Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

MARRIAGE: Radicals would diminish marriage

Letter by Vince A. Wagner, University Place on June 12, 2012 at 1:50 pm with 71 Comments »
June 12, 2012 2:39 pm

An organizer of Olympia’s Capitol City Pride Parade was quoted as saying, “It’s hate that we still have to combat” (TNT, 6-11).

Most know intuitively that something is wrong with the legalization of homosexual “marriage.” Most understand that it is not homosexuality, but marriage, that is under attack.

Christians don’t hate homosexuals. In fact, we are called to treat homosexuals with dignity. But we are also called to oppose, with vigor, the immoral changes homosexuals are demanding imposed on all of society.

The homosexual agenda is the universal acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle, to do away with the nonsensical “husband and wife-father and mother” part of marriage and the family. The homosexual agenda is to turn marriage into anything, then everything, and eventually nothing.

Jesus taught that marriage between a man and a woman is a sacrament designed by God that serves as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and his church. The radical homosexual movement ridicules the time-honored institution and scoffs at the wisdom of the creator.

Homosexual “marriage” will forever change the family. Children will grow up in a sexuality fog as they will be raised to believe that men and women are interchangeable. Children will be raised to believe that marriage is about “tolerance,” that gender is inconsequential, and that it is not to provide children with both a father and a mother in a safe and loving environment.

Countless fatherless and motherless homes will be created on purpose in the name of “equality.”
Is protecting traditional marriage not worth our utmost efforts?

Leave a comment Comments → 71
  1. cadana1961 says:

    On what basis do you lay your claim that countless fatherless/motherless homes will be created on purpose in the name of equality? From where I stand, divorce is rampant among man/woman marriages … Until you clean up that side of the fence, your “fact-less” point is quite baseless … In turn, tolerance (or better yet, acceptance), is and should always be taught in every home, valuing each other for who they are, and not for just what they are! And for every Christian I know, ya all say you love the, as you put it, “homosexual,” but I have yet to truly see the agape love ever demonstrated … If you really want to be Christ-like, quit spouting the labels, turn off the demonizing rhetoric and listen … You just might learn something!

  2. charliebucket says:

    please, nobody lump me in with Vince’s kind of Christianity.

    yikes. blech.

  3. ThinkerDem says:

    Since you claim to be a Christian who does not hate homosexuals, we must assume you are writing from ignorance.

    Same-sex civil marriage will not change the nature of your marriage or any other heterosexual marriage, nor will its existence “impose” anything at all on “society”, much less on any church, temple, or mosque’s right to decide to whom they will grant their own marriage rite. In terms of damage to the institution of marriage, heterosexuals are managing to inflict considerable damage without any help from homosexuals. If, as you say, they wanted to destroy the institution of marriage, why would they aspire to be part of it?

    Be careful about putting words from the New Testament into the mouth of Jesus, since most of the gospel writers never met him and many church doctrines, such as the perpetual virginity of Mary were decided hundreds of years post-Jesus by the majority vote of a clutch of old men in red dresses, beanies and satin ballet slippers. Not to put all the blame on Catholics, Martin Luther’s view of a wife’s proper role in marriage, “kinder, kirsche,Kuche” (children, church, and kitchen)has been more honored in the breach than the observance.

    Bull Connor claimed he didn’t hate the blacks he set the dogs and his thug cops on in Selma. He was defending the “institution” of segregation.

  4. Vince is a member of the same type of Christianity that drawled out their love of blacks while denying them the right to marry whomever they wanted to or to go to school with their children. He’s the type of Christian who is absolutely certain about what God wants in other peoples’ lives but ignores applying Jesus’ commandments in his own.

    I hope no one who is not a Christian thinks that Jesus has anything to do with the intolerance and hypocrisy oozing from this letter. It is entirely man-made not Godly.

  5. Theefrinker says:

    Marriage is under attack the same way voting was under attack when women wanted to vote. Marriage is under attack the same way education was under attack when black Americans wanted to be able to receive one. Also, marriage is clearly not sacred anyway; quit acting as though the world would end if homosexual partners are allowed to experience divorce like anybody else.

