Dear LGBT Community, Resistance to Your Community Has Nothing To Do With Being “Phobic”
If it’s not phobia, then why would we resist the LGBT community’s march on the culture? The answer is simple.Read More »
First comes love, Then comes marriage, Then comes…
Last week the New Mexico state Supreme court ruled redefining marriage, mandating that changes be made so as to not “discriminate” based on gender. The decision was 5-0 and the opinion read in part:
We separately consider the purported governmental interests in responsible procreation and responsible child rearing. Regarding responsible procreation, we fail to see how forbidding same-gender marriages will result in the marriages of more opposite-gender couples for the purpose of procreating, or how authorizing same-gender marriages will result in the marriages of fewer opposite gender couples for the purpose of procreating. The discriminatory classification is also glaringly under-inclusive. Discriminatory legislation is under-inclusive if the classification does not include all of those who are similarly situated with respect to the purpose of the law…Regarding the purported legislative goal of responsible procreation, the legislation is under-inclusive because the statutes do not prohibit opposite gender couples from marrying, even if they do not procreate because of age, physical disability, infertility, or choice. Finally, although it is not clear what the opponents of same-gender marriage mean by “responsible procreation,” when childless same-gender couples decide to have children, they necessarily do so after careful thought and considerable expense, because for them to raise a family requires either lengthy and intrusive adoption procedures or assistive reproduction.
Same-gender couples are as capable of responsible procreation as are opposite gender couples. We conclude that there is not a substantial relationship between New Mexico marriage laws and the purported governmental interest in responsible procreation.
So homosexuals can now procreate or reproduce “responsibly” just as heterosexual couples?
The above strikes me as ridiculous considering that there is not ONE chance in a million that a same sex couple will procreate without assistance. Even if the government had interest in assisted reproduction, same sex “married” couples cannot reproduce except with assistance of members of the opposite sex. The court’s reasoning is laced with lunacy. There is no possible “responsible procreation” among same sex partners.
As to child-rearing and stable homes for children, studies show that divorce (or break-up) rates between same-sex couples are substantially higher than divorces between heterosexual couples. Break-ups between Lesbians are the highest, which is common sense, because women are more likely to ask for a divorce than men. High divorce (or break-up) rate is just another reason why homosexual “marriages” are not the direction we need to go and why the “marriages” hurt society.
One Canadian study has shown that children raised by same sex couples are also much less likely to graduate from high school.
We are responsible for our kids– placing them in a situation where they will be less likely to achieve will hurt society.
* * *
Where does this ruling take us?
The trend is troubling.
Earlier this month CBS reported that a federal judge ruled that the ban on polygamy in Utah was unconstitutional. What does this mean to a person bound in heterosexual marriage who discovers s/he is bisexual? Is s/he free to marry a second person s/he loves? After all, if a loving home is what a child needs wouldn’t two moms and one dad, or two dads and one mom be best if all adults are consenting? This is the reasoning that may be coming.
A second troubling case is that of a Kaitlyn Hunt, a young Florida woman who had an inappropriate sexual relationship with a minor. The band of LGBT advocates have been quick to defend Hunt and portray her as a martyr. Hunt enticed a fourteen-year-old and went around the girl’s parents to continue the relationship which lead to a charge of two felony counts of lewd and lascivious battery. LGBT activists insist that this is a case of sexual orientation discrimination, but the fourteen-year-old was under the age of consent. The mere suggestion of condoning this action (regardless of the genders of those involved) shows that LGBT activists are determined to use an case to further their cause, even at the cost of exploiting minors.
Lastly, in an interesting situation earlier this year the American Psychiatric Association, announced that they had been an “error” and that they had not designated pedophilia as a “sexual orientation.” The change had sparked outcry from social conservatives, and it some still question if there was a “declassification” due to the attention the classification made.
* * *
What does the marriage redefinition mean to Christians and the traditional family?
Already one New Mexico county clerk and her chief deputy have resigned from public office in protest of the state Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage. Roosevelt County Clerk Donna Carpenter (Republican) resigned saying, “I felt like I’d be letting down the majority of people who voted for me,” if she followed the court’s mandate and issues same sex marriage licenses. Carpenter’s Democrat Chief Deputy Clerk Janet Collins joined her in resigning and sending a message to those watching across New Mexico.
Looking back at Elane Photography, the on-going story of the New Mexican photographer we see that free speech is under attack. There are a growing number of incidents: Take the New Mexican couple who declines to photograph a same-sex marriage commitment ceremony, but recommends another photographer. Or the Colorado baker refuses to bake a cake that commemorates a same-sex “marriage” reception and gays flip him off as he explained he would be happy to sell them cookies or cupcakes, though he couldn’t bake them a specially designed cake. And a Washington state florist who doesn’t want to provide flowers for a gay wedding, but employs a gay. Through these incidents we see the attacks on Christians who refuse to compromise their beliefs.
* * *
These are not incidents of discrimination, but of principled citizens who have drawn a line and made a statement about where they stand and how their biblical outlook affects their lives.
“Be sober, be vigilant, because your adversary the devil walks about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.”
1 Peter 5:8
Cross-posted from my blog politicalfireball.wordpress.com