does not?

    It seems to me that you want your cake and want to eat it too. You want the government to protect our religious values thereby asking the government to turn a blind eye to the treatment of a segment of the population deemed repugnant by your religion... all in the name of religious freedom. But, its all about love, right? Treating others as you would want to be treated? Or is that something that just goes in on Sunday mornings and is forgotten after the game?

  35. Posted June 13, 2012 at 10:22 pm | Permalink

    Austin:

    Because your points are straw men. There is no point refuting what is false in the first place.

    Your mischaracterization of Christian views is, exactly, a "straw man argument"; that is, it refutes itself, by failing to accurately set forth the opposition's own position.

    It is always ever so much easier to argue against a straw man, but then again, the "victory" is perfectly empty.......

  36. Austin
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 10:29 pm | Permalink

    History and tradition tells me that if I want to enact laws to enslave people then I should be allowed to do so, because it has been legal for the VAST part of human history, and still is in some countries.

    History and tradition tells me that marriage before the 1800's was predominantly a property transaction, whereby fathers promised their daughters and sons in exchange for property rights. Arranged marriages were the norm.

    History and tradition tells me that the Christian church once solemnized same-sex unions in the church. Although they did not call it marriage, the church recognized the union.

    History and tradition tells me that I should be allowed to throw African-Americans to the back of the bus because it is the way it was done.

    History and tradition may tell me to do a lot of crazy things that no one in their right mind would do today. The enlightenment did not end in the industrial revolution. People continue to grow and old prejudices fall by the wayside.

    Finally, you ask how I am being discriminated? How about being denied 1200+ federal benefits from the government who I pay taxes to? Yes, these are legal and financial rights and privileges, but they are an indication from the government that my relationship is recognized as my heterosexual counterparts. In todays world, being gay is still an offense that can get you fired with no recourse. Several states have tried changing this, but it still exists.

  37. Austin
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 10:30 pm | Permalink

    What points are straw man arguments? Please enlighten me. I know what the term means and I believe that I directly attack your points. If I am not, please tell me how I am not.

  38. Austin
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 10:32 pm | Permalink

    Also, if I have mischaracterized Christian views please point them out.

  39. Posted June 13, 2012 at 10:34 pm | Permalink

    You mischaracterize the position of your opponent, rendering your argument false in its very essence.

    If you wish to divert this blog off into an examination of Christian beliefs, then properly and accurately set those beliefs forth.

    Until then, I will merely point out the truth that your argument suffers from the fatal logical flaw:

    "Straw man argumentation".

  40. Randy E King
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

    Austin,

    You are not paying attention.

    Religion is recognized as immutable an innate under the United States Constitution (Period)

    There are on three classes afforded Strict Scrutiny protections under the U.S. Constitution:

    RELIGION
    Race
    Gender

    Race and Gender would not have been afforded these protections if it were not for the FACT that the wise founders of this great nation so the value in afforded Strict Scrutiny protection to Religion. Your depravity does not even warrant an honorable mention which probably explains why you have such disdain for people of faith. Fortunately for us the founding fathers knew that you would be coming back.

  41. Austin
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 10:40 pm | Permalink

    K Rick. This whole blog was about religious freedoms and gay marriage.

    I attacked the religious side. Unless you want to counter my points, I will consider the debate forfeit from your end. If not, state your position now, and I will respond.

  42. Randy E King
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 10:43 pm | Permalink

    Austin,

    Save your blatant lies and falsehoods for the cheerleaders over at the HRC.

    You are not being denied anything without due process of law. If you want the benefits you claim you deserve than find a member of the opposite sex to settle down with just like everybody else.

  43. Posted June 13, 2012 at 10:43 pm | Permalink

    No, Austin.

    I am not responsible for educating you on this subject.

    You have advanced false, straw man mischaracterizations of a subject upon which you claim to possess expertise.

    Go educate yourself and come over and visit me on my blog if you would care to examine questions such as:

    1. The age of the Earth and cosmos
    2. The existence of dinosaurs
    3. The actual teaching of the Church concerning stewardship over creation
    4. The proper relationship of science to the superior domains of metaphysics and theology
    5. The proper relationship of the Church and State
    6. The proper relationship of God to man
    7. The correct teaching concerning the authorship and interpretation of Scripture.

