KE Cellars

The Supreme issue of marriage.

The Supreme Court today (Tuesday, March 26, 2013) heard oral arguments in the case of California’s proposition 8, passed by voters in 2008, that outlawed same sex marriage in the state.

Lawsuits immediately followed the passage of the proposition, and those lawsuits now wind up in the Supreme Court. The court is being asked to decide if the law in California, though approved by a majority of voters, is unconstitutional. How the court will decide is anyone’s guess.

I have spoken here on prior occasions in support of the traditional definition of marriage, which is to say between one man and one woman. But guys like me need to recognize that our traditional concept of marriage has become somewhat anachronistic. Guys my age grew up in a time when the majority of marriages lasted a lifetime. That is no longer the case.

The real issue is, that truth be told, marriage today is at its core a financial arrangement and for most people a temporary one. On that score I say you shouldn’t need to be married in order to keep the government’s hands off your money and property in the first place.

When I closely examine my opposition to gay marriage, I find that what I am really opposing is the breakdown in heterosexual marriage – and most particularly the impact of that breakdown on children.

No court, not even the Supreme Court, can address that problem.

 

Couple holding hands


  1. I disagree with you, oh alligator.
    I understand the concept of love & faithfulness but just because I do does not meant that I think it is good for a majority of a culture.
    It is an anachronism just like strawberry allergies.
    No one has studied this idea for years or generations to see what inadvertent consequences it may bring.

    I do not think just because it is ‘out of the closet’ that means YOU should change long held values or even argue with religions’ stated values.

    Maybe your values & concepts are ok.
    Personally marriage is difficult enuf without the unstated consequences of same-sex. Let alone the instant hatred of many older relatives.
    Many Churches would not accept this & the instant rejection would manifest in lots of ways in a relationship. No joining there.
    Also have you studied gay lifestyles.??
    You seem to assume this is just like straight.
    Look again.

  2. C M Solomon says:

    The Homosexual agenda to change the moral character of this nation has no limits. This is the new, illegitimate war against discriminatory treatment of the homosexual in our society and the effort to legislate punishment for ANYONE that doesn’t grant full RIGHTS for this (newly ordained) minority group (similar to the civil rights racial movement of the 60’s for the black minority, which was legitimate).

    If the homosexual minority group is granted full federal protection under our discriminatory laws, all Christian institutions will be under assault and not only will probably lose any tax-exempt status as a religious institution but will be FORCED to hire and maintain a quota of employees, representative of the homosexual population. These institutions include Christian Schools, Academies, Camp Grounds, Universities, Hospitals, Charities, and Churches, etc. Can you imagine the requirement to hire and keep on your staff a homosexual that discusses his dates of the night before at the water fountain and engages the other employees in conversations that present his/her lifestyle as a loving and dedicated partnership that everyone should respect and admire? How about the “homosexual couple” that discusses their attempt to adopt a child of the same sex with the other employees as they promote the homosexual propaganda as equivalent to traditional marriage?

    This is “free speech” (don’t you know) that must not be restricted in this society with no moral absolutes and no respect or requirement for Christian behavior of the employees that belong to a Christian institution. How many Christian institutions will simply be forced to close by our “tolerant (tyrannical)” government if they don’t OBEY the “non-discriminatory laws” of the country that forces compliance with the homosexual agenda that has been won through the courts or by legislation?

    Tyranny is OK as long as it is “politically correct”, particularly if it demonizes the Christian creed, faith and standards of conduct that is based on religious conviction of Biblical truths that are thousands of years old. We certainly can’t let GOD be more important in our lives than the Almighty Government that is looking out for our Collective Society and demanding compliance with their definition of “basic fairness” including “sharing the wealth” to eliminate poverty, i.e., Godless Marxism in disguise.

    By the way, there is nothing wrong with this omnipotent and lovable government (that has replaced GOD and personal responsibility) to mandate and control firearms, diets, income, health treatment, transportation, fuel consumption, housing, energy consumption and education (indoctrination). The Secular Humanism religion that worships Government has the authority to force it on our persons and family, all in the name of “equality and justice” under penalty of law if we don’t comply. Does anybody see the hypocrisy, here?

Leave a Reply