The Gay Marriage Inferno

It only takes a spark to start a fire that turns into an inferno, which become difficult to put out.

2003
November 18
: United States: Massachusetts: decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health

2004
February 12
: United States, California: Newly-elected San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom issues the first same-sex marriage certificates in the US, purely as an exercise of executive power. These certificates were later nullified by the California Supreme Court.
February 20: In New Mexico, Sandoval County clerk Victoria Dunlap issues marriage licenses to more than 60 same-sex couples until stopped by the state attorney general later that day, declaring them invalid; 26 couples were married by local pastors on the courthouse steps that day, and most of the other couples who received licenses married elsewhere. A district court later issued an injunction prohibiting Dunlap from issuing licenses to same-sex couples. Dunlap’s motion to the state supreme court to lift the restraining order was rejected on July 8.
May 17: United States: Massachusetts – first legal same-sex marriages in the US performed.
September 18: United States: Louisiana voters ratified a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.
October: United States: Louisiana – District Judge William Morvant of Baton Rouge struck down the amendment, approved by voters in September, on the grounds that it violated a provision of the state constitution requiring that an amendment to cover only one subject; the amendment prevented the state from recognizing any legal status for common-law relationships, domestic partnerships and civil unions between both gay and heterosexual couples.
November 3: United States Results of November 2 vote confirms that state constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage are passed in eleven states: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Oregon, and Utah. The measures in Oregon, Mississippi, and Montana bar same-sex marriage only; those in the other states bar civil unions and domestic partnerships as well; and Ohio bars granting any benefits whatsoever to same-sex couples.

2005
January 19
: United States: The Louisiana Supreme Court reinstated the anti-gay marriage amendment that had been struck by a District Judge in October, 2004.
March 14: United States: Judge Richard Kramer of San Francisco County Superior Court said California’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.
April 7: United States: New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg orders city agencies to recognize legal same-sex marriages from other states and countries. This order will give same-sex couples who married in places such as Massachusetts or Canada rights that couples recognized under the city’s existing domestic partnership law do not have, including the power to make life-or-death medical decisions. Same-sex spouses will also be able to collect worker’s compensation if a partner dies.
April 7: United States: The Connecticut State Senate passes legislation that legalizes same-sex civil unions. On April 13, the bill is passed through the Connecticut House of Representatives with the added "marriage is between a man and a woman" definition. The bill is sent back to the Senate for approval. Finally, on April 20, the State Senate approved the amended bill by a vote of 26-8 and Republican Governor Jodi Rell signed the same-sex civil union bill into law.
May 12: United States: A federal judge in Omaha strikes down Nebraska’s sweeping ban on same-sex marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships, and other same-sex relationships. U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon ruled that the ban, known as Initiative 416, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This is the first state constitutional provision banning same-sex marriage to be ruled unconstitutional.
November 8: United States: Texas becomes the 18th state to write a ban on same-sex marriage into its constitution, defining marriage as "the union of one man and one woman" and prohibiting the state from "creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage," when voters approved the amendment in the November elections.

2006
July 6
: New York State Court of Appeals rules that the NYS Constitution does not mandate recognition of same sex marriage.
July 26: Washington State Supreme Court issues its decision upholding state DOMA laws
October 25: New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously rules in favor of marriage equality; 4–3 say decision whether to rewrite marriage law or write civil union law for homosexuals (separate but equal debate) is left to the legislature in the next six months. The three dissenting justices dissented because they believed same-sex couples should have the full right to marry.
November 7: In the U.S. elections, Arizona rejects an initiative banning gay marriage. The first state in the country to do so. However, seven other states pass marriage amendments.

2007
April 21
: The state of Washington legalizes domestic partnerships. The law went into effect on July 22, 2007.
May 9: The state of Oregon legalizes domestic partnerships. The law will go into effect on January 1, 2008 (but was delayed 48 hours prior to coming into affect, then after a Court Case in February it was allowed to come into affect from 1 February 2008).
May 31: The state of New Hampshire legalizes civil unions, to take effect on January 1, 2008.
June 14: In the Massachusetts legislature, a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage is defeated in a vote of 154 against and 46 in favor. 50 votes in favor would have been required for the amendment to go on the ballot for a popular vote in the 2008 elections.
August 30: Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act was struck down as unconstitutional as a result of a legal challenge. The state has announced plans to appeal, but couples began applying for marriage licenses immediately in anticipation of an injunction. About 20 couples obtained marriage licenses and one couple married before the judge issued a stay of his ruling pending appeal.
September 18: Maryland Court of Appeals upholds state law banning same-sex marriage, overturning a lower court ruling.

