Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Homosexual marriage and the very real threat of persecution.

I just came across a great article by Jennifer Roback Morse on the the persecution which will result from legalizing homosexual marriage.

She points out that legally recognizing same sex marriage won't just affect the few homosexual couples who wanted to be married in the eyes of the state, but will lead to the persecution of those don't agreement with or support the practice.

She points out that recognition of homosexual marriage in Massachusetts forced Catholic Charities in Boston to close down their adoption program. A Methodist group in New Jersey lost part of it's tax-exempt status because it refused to sanction a civil union ceremony. A photography in New Mexico, who didn't want to take pictures of a lesbian marriage-type ceremony, was hauled before the state's human rights commission. And in Quebec, a Mennonite school was told they had to teach that homosexuality is merely another acceptable lifestyle.

I'm sure there are lots of other examples that can be found.

As I and others have said, the militant homosexual movement is the biggest threat to religious liberties in our nation. It's also an enormous threat to the foundational institution of our society -- marriage, because it actively seeks to define it out of existence. While divorce and cohabitation are enormous threats to the institution of marriage, there's no organized effort seeking to promote and encourage divorce and cohabitation. Homosexual marriage is a different story.


Nat G said...

"She points out that recognition of homosexual marriage in Massachusetts forced Catholic Charities in Boston to close down their adoption program."

Except, well, that it didn't. The rules in question were in place before the passage of same-sex marriage in MA... and the Catholic Charities were apparently obeying the rules until the passage of same-sex marriage.

And yes, when they insisted on being allowed to discriminate, they were then turned down for the government contract. It seems quite reasonable for a government contractor to be required to provide non-discriminatory service within government guidelines. Would you want a government contract to provide necessary public services to go to, say, a white supremacist church that refused to service blacks and latinos?

Similarly, the New Jersey church was not asked to sanction a civil union ceremony. They had, however, been given a special tax break based on giving everyone access to the property; should they be allowed that tax break when the refuse to live up to their end?

lloydletta said...

Gays just want to be included in the institution of marriage. In your post, you have not made the case about the possibility of gays being included in the institution of marriage threatens heterosexual marriages.

lloydletta said...

Do you have any comment about Norm Coleman's "unconventional marriage". This is from a post by Mitch Berg, who hosts one of the NARN shows on Saturdays on AM 1280 the Patriot:

"It’s been an open secret forever in Saint Paul and Minnesota politics; Norm and his wife have a rather unconventional marriage. Schultz is being disingenuous if he claims this is some big revelation (or, equally likely, the dim little bulb inside his thick little head hasn’t quite quite figured it out yet, and his prime directive, “blow hard first, ask questions later”, is in control). "-- Mitch Berg

What about the irony that the chief sponsors of the Federal Marriage Amendment are David "Hooker" Vitter and Larry Craig?