What we are seeing unfolding in Scotland is familiar to us fighting to protect marriage here in the states -- gay marriage activists and pro-SSM legislators claim a majority of citizens support redefining marriage, then proceed to deny the people the right to vote on it and demand that it be imposed immediately:
A referendum will not be held on same-sex marriage proposals, the Scottish Government has confirmed.
On Tuesday, the cabinet met over the proposals after they received more than 80,000 responses to a consultation on the issue.
The meeting came after the Catholic Church called on the government to hold a vote on whether same-sex marriage should be legalised.
This was criticised by equal rights campaigners, who also questioned why the SNP government failed to reach a decision on same-sex marriage during the meeting at Bute House.
Tom French, policy coordinator for the Equality Network, a lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transsexual rights group, said: "It is time the Scottish Government demonstrated its leadership on this issue and announced a decision. Same-sex marriage is supported by the majority of Scots and the majority of MSPs. The government have had seven months to analyse the consultation responses and to deal with the detail. We cannot understand why there is any need for further delay. - STV
13 Comments
People who consider themselves to be superior to others always seem to support the redefinition of marriage.
SS"M" supporters always vehemently oppose referendums, no matter how much the polls report "overwhelming" support for the redefinition of marriage. And for good reason.
Every time a referendum on this subject is scheduled, both sides of the issue are expressed - not just the side supported by the main stream media and the government. Whenever the two sides are given equal time, less and less people support SS"M" as they learn how much it compromises religious liberities and deconstructs the natural family setting.
Voting on civil rights is what we object to.
Mantronikk, do you feel inferior for supporting your definition of marriage? I bet not. I bet you feel superior to those that want equality because, you fit your definition of "normal".
This is what's called "forcing your morality down your neighbors throat".
Rover the only thing stopping you from marrying just like everyone else is Rover. Your "civil rights" aren't even in question here.
Actually, I've got a wife and 2 kids. I just care about equalilty. This isn't my fight except for concern for the oppressed (and hated).
Sorry to repost so soon. My family ran the KKK in the Thumb of Michigan in the 1920's. I have to make ammends. We were wrong then (hated Catholics mostly btw), NOM is wrong now.
Redefining marriage is not a civil right, Rover. Neither is using the government to force a radical version of morality onto society and masquerading it as a racial issue.
Rover Serton: You are incorrect. We are the ones who want equality, and your side wants 'equivalence'. Not the same thing. We are mathematically correct. Deal with it.
@Rover - nowhere in the U.S. Constitution where it states that marriage (or even gay marriage) is a civil right. It has been & always be a privilege. So sick & tired of your side always " claiming" that it is a right & it's not. Also your side keeps sounding like a broken record when your side & gays keep "claiming" that it's all about "equality" when it's not.
"When the wicked rule, the people mourn."
@Rover
You don't understand because you don't follow Jesus Christ. Jesus defined marriage in Matthew 19:4-6. You're not fighting against human perception, you're fighting against God.
5
==I just care about equalilty.==
Virtue and vice treated equally?????
I really hate when anti-marriage supporters go on about equality. It is not inequality to uphold a lifestyle that is supported by history, religion, culture, and science. As said in the article, unions provide the same important benefits of property and the like. I’m positive that with the normal countries around, marriage laws are not based on orientation, but on gender. Gays are still men, and lesbians are still women. Thus, there’s no need for one group to get special privileges, especially when those privileges have no legitimate standing. In a truly good government, one person is treated equally as another.
As I often say to people who try arguing this with me: I’ll accept homosexual “marriages” as real and normal when it’s proven that two men or two women can –naturally, no surgery or donation of gametes included– create a child together. If one refuses to fairly observe the religious perspective, the scientific theories of “form follows function”, evolution, and specifically natural selection defeat anti-marriage ideas as well.
Can we please listen to the voices of reason rather than the “I’m entitled to whatever I want” mindset?