  44. Austin
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 10:50 pm | Permalink

    Y'all are great people. Be a gay man and marry some unsuspecting woman for financial and legal benefit. You wont cry foul over that?

    As for religious views, they are many. Your particular church may differ from others, but there are common themes.

    Have a good night. I cannot argue with people that say what I say does not counter their point and then refuse to state their point or position. Your silence implicates you more than your words.

  45. Randy E King
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 10:55 pm | Permalink

    "asking the government to turn a blind eye to the treatment of a segment of the population deemed repugnant by your religion"

    I view your depravity as repugnant; my religion views your depravity as an abomination.

    Repugnant: offensive and completely unacceptable

    Abomination: something that is immoral, disgusting, or shameful

  46. Posted June 13, 2012 at 10:55 pm | Permalink

    Well then Austin, I suppose we can conclude that you have lost by default :-)

    Just kidding.

    Go in peace, and come back when you can avoid the logical fallacy of the straw man argument.

  47. Fitz
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 11:33 pm | Permalink

    Rick (writes)

    "It has come down to a political battle between two irreconcilable world views, only one of which can prevail."

    Yes it has...

    "In such circumstances it helps to have the votes, the law, and five thousand years of history on our side."

    Rick...you forgot elemental biology...

  48. 14th Amend
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 11:46 pm | Permalink

    " founding fathers knew religion to be immutable and innate"

    Bwahahahaha! Randy that might be the most absurd thing you've ever written here. Congrats!

  49. Posted June 13, 2012 at 11:48 pm | Permalink

    Fitz:

    Right you are!

  50. 14th Amend
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 11:49 pm | Permalink

    Rick writes: "You mischaracterize the position of your opponent, rendering your argument false in its very essence."

    Which is exactly what you do each time you accuse gay rights advocates of trying to indoctrinate children. Pot meet kettle.

  51. Randy E King
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 11:57 pm | Permalink

    14th,

    Religion, Race, and Gender is afforded Strict Scrutiny protection under the United States Constitution. Sexual depravity does not even rank an honorable mention.

  52. Randy E King
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 11:59 pm | Permalink

    14th,

    If you do not want to be accused of indoctrinating other peoples children into your depravity then maybe you should stop trying to indoctrinate other peoples children into your depravity.

    Just saying! ;)

  53. 14th Amend
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 12:08 am | Permalink

    Randy writes: "I view your depravity as repugnant; my religion views your depravity as an abomination."

    I view your ignorance and bigotry as repugnant. But I'm not trying to change the Constitution to deny your right to be a repugnant bigot. Screw your religion. You don't get to use it as a weapon against others then claim it's off limits for scrutiny or criticism. You want to amend constitutions to deny the rights of gay people to marry claiming that it is necessary to protect your religious freedom. Bulls--t! The inconvenient fact for you is that legalizing same sex marriage doesn't include or require any alteration to the First Amendment. You csn spew you slippery slope, religious liberty rhetoric and fear mongering until you're blue in the face. It can't change this simple fact: gay rights advocates are not trying to alter the wording of constititions to limit to your freedom of religion but you are trying to change the wording of constitutions to limit their freedom to marry. 

  54. Randy E King
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 12:12 am | Permalink

    14th,

    You do not have a constitutional right to corrupt marriage. The 1st Amendment is your enemy and you are trying to get at it by changing the meaning of words - but we are on to you now.

    "If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything." Confucius

  55. Randy E King
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 12:20 am | Permalink

    What you fail/refuse to understand is that my religion is a weapon and I have a Constitutionally protected right to use it as my conscience dictates.

    "Jesus is My Rock, My Sword, My Shield"

  56. Randy E King
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 12:28 am | Permalink

    Ephesians 6:17

    "...take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God"

  57. Posted June 14, 2012 at 2:08 am | Permalink

    Ummm, "the laws of nature and nature's God", 14th, if that rings any bells.

    Clearly the views of the Founding Fathers concerning the natural law, and its Author, are in polar opposition to the profoundly anti-Christian (specifically) and anti-religious (in general) world view of the marriage corruption movement.

  58. Posted June 14, 2012 at 3:38 am | Permalink

    I think #52 above sums it up well, 14th.

  59. Posted June 14, 2012 at 3:42 am | Permalink

    14th says:

    "You want to amend constitutions to deny the rights of gay people to marry claiming that it is necessary to protect your religious freedom. "

    This is false.