  6. aislander says:

    Given the obscene number of out-of-wedlock births we are experiencing and the terrible consequences that result, we shouldn’t do anything that devalues marriage, including so-called same-sex “marriage…”

  7. Vince, you obviously have failed to read your bible. stop listening to the preacher and read the book. jesus said nothing against homosexuals or their consensual partners, especially not in the context of marriage as you would have us believe. jesus said that we are not intended to be divorced, “what god has joined together, let not man separate”, but then he says that Moses changed gods intended law afterwards.

    then paul said, “But now, we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are slaves not to the old written code” (Romans), and warned (Galatians), “You who want to be justified by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ, you have fallen from grace.”

    and jesus taught, “love your neighbor as yourself,” “judge not lest ye be judged,” “blessed are the merciful” and “in vain they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 22,7,5 and 15).

    Vince!? are you following the levitical code? do you eat shellfish or pig? do you have any tattoos? do you ever wear polycotten blends? have you kept leftovers for 3 days?

    we stopped taking the levitical code literally long long ago. you should stop using ancient letters as an excuse to suppress fellow americans. do u think we should force widows to marry their dead husbands brother? thats what the bible says. well?

    and institution of marriage? really? historically people traded their teen daughters for a goat. marriage is a legal document, not a religious practice. gay people have been getting married since the ming dynasty, since the roman empire, theyve been around as long as everyone else.

  8. the ancient musings of desert dwellers… i kinda like that

  9. Christians don’t own all the rights to marriage. If Jesus were here today, he wouldn’t even associate with these so called christians.

  10. LeePHill says:

    Vince, is gay marriage going to make you change and marry a man?

  11. taxedenoughintacoma says:

    Considering the volatility this issue brings out in us I have to say this is the best letter on this issue. I agree with the author 100% and I hope the R-74 folks get Mr. Wagner to speak for them.
    On behalf of the majority out there that want a vote on this important issue I want to thank Mr. Wagner for his bravery. Well done, Sir.

  12. tax — the majority that wants to vote away the rights of the minority? go democracy!

  13. SwordofPerseus says:

    There is nothing brave about hatred, ignorance, intolerance or

    Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction. …The chain reaction of evil — hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars — must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.
    Martin Luther King, Jr., Strength to Love (1963).

  14. Poor Vince.

  15. took14theteam says:

    New monikers I see….

    Why did you have to change again Larry?

    Now who was it that used to say “yikes” all the time…

  16. aislander, were you being ironic when you said: “Given the obscene number of out-of-wedlock births we are experiencing and the terrible consequences that result, we shouldn’t do anything that devalues marriage, including so-called same-sex “marriage.”

    Many families headed by gays adopt, and more often than heterosexal adoptions, difficult to adopt children are given a loving family because of gay parents adopting.

    Since it has been pointed out many times by anti-gay marriage commenters that same-sex couples do not naturally procreate, it seems that gay marriages would only help the issue you bring up about problems created by heterosexuals.

  17. averageJoseph says:

    LPH… LMAO! I guess your prediction was 180 degrees off.

  18. yabetchya says:

    Who really cares? I know many elderly who will Marry in their church, who forgo the “marriage licence” Just because the WOMEN/MEN who lose their spouse to death, the retirement should not be lost when they remarry…by the state. These Women/Men who loved, lived, with their spouse of 20, 30, 40,years are punished.
    In my opinion, if you are lucky enough to find the person who you know above all will be there, accept you as you are and will love you in spite of who YOU are You are BLESSED.

  19. Fibonacci says:

    Since there is marriage in the church and there is civil marriage, those who are opposed to gay marriage can choose to attend churches that refuse to marry homosexuals. But for CIVIL marriage, that is really nothing more than a contract. I personally believe that marriages is between a man and a woman, but my personal beliefs should not be the basis for what others believe. Let the gays get married in a CIVIL manner and those churches that are willing to marry them, and those opposed to gay marriage can belong to churches that are opposed. It is just not right to VOTE on what someone else can or can’t do. Would it be OK to VOTE women no longer have the vote? Or to VOTE that blacks and whites can’ t marry?

    The funny thing is, no matter how this “vote” goes, not too many years down the road gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states and people will look back and wonder what the big deal was.

  20. notimetobleed says:

    Homosexual Lifestyle? I have a heteo lifestyle but I don’t rememeber choosing it.

    Immoral changes? Who are you to judge what it moral?

    Children will be raised with tolerance? Oh no not tolerance!

    Fatherless and Motherless homes? Like there aren’t plenty of those now from the heteros? You should be rallying against deadbeat dads Vince!

  21. aislander says:

    Way to miss the point and address a different issue, tuds…

  22. vingrotto says:

    Heterosexuals devalue marriage everyday. Get off your soapbox.

