Marriage has shown itself to be a core ideal for society's strength and 
longevity. Society (read: government) therefore has a keen interest in 
ensuring marriage is done in a manner that promotes a strong and safe 
society; normally built upon traditions that work.


Ron Scott wrote:
> Gary:
> Some of us  regard marriage as a religious blessing, a religious
> covenant.  Some us, therefore, think the government has no
> business getting itself involved in a religious matter -- like
> determining what constitutes a "marriage."
> The government ought to stick to defining what kinds of "unions"
> and "partnerships" it allow (I assume there are many worthwhile
> variations on themes, ones that ought to be defined as permitted
> by law).  Had it done that -- had it taken a one-size fits all
> approach and done it actively, rather than reactively, one could
> argue that the pressure we've witness over the past few months
> would not have been necessary.  Instead, the government, in
> essence, refused to confront the matter until forced.
> Had it actively addressed the matter years ago, we may have
> gotten legislation on the books that would be satisfying to most,
> if not all. Such legislation would have resolved the concerns of
> the Massachusetts couples that sued the state, a lawsuit which
> reached the Commonwealth's Supreme Judicial Court.
> Two final thoughts: I would imagine it's not lost on you that the
> proposed Constitutional Amendment defines marriage as a union
> between one man and one woman.  I trust it's also not lost on you
> that, should the amendment pass, it will, in essence,  confirm
> the illegality of the marriages of several of my ancestors.  It
> will render people like me descendants of illegitimate
> relationships, the offspring of bastard children. Where will the
> Church be should, at some point down the road, the Lord order
> that polygamy be reinstituted? I realize this is unlikely...but
> there is a darned important principle in play here, one that too
> many of us are ignoring.
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 12:08 PM
> >Subject: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong
> >
> >
> >Here is an awesome article by Thomas Sowell on why Gay
> >marriage movement
> >is wrong.
> >Gary
> >
> >
> >
> >'Gay marriage' confusions
> >Thomas Sowell (archive)
> >
> >March 9, 2004
> >
> >Few issues have produced as much confused thinking as
> >the "gay marriage"
> >issue.
> >
> >There is, for example, the argument that the government
> >has no business
> >getting involved with marriage in the first place. That
> >is a personal
> >relation, the argument goes.
> >
> >Love affairs are personal relations. Marriage is a
> >legal relation. To
> >say that government should not get involved in legal
> >relations is to say
> >that government has no business governing.
> >
> >Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they
> >said that what
> >happens between "consenting adults" in private is none of the
> >government's business. But now gay activists are taking
> >the opposite
> >view, that it is government's business -- and that
> >government has an
> >obligation to give its approval.
> >
> >Then there are the strained analogies with the civil
> >rights struggles of
> >the 1960s. Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King challenged
> >the racial laws
> >of their time. So, the argument goes, what is wrong
> >with Massachusetts
> >judges and the mayor of San Francisco challenging laws
> >that they
> >consider unjust today?
> >
> >First of all, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King were
> >private citizens
> >and they did not put themselves above the law. On the
> >contrary, they
> >submitted to arrest in order to gain the public support
> >needed to change
> >the laws.
> >
> >As private citizens, neither Mrs. Parks nor Dr. King
> >wielded the power
> >of government. Their situation was very different from
> >that of public
> >officials who use the power delegated to them through
> >the framework of
> >law to betray that framework itself, which they swore
> >to uphold as a
> >condition of receiving their power.
> >
> >The real analogy would be to Governor George Wallace,
> >who defied the law
> >by trying to prevent black students from being enrolled in the
> >University of Alabama under a court order.
> >
> >After Wallace was no longer governor, he was within his
> >rights to argue
> >for racial segregation, just as civil rights leaders
> >argued against it.
> >But, using the powers of his office as governor to defy
> >the law was a
> >violation of his oath.
> >
> >If judges of the Massachusetts Supreme Court or the
> >mayor of San
> >Francisco want to resign their jobs and start
> >advocating gay marriage,
> >they have every right to do so. But that is wholly
> >different from using
> >the authority delegated to them under the law to
> >subvert the law.
> >
> >Gay rights activists argue that activist judges have
> >overturned unjust
> >laws in the past and that society is better off for it.
> >The argument
> >that some good has come from some unlawful acts in the
> >past is hardly a
> >basis for accepting unlawful acts in general.
> >
> >If you only want to accept particular unlawful acts
> >that you agree with,
> >then of course others will have other unlawful acts
> >that they agree
> >with. Considering how many different groups have how
> >many different sets
> >of values, that road leads to anarchy.
> >
> >Have we not seen enough anarchy in Haiti, Rwanda and
> >other places to
> >know not to go there?
> >
> >The last refuge of the gay marriage advocates is that
> >this is an issue
> >of equal rights. But marriage is not an individual
> >right. Otherwise, why
> >limit marriage to unions of two people instead of three
> >or four or five?
> >Why limit it to adult humans, if some want to be united
> >with others of
> >various ages, sexes and species?
> >
> >Marriage is a social contract because the issues
> >involved go beyond the
> >particular individuals. Unions of a man and a woman
> >produce the future
> >generations on whom the fate of the whole society
> >depends. Society has
> >something to say about that.
> >
> >Even at the individual level, men and women have different
> >circumstances, if only from the fact that women have
> >babies and men do
> >not. These and other asymmetries in the positions of
> >women and men
> >justify long-term legal arrangements to enable society
> >to keep this
> >asymmetrical relationship viable -- for society's sake.
> >
> >Neither of these considerations applies to unions where
> >the people are
> >of the same sex.
> >
> >Centuries of experience in trying to cope with the
> >asymmetries of
> >marriage have built up a large body of laws and
> >practices geared to that
> >particular legal relationship. To then transfer all of
> >that to another
> >relationship that was not contemplated when these laws
> >were passed is to
> >make rhetoric more important than reality.
> >
> >2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
> >
> >Gerald (Gary) Smith
> >geraldsmith@
> >
> >
> >////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> >//////////////////////
> >///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
> >///      ///
> >////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> >/////////////////////
> --

Gerald (Gary) Smith

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///      ///
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:

Reply via email to