Today in the LA Times, there’s an article titled “The right to love”. This provocative title assumes that people opposed to re-defining the institution of marriage to something other than a man and a woman, somehow implies that opponents are trying to impose on a homosexual’s “right to love”. It has to be one of the most misleading titles ever published at the LA Times.
Opponents of the re-definition of marriage do not take issue with anything but the very definition of marriage that has been in place for thousands of years and has defined one of the most important institutions during the history of man…Family. Family is directly related to child-bearing and pro-creation, hence man and woman. It is an definition that holds true value to heterosexual families and should not be infringed by those who want to redefine what the majority of Americans call “marriage”.
Let’s be clear, those opposed to re-defining marriage do not take issue with the rights of homosexuals nor do they take issue with homosexuality itself. There are obviously no laws prohibiting homosexuals from the same rights they currently have, and have had, much less laws prohibiting them from “loving” which this article title so ridiculously implies. Gay couples have no more rights today than before this decision by the California Supreme Court came down.
This is not only an infringement on the sanctity of the institution that was established by traditional family values and heterosexual marriage from the beginning of time, but also an infringement on democracy, allowing liberal activist judges to define and create laws, ignoring the 65% of voters of California who voted in 2000 to keep the definition of marriage in its traditional state. In a democracy, what ultimately matters is the will of the people, not activist judges legislating from the bench.
Now the average liberal talking point is:
“The law prohibited interracial marriage in the past so this is just the same thing!”
There is no DIFFERENCE between interracial couples. Interracial marriage should have never been banned for this very reason. On the other hand, there is an obvious biological difference between man and woman and that’s what makes this argument so absurd.
The law doesn’t recognize the right to marry 2 individuals, so wouldn’t that be discriminatory as well? Especially if you’re infringing on the “right to love” as the LA Times puts it? According the gay movement, the answer is yes. What about marriage between man and animal? This grossly negligent decision will open the door up to all kinds of lawsuits where gay couples want their relationships defined as “marriage”. This hurts our society not only here in California, but the rest of America as well because now, if you oppose the definition of marriage as anything but between one man and one woman, you are looked at as homophobic, bigoted or xenophobic.
In 2000, Californians voted overwhelmingly to keep the definition of marriage, as recognized by the state, between one man and one woman. They did not vote to ban gay marriage, nor did they vote to take any rights away from gay couples. They simply voted for the definition of a historical tradition to be upheld, and not to allow another group take away that definition which families have held dear since the beginning of time.
Regardless of what your opinion on gay marriage is, judicial legislation in this manner is a serious blow to the democratic process which is supposed to uphold the values of the people, not the agenda of a handful of politically driven, unaccountable, hand picked judicial activists.
Related posts:
- “Moderate” Malaysia: Government minister defends child marriage laws
- Man says will wait to consummate marriage with 10-year-old Hail girl
- Romney pulls ahead in California
- California: Get ready to have your prints taken when you buy ammunition
- Moroccan cleric issues fatwa – in FAVOR of child marriage
- Indonesian court gives ok to cleric over child marriage
- Pakistan: Girls, aged 5 and 8 given up for marriage to 23 and 15 year old males
- Arranged marriage turns into slavery for UK muslimah from Pakistan
- Amid worldwide outcry, Afghan president to review law legalizing rape in marriage
- University of California muslim students disrupt speech by Israeli Envoy
