Gay marriage opponents respond to Iowa ruling
activism, lgbt, politics, religion, video Add comments (4)This of course is just a small smattering…
Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action
“Here we go again. While citing the specter of ‘equal protection,’ the Iowa Supreme Court today has unanimously joined a leftist gaggle of ideologically driven judges in California, Massachusetts and Connecticut, creating, from thin air, a phantom ‘right’ to the ridiculous, oxymoronic and postmodern ‘gay’ marriage counterfeit… The U.S. Supreme Court long ago rejected the untenable notion that ‘equal protection’ requires two biologically incompatible persons to be permitted to ‘marry.’ Marriage, of course, by its very spiritual, historical and biological nature, requires binary compatibility. It is no more discriminatory to disallow two men from marrying each other, than it is to prohibit a man from marrying his house plant.”
Douglas Napier, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund
“The Iowa marriage law was simple, settled and overwhelmingly supported by Iowans … There was simply no legitimate reason for the court to redefine marriage.”
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst at Focus on the Family Action, said the ruling took his breath away.
“The justices brazenly asserted that their role was not only to redefine marriage, but also to legislate whatever new social agenda they favored, ‘free from the influences’ of a society resistant to such change,” he said. “Such an admission is breathtaking in its arrogance and scope.”
Tony Perkins, president of FRC Action
“We need to remember that the marriage-amendment movement has been many times more successful than the same-sex ‘marriage’ movement,” he said. “We urge Iowans to contact their legislators and urge them to move quickly to pass a constitutional amendment protecting marriage … We hope the Legislature will heed the powerful swell of statewide support for an amendment and reclaim from the High Court its rightful place as the state’s policy-making body.”
Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America
“Marriage is a civilizing institution that brings a man and a woman – two fundamentally different yet complementary people – together in an unparalleled bond that provides children with the benefits of the two sexes, male and female. The Iowa justices in reality regress in their attempt to impose ‘progress’ by destroying the concept of marriage in a naked, self-serving power grab. Claiming that they have a ‘keen and respectful’ understanding of the Constitution doesn’t make it so, anymore than claiming marriage can be complete without one or the other sex.”
Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition
“If this ruling is permitted to stand without challenge, it will result in the persecution of Christians and anyone else who criticizes homosexual conduct. This ruling will mean that schools will be forced to teach that homosexual marriage is normal – and parents who object will face ridicule and possible criminal penalties against them. This ruling will be used to force pastors to conduct same-sex ceremonies or face penalties.”
Chuck Hurley, Iowa Family Policy Center
Pardon me while I hunt down my extremely small violin.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:44 pm
I must have missed the part of the ruling that said all state schools must teach all school children that heterosexual and homosexual behavior are equivalent. I guess that will replace the day on the school calendar when they currently teach all Iowa school children that heterosexual and homosexual behavior are not equivalent, that homosexuals are 2nd class citizens…..
Please. This guy is a Fear Monger spreading FUD.
April 4th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
I just don’t understand. Maybe it’s because I am not religious, or maybe I am just ignorant, but what is the big deal? Why is it so wrong for two people of the same sex to get married? Why is it such an issue? If two people love each other, regardless of their sexual preference, why can’t they get married?
April 5th, 2009 at 8:36 am
Maxine, that is a great question. I think it comes down to a few basic things.
Religious groups feel they own “marriage”. And in most religions same sex sex is taboo. So they are against it. Period.
However, “the state” issues marriage licenses and provides rights for those that are married. So while religious groups feel they own “marriage”, actually the government hands out the licenses, and it’s quite common for citizens to “marry” by just going down to the court house, with no religious service at all.
So we have 2 different things using the same name. A) the legal documents allowing 2 people to form a relationship that has new rights, and responsibilities (not unlike creating a business or corporation) and B) the church blessing a union of 2 people via a formal service.
If these 2 were called different things then I think there would be less animosity from religious groups (or at the very least they’d have not leg to stand on in their arguments).
Their arguments go like this:
1) We will be forced to perform same sex marriages in our churches/synagogues/temples. – This is just them spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt). When has any religious group been forced to perform a marriage in their structure? And why would a couple who was not welcome at a religious organization want to get married there?!?
2) It cheapens/diminishes heterosexual marriages. Really? Since those marriages in California, Massachusetts (and soon to be Iowa), have the previously married heterosexuals felt their marriages changed? Please, this argument is a joke. (By the way, the only thing that really cheapens marriage are people like Brittany Spears who got married on a whim for 55 hours [http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,571226,00.html]).
3) Our children will be taught hetero and homo sexual relationships are equivalent. Well I don’t recall a day in school where I was ever taught they were not. Society and our parents seem to have handled that one in the past. I they will handle it in the future as well. I was taught in school that all men (people) are created equal. I think that still stands.
4) Society will break down. We’ll let’s see, Canada, Spain, and The Netherlands have had gay marriage for some time now and those 3 countries are still standing.
5) Marriage is about procreation, continuing mankind. Really?!? When was the ability to reproduce ever part of the marriage license?!? There are plenty of couples who never have children by choice. Are they prevented from marrying (no!) or treated any differently? (no!) And to be honest, we have far more people on this planet now, than ever. And there are many children in the foster care program who would beg for adoptive parents, gay or straight.
6) It’s just wrong/my religious teachings don’t allow me to condone this. – Fine. Some folks will never understand. So that’s why we should do 1 of 2 things:
a) Rename the ceremony that religious groups perform uniting 2 people. “Religious unions”?
or
b) Rename all government marriage licenses be renamed to something else “civil unions”.
This issue needs to be separated. There is no LEGAL reason 2 people should not be able to form a union/relationship/contract. As a full citizen, the state should not be allowed to deny the application of a couple, regardless of the sex of the couple. Either they should be in the business of providing this to all citizens (or no citizens at all!).
Religious groups can choose if they want to perform ceremony for or to recognize these licenses.
Just my 2 cents.
April 19th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Joe You said it all, and in grand fashion.