http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/20/eharmony-forced-to-offer-same-sex-dating-services/

It will be some time before ministers and churches are sued for refusing to ‘marry’ gay and lesbian couples. But that day MUST eventually come because the goal of full social acceptance REQUIRES it.

The problem with using activist judges to impose same-sex marriage upon unwilling state populations is simple but subtle. Once judges rule that refusal to allow SSM is unconstitutional due to the equal protection clause…it LEGALLY forces open the door to ANY other desired form of ‘marriage’.

Polygamy, polyandry, ‘plural’ marriages of any desired configuration…incestuous marriages between consenting adults…

As ‘far-fetched’ as this may seem from a common sense perspective, LEGALLY there would remain no logical basis for CONSTITUTIONALLY excluding these definitions of ‘marriages’.

Who may or may not marry would become ENTIRELY ARBITRARY and thus over time, LEGALLY INDEFENSIBLE.

BECAUSE logically, it WOULD then be DISCRIMINATORY to limit marriage to TWO people, based upon the activist ruling that the equal protection clause makes it unconstitutional to bar SSM.

It will ALSO make it constitutionally MANDATORY that children be taught in public schools that transsexualism, gay lifestyles, plural marriage, etc. are simply another normal sexual inclination because to do otherwise would be to ’support’ discrimination in schools.

The ‘law’ of unintended consequence is fully in effect on this one and the social implications for the very foundations of society are monumental.

The next few generations are about to get a profound lesson in the unintended costs of generational hubris.

On Mars, maybe, but not in the United States. Who do they think does have such authority?

I would think that an argument so clearly absurd and stated so bluntly would (first of all) have a difficult time finding a lawyer to even make it! Don’t lawyers have some responsibility to the constitutionally defined process? (You know, that old stuff: consent of the governed, power vested in the people, legislative not judicial branch makes laws – stuff like that. Outmoded stuff, I guess California would call it.)

I would also think that such an argument made so bluntly and devoid of any pretense of protective cover would find it difficult to be swallowed by even a California judge.

I bet I’m wrong, though.

Good. call.

Rose. Bird.

Judge rebukes school for ‘one-way diversity’
Christian students won a major First Amendment victory in Michigan, after a federal judge chastised school officials for their one-sided support for the “gay” agenda.

Federal Judge Gerald Rosen ruled that Pioneer High School violated the constitutional rights of student Betsy Hansen by censoring her Christian views concerning homosexuality. Last year, during a so-called “Diversity Week” forum at the Ann Arbor school, officials permitted only pro-homosexual viewpoints to be expressed.

Hansen, a Roman Catholic, had been asked to give a speech on the topic, “What Diversity Means to Me,” and to present it during a “Homosexuality and Religion” panel discussion. But the school censored her speech, claiming her religious views toward the topic were negative and would “water-down” the positive message the school wanted to convey.

Ironically, the school did allow an approved religious viewpoint to be presented to students when it permitted six handpicked religious leaders to sit on the panel and quote Scripture – which they claimed was in favor of homosexuality.

In his 70-page opinion, Judge Rosen stated the case “presents the ironic, and unfortunate, paradox of a public high school celebrating ‘diversity’ by refusing to permit the presentation to students of an ‘unwelcome’ viewpoint on the topic of homosexuality and religion, while actively promoting the competing view.” He said the practice of such “one-way diversity” is both unsettling and troubling, and that the exclusion of one viewpoint in favor of another “hardly seems to further the school’s purported objective of ‘celebrating diversity.’”

Source: AgapePress, 12/9/03

I wonder sometimes if proponents of SSM hope their children grow up to be homosexual like they hope they’ll be doctors or lawyers. Maybe they just hope they’ll be happy, regardless of sexual orientation, but I can’t help thinking the first choice would be for a heterosexual relationship.
I think society tolerates homosexuality, but would never wish it for anyone. Which makes it all the more imperative that homosexuality is taught at an early age to be not only acceptable, but desirable, given that in its own right, there is not much to recommend it.
Gay’s have a shorter life expectancy, are more likely to be unfaithful in their relationships and are more likely to suffer emotional problems.
This is the frustration of the gay community, since they certainly don’t think people can be talked into homosexuality, being that it is genetic in nature so it will always be an oddity of nature. Unless, of course, people can be talked into the lifestyle once its benefits can be promoted.

This pretty much sums up my feelings on gay marriage:

We are reluctant to say this today because our culture has been inundated with gay-rights propaganda that carefully avoids the sexual reality of homosexual behavior. Instead the emphasis is on the so-called emotional and romantic aspects. As a result, we feel sympathetic; we may feel like we should capitulate to their demand for marriage in the name of equal treatment. However, equal treatment of persons living the homosexual lifestyle is a completely different issue than redefining marriage. No thinking Christian opposes the equal treatment of homosexuals, because they are fully human persons made in the image of God. Furthermore, gay men and women are free to have sex, experience romantic relationships, and live in whatever arrangement they choose. (Of course, there are consequences to these choices.) What is not their choice is to redefine an institution essential to the social welfare and common good such that these benefits are nullified. The demand for SSM is not about equal dignity and treatment but rather social affirmation of a particular lifestyle.

- S. Michael Craven

I’m with you. I see the gay marriage group as just another bunch of organized narcissists who will never take no for an answer. They aren’t interested in reasonable compromises that have respect for the shared cultural and moral underpinnings of our society. They don’t care about the effects of their wants on children. I have the same reaction to FOCA. I can accept the fact that some people disagree about abortion itself, but I cannot accept that people think it’s great if a 14 or 15 year old has an abortion without the parents’ knowledge. I can’t accept the it’s-no-big-deal attitude. The radical activists in the US need to have a great big let’s-count-our-blessings day instead of acting like spoiled brats.