    Gay people are free to marry, just like anybody else.

    The marriage corruption movement seeks to destroy marriage, in an hysterically ill-advised conception of its own interests.

  60. Albert C. Kliwer
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 6:44 am | Permalink

    This debate has become like the "Tower of Babel". I'd like to know, would any of NOM's " traditional marriage" advocates be objective to teaching children at any age you choose this simple phrase: "Boys like girls, and girls like boys; but once in a while, a boy will like a boy, and a girl will like a girl. And that's okay too." they're answer to this question

  61. Albert C. Kliwer
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 6:48 am | Permalink

    *Their answer to this question will surely indicate if this issue is truly about marriage.

  62. 14th Amend
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 7:17 am | Permalink

    "Gay people are free to marry, just like anybody else."

    "It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all." - Iowa Supreme Court is Varnum v. Brien

  63. Randy E King
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 8:42 am | Permalink

    14th,

    The 1st Amendment is your enemy because not only does it afford Strict Scrutiny protections to those that stand in opposition to your design it also protects their right to speak in opposition to – SCOTUS has already held that speech is not limited to what you say…

  64. Randy E King
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 8:46 am | Permalink

    14th,

    Was that the opinion of one of the Iowa (3) removed from the bench by the people in opposition to their ridiculous assertion, or was it from one of the others targeted for removal in the next election?

  65. Randy E King
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 8:50 am | Permalink

    Albert,

    Public schools should not concern themselves of any ideology what-so-ever. Schools should be a place to learn about language, math, and scientific fact; as opposed to the indoctrination camps your propose.

    Feelings are not quantifiable.

  66. David Argue
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 9:47 am | Permalink

    @woody - 'There is no such thing as a "Christian gene" but we'll still protect the right for people to choose to be Christian.'

    You missed the point that I was trying to make. I was saying that homosexuality was a behavior, and by changing the definition of marriage to be based on a behavior causes the definition itself to fluctuate depending upon the whims of whatever special interest group is making noise at the moment. We don't base marriage on whether a person is a Christain either. Whatever behavior you choose to engage in should not influence the definition of marriage.

  67. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    14th -

    "....the complete context of marriage...."

    There is no context of the definition of marriage. There is context in how others view marriage, but that does not change the definition. The people of Iowa knew this; that 's why they booted those faux judges.

    Marriage IS the union of a man and woman with no sexual orientation requirement (see infra this site the story of the guy with SSA who got married to a woman and is living happily ever after). Go get married like that guy if you want to get married.

  68. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    Ok, Albert, I'll bite. The issue with the question is that it is phrased using homosexualists terms regarding marriage; i.e., the words "like" and "love" are used, implying that those terms form the essence of marriage.

    The better phrase on which to base your assessment, would separate the the like/love element from marriage, since the essence of marriage is based in the procreative and complementary nature of male and female:

    "Boys like girls and girls like boys; but once in a while, a boy will like a boy, and a girl will like a girl. And that's ok. But if a boy or a girl wants to have babies, then a boy has to marry a girl and a girl has to marry a boy to make sure that the baby has a mommy and a daddy. " There, fixed it.

  69. leehawks
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

    One of the Founders, President John Adams said: "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

  70. Posted June 14, 2012 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    leehawks:

    Thank you so much for that quote.

    It is not only true, it is a completely devastating insight into what has gone so wrong in our nation.

  71. Posted June 14, 2012 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

    "Boys like girls and girls like boys; but once in a while, a boy will like a boy, and a girl will like a girl. And that's ok. But if a boy or a girl wants to have babies, then a boy has to marry a girl and a girl has to marry a boy to make sure that the baby has a mommy and a daddy. " There, fixed it."

    Zing!

  72. Publius
    Posted June 15, 2012 at 2:32 am | Permalink

    The Iowa court’s analysis of the “total context of marriage” is strikingly at odds with the SCOTUS (see Murphy v. Ramsey and Baker v. Nelson) and the citizens of Iowa.

    The notion that the total context of marriage requires the state to recognize every deeply felt sexual desire by redefining marriage to accommodate it was so novel, so foreign, and so shocking to the citizens of Iowa that they removed every member of their court who was up for a retention vote at their first opportunity.