(*Note: More added in, as the complaintant has written me back).
_____


I got this email today from a reader who apparently wants us all to joyfully return to times-gone-by when things were good and proper:

"Hi Steve,

"Thank you, I really enjoy you views.

"Perhaps you could have a view of . . . maybe definitions or facts chang[ing] as we wish, or to be politically correct.

"Example: Marriage"
___


My reply:

"I suppose you would want to return to 'the good ol’ days’ before the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1967 ruling in Loving vs. Virginia— you know, back when interracial marriage between the black and white races was considered a violation of the true order of marriage."
___


The reader wrote back:

"Thanks for your response.

"I have no problem with interracial marriages, My point was that the definition of marriage has been between a woman and a man, Wife and husband. The published definition has been changed after hundreds of years, By whom and for what purpose[?].

"In my humble opinion."
_____


My reply:

"It’s good that you have no problem with interracial marriage. Marriage is a legal contract, so regarded under law, between two consenting adults, and covers a whole host of obligations involving taxes, property rights, survivor and retirement benefits, etc.

"Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court has recently indicated that the High Court (which has agreed to take up the issue of gay marriage) , will soundly rule in favor of its constitutionality.

"Indeed, that clearly appears to be the direction in which the High Court is headed, given that it has repeatedly turned away state appeals seeking judicial relief from lower court rulings that have declared various state anti-gay marriage laws to be at fundamental odds with federal constitutional protection. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires equal protection under the law.

"If you wish for a union between one man and one woman to be recognized as a 'marriage,' that can be done in a church, a synagogue, a mosque, or at a backyard party, where the ceremony can be “sanctified” by the appropriate cleric.

"The interest of the national government, however, is in meeting the requirements of civil-right and civil-law obligations as they apply to these marriage unions--and not as you believe they do not apply based on your particular religious dogma that defines your views on marriage.

"Gay marriage will be upheld as constitutional (and as applying to all 50 states) by the United States Supreme Court under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Justice Thomas gets that even if you, at this present time, may not."



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2015 11:20PM by steve benson.

Ah, the good old days, when donating your teenage daughter to the Prophet was the price of admission to the Celestial Kingdom.

I don't have any cows :(

...or let's go back to "bible times," specifically OT, when what defined "marriage" was a man buying a woman from her father and raping her. Because of course she had no say whatsoever in the whole thing. No ceremony, no legalities, no license -- buy a woman and rape her, and you're "married."
And of course, men could do that with as many women as they could afford to buy.

Gay marriage is bad! Marriage is ordained by God to be a relationship between one man and 2-40 women! The idea of two men who love each other getting married is just icky, gross, aberrant, and perverted. It isn't wholesome and pure like a real marriage where one rich elderly man is married to a bunch of cute little teenagers, some of whom are his cousins and nieces. God hates figs! (And fig newtons and fig pudding too.)

Don't forget the absolute rule about whites marrying below their station.

Or maybe they still believe that...

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2015 11:17PM by steve benson.

Anything that is not "natural" should be outlawed by the Constitution. Like wearing white after Labor Day.