  23. aislander says:

    The behavior of individuals is entirely different from the behavior of a society as an organism, and has entirely different consequences for the society…

  24. frankiethomas says:

    We don’t live in your CHURCH Vince. DUH!!! How are you NOT getting this. Also in the states where marriage equality exists, heterosexual marriage is no worse off. And the straights are doing just fine mucking it up on their own. GAWD. So sick of reading the opinions and realizing what dolts I am surrounded by. Exceptions noted.

  25. So according to Vince if you are in a church you have a matrimonial relationship with christ. So why is anyone who claims to be christian allowed to marry? Not only do you cheat on Jesus himself, but if you are a man you are also having a gay relationship with Jesus? You claim homosexuals scoff at the wisdom of the creator. You scoff at it by demeaning and ridiculing gay love. After all, do you not believe your god made gay people, too? Or do YOU get to choose what is of god and what not?

  26. LeePHill says:

    What has Newt Gingrich done for the institution of marriage?

  27. aislander, if I missed your point that heterosexuals are having too many out-of-wedlock babies, then what was your point in bringing it up?

    Gay marriage does not contribute to that problem and even offers a solution (to the specific issue that you presented, not me) so it actually adds value instead of “devalues”. So what is the point I am missing?

  28. Octomom? Rush Limbaugh?

  29. As can be expected, those who quote religion cannot be expected to give a logical reason for their position

  30. kareen01 says:

    Well Vince, have you read the law? I have and I certainly do not agree with you. The legislators were very careful to make sure that it protected the “rights” of churches that did not want to “marry” any LGBT to do so. Marriage is and has been a “civil” contract (remember, you have to get a marriage license from the state). I do not see this as a problem. If you chose to look at just snippets of the Bible, perhaps you should look at Matthew 19:11-12 to see what Jesus has to say about homosexuals. Also, did you know that the “church” used to marry gays?? http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Marriage.html Also,
    http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html Perhaps you should broaden your education instead of just condemning what God has made ..remember..He “Don’t make No JUNK”!!

  31. aislander says:

    If knock-off Rolexes were treated as if they were genuine, tuds, what would that do to the value of the real thing?

  32. homosexuals are knock off heterosexuals? or is it vice versa?

  33. CT7 is only against drones and they use when Obama uses them.
    Sumy – you prefer we expand boots-on-the-ground? Drones are just one tool Obama has used better than Nameless. Obama has also used US airpower, intelligence gathering, and special operation forces to protect American.

  34. Fibonacci says:

    Um, xring–wrong post

  35. aislander says:

    You’re a NiceGuy, but…

  36. tacomarph says:

    No, what I think what was stated was that expensive weddings are legitimate, but that cheap weddings are knock-offs ;)

  37. alindasue says:


    I know this is a little off track, but I’m curious what church believes in “the perpetual virginity of Mary”?

    Mary had other children after Jesus and, as far as I know, only one of her children was conceived by virgin means (that, of course, being Jesus). I don’t know how many children she and Joseph had together but, during the story where Jesus turns water into wine at the wedding, it makes reference to his brothers and sisters being there. Also, one of the later apostles (after the original twelve) mentioned in the New Testament was James, the brother of Jesus.

    Back to the topic of this letter, the objections to same-sex marriage all seem to be based on religious beliefs. Although I also feel that acting on homosexual urges is sinful, I also strongly believe in the sanctity of our constitutional right to freedom of religion. If we start writing civil laws based on religious beliefs, whose do we base them on? Yours? Mine? How can we really write such laws without impugning on the religious freedom of others?

    Should the government really be telling consenting adults who they can and can’t marry?

  38. aislander says:

    alindasue writes: “Should the government really be telling consenting adults who they can and can’t marry?”

    Marriage as it is being discussed in this thread IS a governmental action, so, yes, the government can set criteria for who qualifies and how. And always has.

    Consenting adults can do what they wish, short of harming other people or property. I think we should give societal standards the same level of protection we afford people and property. One could argue those standards are equally vital to the survival of the culture.

  39. “Given the obscene number of out-of-wedlock births we are experiencing and the terrible consequences that result, we shouldn’t do anything that devalues marriage, including so-called same-sex “marriage…””

    I think I just threw up a little bit….

  40. surething says:


  41. aislander – the value of my marriage has nothing to do with the price of Rolexes…or whether or not anyone else values my marriage besides my wife and me.

