After the Massachusetts Legislature voted to crush the marriage amendment ballot measure yesterday, the networks largely ignored the story. But ABC’s Web site carried this headline:
Gay Marriage Safe in Massachusetts: A Vote to Redefine Marriage as a Union Between a Man and a Woman Was Defeated
To ABCNews.com, defining marriage the traditional way is a radical “redefinition” of the institution. Is it any wonder that a majority of the American people, according to the National Cultural Values Survey, believe the news media are a major factor in America’s moral decline? (hat tip to Matt Barber at Concerned Women for America)
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
And here we go again dealing
November 5, 2007 - 14:58 ET by GordmanAnd here we go again dealing with the same old problem: marriage and homosexuality. You know what? I have nothing against that, I have seen more hetero couples fighting bad and divorcing, why should we deny the right to hapiness for homosexuals? Who gives us this right? Perhaps they know to handle their marriage problems far better than some of us...
...waits patiently for Agnost
June 15, 2007 - 13:19 ET by Roger the Shrubber...waits patiently for Agnostic Front to appears, since this is a gay thread, after all...
liberal democracy
June 15, 2007 - 13:28 ET by LionKingIronic !!! Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the democrats always espousing democracy and letting the people be heard? Yet, I Massachusetts, they decided that it would be better if the People of that state could not voice their opinion at the polls.
[Ironic and hypocritical...what a shock!!!]
"redefine" Intere
June 15, 2007 - 13:30 ET by whatajoy"redefine" Interesting!! Oh no, ABC isn't bias at all. LOL
-------------------------------------------------------------
Take it easy! We're not making a western here.
~ Uncle Junior
_ __________=___
\\@([____]________()
_/\|-[____]
/ /(( )
/____|'----'
\____/
I agree.
June 15, 2007 - 13:46 ET byI agree.
The definition of marriage wi
June 15, 2007 - 14:13 ET by NoMoreClintonsThe definition of marriage will always be a union between a man and a woman no matter what The People's Republic of Massachusetts thinks. A man and a woman, got it? As in "Everlasting Love" (sorry, Robert Knight, I couldn't resist).
In the original article, a ga
June 15, 2007 - 14:14 ET by KC MulvilleIn the original article, a gay rights supporter says: "Civil rights should never go to a popular vote. That's fundamentally un-American." True, but what counts as a civil right? Can individuals simply claim any behavior is a right? Is drug use a civil right? Is prostitution a civil right? This isn’t about whether gays can live together. They already can, and no one cares. However, when you claim that it’s a right, you demand that society treat the partners in a certain way. Rights are demands on society. A right to private property means that society will arrest trespassers, and side with you in court about the use of that property. A right makes demands on the rest of society.
It’s a rule, then, that society is under no obligation to bow to your demands unless we agree to it. If you want to live together, fine, no one’s stopping you. But if gays want society to treat their unions as marriage, they have to ask society’s permission before imposing an obligation on the rest of us. And that’s why gay marriage supporters will do anything possible to avoid a vote … because they always lose. Knowing they’d lose a vote, gay marriage supporters resort to a familiar tactic. They use the media (both news and “creative” entertainment) to spread the idea that it’s a done deal anyway, so why not give up without a fight? It’s a “milestone of social progress,” and anyone standing in the way of progress is morally equivalent to a slave-owner.
If the people of Massachusetts want to vote for gay unions, that’s fine. That’s democracy. But you have to get the vote first. You can’t just assume it. We never vote on whether to support civil rights … we always do … but we must vote on what we collectively consider those rights to be.
They always claim that they a
June 15, 2007 - 14:29 ET by ThisnThatThey always claim that they are being denied the "right to marry". WRONG. They can get married -- but not to each other, that's all. No one, and I mean no one of any moral decency can support the re-definition of marriage.
ABC needs to be shut down and replaced with a new news organization that gets it right. They simply have lost it, IMO.
^Interesting!! I like that.
June 15, 2007 - 15:12 ET by whatajoy^
Interesting!! I like that. You are right. they can marry, just not each other. Never thought about it that way. Genius!
-------------------------------------------------------------
Take it easy! We're not making a western here.
~ Uncle Junior
__
__(o )
=== |
| \___/|
\ \=== |
\_\==/
||
===
ABC News is using a proven id
June 15, 2007 - 14:37 ET by cruiserABC News is using a proven idea. If you repeat a lie often enough, people will take it for the truth. I don't think God watches ABC News.
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. ---Groucho Marx
“A lie told often enough be
June 15, 2007 - 15:12 ET by stratman“A lie told often enough becomes truth”
Vladimir Lenin
As a christain I have been to
June 15, 2007 - 15:19 ET by DarasenAs a christain I have been told that I can't "push my values on others" . Ironically Mass. seems to be unwilling to let the actual populace decide an issue for fear it will contradict thier own. If that is not forcing your values, (or complete lack thereof), what is.
Hi Darasen,I've posted this b
June 15, 2007 - 18:35 ET by Darth DutchHi Darasen,
I've posted this before in other topics which related to the homosexual agenda, and I've had conversations with people about this. One of the big arguments that the homosexual agenda will make is that if you are against them, then you must be homophobic; basically that your are choosing out of your hatred to deny them rights, be against them, whatever. Then, on the exact flip side they will say that they are homosexual because it is genetic, that they have no choice in the matter.
Fine, let's accept the fact that they do not have a choice in the matter and it is genetic. Then that means that my heterosexuality is also genetic and I cannot choose it. So, my genes tell me that heterosexuality is attractive and right and that homosexuality is disgusting to me. So, if I speak out my disgust with that lifestyle it is not out of bigotry or hatred, it is simply my genes speaking and my psyche reacting to the way I've been programmed and they can't call me a homophobe.
