Well, then they can be the first to pass the "anti-marriage" bill that revokes all legal and government connections and ties to marriage altogether ...
That would make me respect them .... this just makes me wonder just how people can be such slaves to the government.
You know Kitty. I would be fine with that. That way Marriage can truly be handled as an private institution as it was intended between a man and a woman. The boyscouts were able to uphold their intended charter when challenged by homosexuals who wished to disclose their sexuality in their capacity as troop leaders, which was explicitly inappropriate to the nature of this organization. If the government detached themselves from the legal parameters of marriage, it would have the ability to defend it's intended purpose among other things.
Anne Marie
Their charter mentions nothing of homosexuals, they just decided to be bigoted.
Oh and if they're a private institution then they really should stop getting public funds.
They who, Fathertime? Public Funding of Private Institutions is a reciprocal and healthy approach to the prevention of segregation and overpopulation in the public school system. Otherwise, in terms of public funding, HIV-AIDs related medication is completely covered by medicare along with other criteria which compliments social security benefits. HIV-AIDS treatment in this country is accounted primarily for homosexuals statistically. That is among other benefits which are exclusive in terms of health insurance.
Here's another concise perspective on topic.
Consequences of Marriage Redifined
Posted by eallnburke, April 21, 2009 11:34AM
Until recently all 50 states recognized marriage as the unique legal, physical and spiritual union of one man with one woman. They acknowledged that it is crucial for establishing and maintaining a well-ordered society within which children would come into existence and receive nurturing and protection so they could grow into healthy, sane and effective citizens.
But Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut and Iowa have abandoned this historical definition of marriage; California is under attack from extremists who have taken to the streets to force a similar outcome; and, the governor of New York is groveling before the altar of "gay marriage" in hope of securing a full term in that post.
The state officials who redefine marriage and ignore the will of the majority of their citizens who support its sanctity are either cowardly, or they think those who hold this cherished conviction are victims of religious delusion.
Marriage, however, is not the creation of any single religious group. Those from diverse religions, as well as nonbelievers, have understood the good brought about as the result of the conjugal relationship between one male and one female within marriage. It is also why various religions - despite doctrinal disagreements - recognize the validity of traditional marriages of people of other faiths.
The homosexual agitators who have successfully destroyed the historical definition of marriage in four states thus far have done so under the banner of civil rights to eliminate so-called discrimination.
Those sexual revolutionaries, of course, have invoked the civil rights issue as a red herring. Their propaganda has no relationship whatsoever to the valiant and peaceful struggles of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The actual aim of many homosexuals is to silence and neuter those who oppose the aberrant, life-threatening venereal practices that obsess them.
As proof of their intent, look at what has happened wherever same-sex relations now have the standing of " marriage," as in Canada, in Sweden and in Massachusetts.
Citizens of Canada and Sweden have seen their pastors prosecuted for preaching from the Bible about their church's moral teaching on homosexual practices. Those in Massachusetts have witnessed Catholic Charities forced to abandon its 100-year-old program that helped place children within the homes of traditional, adoptive parents.
If the demands of homosexual extremists in the remaining 46 states continue turning politicians into poltroons, we would see those who teach or preach that marriage is an exclusive union of one man and one woman labeled bigots, and those who proclaim that children need a single male father and a single female mother who have been joined in matrimony prosecuted for being hostile to "equality," and thus enemies of the state.
Consequences of Marriage Redifined - NJ Voices Public Blog
Anne marie