  42. Interesting though, that you would compare a legal contract (which some view as a sacred rite) with the price of a pretentious luxury item – does clarify your value system.

  43. alindasue says:

    I asked: Should the government really be telling consenting adults who they can and can’t marry?

    aislander replied, “Marriage as it is being discussed in this thread IS a governmental action, so, yes, the government can set criteria for who qualifies and how. And always has.”

    Note that I didn’t ask if the government can tell consenting adults who the can and can’t marry. I asked if the government SHOULD do so. There’s a huge difference.

    By your reasoning, there’s nothing wrong with telling people they can’t marry because they are of different racial backgrounds or their blood types are incompatible – both “government criteria for who qualifies” in the past. Why don’t we take it one step further and deny marriages to people outside their social class or because the applying partners were born under conflicting zodiac signs.

    Do you really see nothing wrong with this?

  44. commoncents says:

    Alindasue – I agree with you but you know the next response is that they can still marry but just not those of the same gender because it’s really a choice you see…. Around and and around we go. I

    Personally I find it humorous that people who normally are anti-government involvement deviate from that perspective when it comes to persuing their own agenda. Let the people decide if we should discriminate because discrimination is ok if the majority wants it but don’t touch my guns! Yes, I do realize that my right to own the ak-47 is due to an interpretation of the 2nd amendment while not specifically addressing AK-47’s but I refuse to provide such a broad interpretation to gay marriages.

  45. aislander says:

    alindasue: Of course I see something wrong with the scenario you describe, but that has nothing to do with my point. Under the current system, all men and women have exactly the same rights and obligations when it comes to marriage.

    Blacks were not forbidden to marry whites because they behaved as blacks, but because they were black. That is unconscionable. We are not talking about such a proscription now, but about acknowledging the difference between men an women, as has always been done under our system of laws.

    Can you really say that men and women are intrinsically the same, as you can about a black man and a white man?

  46. aislander says:

    I am not saying, beerBoy, that your specific Rolex would be devalued by accepting knock-off Rolexes as the genuine article, I am saying that ALL Rolexes would be.

    Same-sex “marriage” has exactly the same relationship to the real thing as knock-off Rolexes have to the real thing…

  47. “Can you really say that men and women are intrinsically the same, as you can about a black man and a white man?”
    We can say all people have to be afforded equal rights, or else they are not equal. A man without legs deserves the right to vote.
    What can be said is that there is a big difference between a kind and decent man and you, aislander. You are concerned about the survival of the ‘culture’. Which one? Your superior me first white male rich guy culture? I have news for you: your culture is on its way out. The greedy arrogance of your kind has much to do with it. And the fact that young people don’t give a hoot who dates who or what people look like.

  48. aislander, “Blacks were not forbidden to marry whites because they behaved as blacks, but because they were black.”

    They were forbidden to marry because of society’s perception that they were of two different races. And, the criteria was slightly different in each state. generally,a 1/16th rule applied, although in West Virginia, any ancestor who was black caused you to be considered black.

    Your entire argument stems from your belief, with absolutely no scientific proof, that gays choose to behave in a way that makes them appear gay to society. That is nonsense. Remain in your ignorance and believe what you will, (the world is flat, because I say so), just stop inflicting that ignorance on others and use it as an excuse to declare your superiority over others whom the Constitution says are your equals.

  49. aislander says:

    Not declaring superiority, tuds, but I’m not seeing a persuasive argument for changing the definition of marriage to accommodate a tiny percentage of the population who wish to have government approval for their arrangement and the larger percentage that wants to damage the culture in order to replace it with some Utopian arrangement–especially when there is no intrinsic difference that argues for making that change.

    Latest figures show less than three percent of the population is homosexual, and the percentage of that small percentage who wish to “marry” is inconsequential…

  50. aislander, as long as one person does not have equality under the law, our society msut work to reconcile this. Your disgusting statement about a few gays not being worth the effort is proof of your idea that you are superior to the Constitution and others who may not yet have equal rights.

  51. aislander says:

    My statement is that there is no vital societal need to change the definition of marriage. Part of the reason for that is the miniscule number of people who would derive what I feel are illegitimate benefits from the change, and the damage that would be done to the institution of marriage and the culture itself.

    I stand by my contention that all men and women HAVE equal rights and changing the definition of marriage for this purpose would not only confer special rights, but would open the door to other arrangements…

  52. Why was my last comment “awaiting moderation”? Please explain what I wrote that triggered that response. From my eyes it was “civil, short and to the point” It did not contain ALL CAPS, spam obscene, profane, abusive or off topic comments.