The homosexual activists try to have it both ways. Their feelings and desires are completely natural, but your feelings towards them cannot be and are therefore due to your bigotry and hatred. They can't have it both ways. I've found this is a good way as a Christian to easily combat the radical homosexual activist type people I've encountered in a way that they can't minimize by saying "well that's your belief".
Dutch
My MA Legislature
June 15, 2007 - 15:36 ET by Six String SpiffSee what i have to put up with in my own frigggin state?! Cpnstitution? Whats that? The MA Legislature gave me the middle finger and claims I'm a bigot. Sorry, but i think MY marriage means a lot more than Bob and Mikes. Homosexuality is a mental dissorder. Of course my Governor, Deval (Devoid if you ask me) Rodham Clinton Patric has said NOTHING. What eles do I expect though?
I hate this state
Islam should have it's religious status revoked until it can prove it's not a hate group.
Sorry, but i think MY marri
June 15, 2007 - 19:19 ET by JasonCSorry, but i think MY marriage means a lot more than Bob and Mikes.
Why?
Homosexuality is a mental dissorder.
Actually, I think that does make you a bigot. Nothing personal, just MY opinion.
"If their sins were as scarlet, they are now white as snow" Isaiah 1:18
What I find to be unprinciple
June 15, 2007 - 15:49 ET by stratmanWhat I find to be unprincipled and hypocritical of the Left is that they support gay marriage despite thousands of years of tradition. How can they?
To be precise, the Left invoked the principle of stari decisis as a protection against change to current abortion law, Roe v. Wade being but 34 years old. Yet a consistent and long historical practice as described and mandated by law and religion for thousands of years, marriage between one man and one woman, is casually and conveniently tossed aside for emotion's sake and the 'cause de jour'. Stari decisis should apply equally, if not more strongly, to marriage.
Combine the abridgment of stari desisis with the autocratically-acting and self-serving politicians' circumvention (or should that be 'circumcision') of the American process of self-determination of Local and State policy, and you have a foundation of subversion.
When the politicians fear the voice of the people then the people should fear the politician. There is much to be concerned over the actions of the politicians in Massachusetts, not necessarily the defeat of the ballot but in how and why the ballot was defeated.
Disgusting
June 15, 2007 - 16:18 ET by deerjerkydaveThis story is disgusting: democrats being undemocratic. If state sponsored marriage between consenting adults is a "civil right", then I propose that the Arizona/New Mexico/Utah polygamists pick up and move to Massachussets. They should be welcomed with opened arms right?
I absolutely agree. Please,
June 15, 2007 - 18:48 ET by kathleenirishI absolutely agree. Please, polygamists, come and put up a court fight here in Massachusetts. After all, the chief justice of the Mass Superior Court called marriage 'an evolving paradigm'. Bring it on. Muslims who practice polygamy are here already, they should push for the 'right' to have as many wives as they are allowed to have in their religion...the tradition of polygamy is certainly gone on a whole lot longer than gay 'marriage'.
What about bisexuals? Shouldn't they be able to have one of each, at least? I call anything less, "Discrimination!!".
Let's keep going.
Democracy is dead, period.
Anyone who says they support the troops but not the mission is a liar.
Reason number 13 that we need
June 15, 2007 - 19:01 ET byReason number 13 that we need to be sure to elect a POTUS who will appoint constructionists to the SCOTUS
Thanks Kath
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
What is to keep polygamy from
June 15, 2007 - 19:27 ET by stratmanWhat is to keep polygamy from being state sanctioned if the contrivence of state sanctioned gay marriage becomes the law of the land? Afterall, both deal with adults in love. Right?
I'm sure social scientists will be able to prove that children raised by multiple mommies AND daddies are "healthy" as has been espoused from relationships of just 2 mommies or just 2 daddies. Heck, even >2 daddies or >2 mommies married will also prove to be healthy environments for raising children. Will there ever be a number of mommies and daddies that isn't acceptable?
In a separate but soon to be complimentary tack, I predict, Virginia recently passed "Abraham's Law" in which teenagers 14 or older and their parents now have the right to refuse medical treatments for life threatening diseases such as cancer. The intersection of this law and the subject of what constitutes marriage is as follows: Abraham's Law requires medical decision making be vested in both parent and 14 years of age and older child. If the child is deemed competent to understand the potential consequences of their refusal of standard (albeit in some cases experimental) treatment - ie death and its permanence - then the child and parents may refuse western medical therapies. In Starchild Abraham Cherrix's law-making case, the family decided to refuse chemotherapy for alternative medicine (herbs and organic foods as per protocol of Harry Hoxsey, a former Texas cancer clinic operator who was accused by the Food and Drug Administration of peddling worthless medicine — and who died of cancer.).
If a 14 year old can be psychologically found capable of the adult determination of free will, understanding the meaning of death and the consequence of one's actions proximal to their death, then that 14 year old, or any other like minded 14 year old, embodies that which greatly defines one as an adult psychologically as apart from chronology. In fact, chronological age is less a factor in serious issues than psychological age - for instance as with capital punishment of mentally retarded convicted killers.
And now the connection: If a 14 year old can be deemed capable of maling an adult decision about their own death, then what specifically prevents them from being able to make an adult determination about sex and marriage? What would be the contrivence to logically and rationally preclude such a 14 year old from having sex with or marrying a 30 year old or 90 year old? This is a frightening slippery slope and one I am sure a savvy defense attorney will attempt to get his client's statutory rape charge dismissed.
These are crazy mixed up times we live in.