    I attempt to take part and abide by your “simple rules” yet there seem to be certain things that aren’t so simple that this board is preventing.

    Please….I’m trying to follow your rules….what are they?

  53. aislander – this is a test to see if your name provokes moderation.

  54. aislander – just as a genuine Rolex would still be an accurate timekeeper (and thus serve its true purpose) whether or not it was valued as a luxury item, my marriage will continue to serve its true purpose whether or not it loses its hetero-exclusive luxury status.

    It appears that you have unintentionally pointed to one of true eroding force upon marriage as it stands right now – too many hetero marriages are based upon the status of the luxury item rather than the real effort involved in making it work. That (Celebrity who cannot be named) marriage was a Rolex affair – the tabloids at the supermarket checkout stand were full of news about it – that watch stopped ticking almost as soon as it was taken out of the box.

  55. So, aislander, with your statement, “all men and women HAVE equal rights”, coupled with the US Supreme Court saying that a person has a right to choose whom to marry (note they have never said it must be a person of the opposite sex), I guess you are implying that gay people are not real persons?

    Sadly, that’s how many people have justified abuse and discrimination throughout the ages.

  56. aislander says:

    Wow, beerBoy THAT response to my analogy sure took a long time to ferment! Weak beer, though…

    The Supreme Court has never addressed the question of same-sex “marriage,” tuds, but are you saying the Court lifted ALL restrictions on marriage when it struck down antimiscegenation laws?

    That’s exactly what those of us who oppose changing the definition of marriage have been saying would happen if it were changed!

    And it sure depreciates those Rolexes…

  57. aislander says:

    beerBoy: My name and my opinions are all about moderation. I live for balance…

  58. notimetobleed says:

    @ Aislander

    Please consider this. If the roles were reversed and Gay Marriage was the 97% and Hetero’s made up the 3%. But Hetero marriage was outlawed, wouldn’t you feel you had a right to marry?

    Please stick to the hypothetical and not about propogation of the species, etc…

  59. aislander says:

    notimetobleed: If I embrace the terms of your hypothetical, taking the propagation of the species out of the equation, I would say there is no societal need at all for marriage. My answer would be there would be no imperative to then enlarge the definition to include heterosexuals, since marriage would then be a quaint custom with no utility.

    The impetus to enlarge the definition under those circumstances would be the same as it is now, I guess, addressing no practical need, but merely to make a cohort feel better about itself.

  60. aislander says:

    …and beerBoy: it IS possible to strain a metaphor (or an analogy) by carrying it too far. Your extension of my analogy now needs a truss…

  61. mojjonation says:

    Still wondering how gay marriage is going to change hetero marriage. Still haven’t heard any compelling evidence. Other than opinion and bible beating, anti gay marriage supporters (almost an oxymoron) really have nothing to lean on other than each other (is that considered gay?).

    Hetero divorce rate is at 50% or higher. Gay marriage sure couldn’t hurt the numbers any.

  62. notimetobleed says:

    @ aislander
    So your issue with same sex marriage is not so much with the majority redefining marriage to appease the minority, it is more one of functionality, Correct?

    Then are you also against couples who cannot have kids?

  63. aislander says:

    notimetobleed: That is a tired argument, designed to marginalize those opposed to redefining marriage.

    When a marriage occurs, it is both possible and probable that there will be offspring, but when, say an older couple, past the age of childbearing weds, their union is an affirmation of marriage rather than the caricature that is same-sex “marriage.”

    It is impractical and insulting to demand that a union that affirms rather than devalues marriage be subject to a fertility test.

  64. notimetobleed says:

    @ Aislander

    Hey, this is no more tired of an argument than the Polygamy BS. I am just trying to figure out your issue with Gay Marriage. First you say we should not redefine marriage for to make the 3% happy. Then you say it is more of a functional utility. Then when I call you on it you say it is insulting and devalues the institution.

    I am just trying to figure out your REAL issue with Gay Marriage because trying to get a straight answer out of you is like putting your thumb on a greased marble.

    Give it to me straight. What is your real issue?

  65. aislander says:

    I am merely trying to address your points in an honest way, notime, but you seem to resent the idea that I DO address them.

    There is more than one reason to oppose devaluing marriage, and I am happy to do what I can to refute any arguments that support it.

  66. aislander, your dislike of gay marriage has become a religion to you. You have never offered a single fact, a single logical reason or a single supportable argument against it. You just believe that it is wrong. Its fine to vote your beliefs, it just falls flat when you try to say they are anything but a personal belief.

    Beliefs are powerful, and logic generally doesn’t work to change a belief. Luckily, our laws are based on rational thought and logical arguments supported by facts, especially where rights are concerned.

    You asked: “are you saying the Court lifted ALL restrictions on marriage when it struck down antimiscegenation laws?”

    In this ruling you reference and in other rulings on what states can restrict in marriage, the US Supreme Court has said that marriage is a basic human right that can only be restricted by the states based on rational reasons, mainly on harm to people in the marriage, harm to society or harm to others.

    Any benefits of marriage that society deems to offer through government must be granted to all marriages and may not be restricted based on irrelevant issues.

    The interracial marriage issue had the 14th amendment going for it, and that was enough of a basis for some of the justices to say states could not restrict them, but the opinion that 5 of the justices signed said that, (in addition to the 14th amendment’s assertion of equal protections under the law), states must show that they have a relevant reason of governance for restricting any marriage and that majority opinion, society disapproval, religious beliefs and other factors were irrelevant.

    SCOTUS has not defined marriage, except to say that polygamous marriages were only vioable in a tribal form of governmengt and were not compatible with western-style democracy. So, at least to that court’s views, there is no definition of marriage to “change” or “devalue”.

    You are right that they haven’t ruled on gay marriage, but signs from the appeals courts show that, so far, states have not shown they have a rational reason to restrict these marriages. The restrictions so far have all been based on the irrelevant factors I mentioned.

  67. aislander:
    reductio ad absurdum, (Latin: “reduction to absurdity”), in logic, a form of refutation showing contradictory or absurd consequences following upon premises as a matter of logical necessity. A form of the reductio ad absurdum argument, known as indirect proof or reductio ad impossibile, is one that proves a proposition by showing that its denial conjoined with other propositions previously proved or accepted leads to a contradiction. In common speech the term reductio ad absurdum refers to anything pushed to absurd extremes.

  68. In case you missed the point – the Rolex metaphor was strained the moment you wrote it.

  69. aislander says:

    So…tuddo…are you saying that no one has a right to an opinion on a matter of politics unless that opinion has been “proven” in a decision by a politically motivated court?

    Except for the instances in which marriage has been debased by court decision, your side has provided no objective “proof” of the rightness of YOUR opinions other than those court opinions.

    After Dred Scott, for example, was it illegitimate to express disapproval of the peculiar institution?

  70. aislander says:

    Actually, beerBoy, thought the Rolex metaphor was extremely elegant: simple and understandable…

  71. aislander, people can hold all the opinions they want. Just don’t call them facts unless they are true and factual, not opinions.

    As I stated above: “Its fine to vote your beliefs, it just falls flat when you try to say they are anything but a personal belief.”

    I use the court opinions as factual evidence that the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution in certain ways. It is my opinion that they will not change their prior decisions that marriage is a human right (which many conservatives on these threads say it is not), or change their approach to separation of church and state and allow religious views as court evidence against gay marriage.

    I have also pointed out that we will have to wait and see how they rule on gay marriage. In light of some rulings on polygamy being against “democracy” based on their citations of ancient Roman law and inheritance rights, the court could grab at what I think are straws to appease the conservative majority and say that states can restrict gay marriage. Dred Scott is a perfect example of conservatives grasping at straws to appease the religious fundamentalists, states rightists and strict constructionalists instead of looking at the broader issues of freedom, liberty and equal protection under the law.

    By nullifying the Missouri Compromise in the Dred Scott decision, the entire charade of two separate nations existing side by side with competing views on freedom, equality, justice, and what it means to be human, was exposed for what it was, an insult to the founders and their ideals and the idea of a “more perfect Union.”

    In the long run, progressives won yet again and showed the Constitution to be a living document, not one frozen in the 18th century.

    In addition to court cases, I have also cited studies about gay families, children of gays, divorce rates, and other issues besides Supreme Court rulings as factual evidence to counter myths and opinions presented with no support that gays can’t raise children or are more unstable in marriage or any of the myriad other things people like to throw out with no evidence.

    Since there has been nothing except discredited and unscientific “studies” or anecdotal stories presented over the years to show that gay marriage might be harmful, I take it that no one can provide any factual evidence against gay marriage.

    Factual evidence about devaluing marriage? Bring it on. I’d love to see it.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0