2008
January 1: Civil unions in New Hampshire take effect.
February 1: Domestic partnership in Oregon take effect after court rescinds injunction.
May 15: Supreme Court of California legalizes same-sex marriage in the landmark In re Marriage Cases ruling.
May 22: Maryland governor Martin O’Malley signs into law two bills establishing limited domestic partnership rights in that state.
June 16: California state supreme court’s ruling on Same-sex marriage in becomes effective at 5:01 pm.
July 1: Maryland domestic partnership laws become effective.
October 10: Supreme Court of Connecticut legalizes same-sex marriage

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_same-sex_marriage

Continue reading The Gay Marriage Inferno

Get Ready For the Rumble Down Under

The World Youth Day event starts next week in Sydney Australia. Australia is a interesting country that I’ve had the pleasure of visiting. The only way I can describe the place is that it’s America with a twist.

When the Pope came to America a few months ago he appeared to be warmly welcomed by not only the nation but also by our media. As much as the media likes to jab at the Catholic Church with biased and uninformed reporting the American media seemed to revert to a fascination with the Pope once the Roman Pontiff finally arrived.

I wonder if the same will be true for the Australian media? At this point, a week from Benedict’s arrival, the Australian media can’t seem to produce enough stories about papal protests or labor strikes that are to occur next week. If I hadn’t visited Australia I would think that whole nation is made up of gays and lesbians from the reporting.

The Australian media seems to be trying to building up a “Rumble, Down Under” as if they want to show riots in the streets. And if such events happen the media will be sure to place blame on the Vicar of Christ. I’m pretty sure God has other plans.

Here is an example of what is being printed on a daily basis in the Australian newspapers [my comments in red]

Gays to protest at Pope’s arrival
The Sydney Morning Herald
July 8, 2008 – 9:05PM

(AAP) – Gay and lesbian Christians will protest the Pope’s condemnation of homosexuality ahead of World Youth Day, labeling his beliefs as right-wing propaganda. [Do they really think the Pope cannot affirm 2000+ years of teaching on homosexuality and since when did believing homosexual acts as being wrong become right wing?]

The protest, calling for equality [equality? The Church teaches we are all equal before God, God loves us all equality. They are equal, their actions are not.] for gay and lesbian followers, will take place at the Pitt Street Uniting Church this Sunday, coinciding with Pope Benedict XVI’s arrival in Sydney.

Catholic writer [I question how "Catholic" he is] and educator Michael Kelly said gay and lesbian people had been marginalised and condemned by mainstream churches, particularly the Catholic Church. [Homosexual acts are to be condemned, we are to hate the sin and love the sinner which we don’t always do, but one cannot accept mortal sin as normal or okay, if we do the devil has done his job]

He labeled the “version of Christianity that is coming to Sydney” as propaganda. [don’t you love one sided articles]

“We call on gay and lesbian Christians … to join us in standing up for the goodness of being gay, and not allow right-wing [believing homosexuality is wrong is now right wing didn’t you know] religious propaganda to silence our faith, hope and love,” he said. [seems to me there is no silence on this issue, I certainly can’t keep them from talking]

Reverend Dorothy McRae-McMahon said churches were happy to benefit from the hard work of gay followers, but demonized them in public. [So I guess the Church should never correct its followers when they are doing wrong and we should all just come together and sing kumbaya every Sunday]

“We need to claim our place and give witness to the grace of God in our lives as lesbian and gay people,” she said. [God is in your lives for sure but he is not in homosexual acts]

“The churches are happy to use our gifts and our hard work [an example of an all about us mentality] – it’s time we celebrated all the richness and wisdom that we have offered the Christian community [PRIDE], and show that the negative messages about us are based on fear and ignorance.” [that’s it I must be ignorant for following God’s teachings]

Pope Benedict is due to land at Richmond air base on Sunday before being whisked [as if he’s hiding from the protesters] off to the Kenthurst Study Centre for some relaxation [he’s going to need some relaxation if he’s spending a week anywhere near these people] ahead of his first official engagement for the Catholic World Youth Day event.

Dear Lord Jesus we pray for Pope Benedicts Health & Safety. We pray that your truth may be spoken and heard by all those in Australia and around the world. Amen

World Youth Day

World Youth Day appears to be causing the Devil some real fits. I mean after all a few million youth gathering together with the Vicar of Christ to praise God doesn’t sit well with him. It appears the evil one has called upon some of his minions to hand out condoms to the youth at World Youth Day in Sydney, Australia and ask them to take up the “campaign” for the Catholic church to “promote” condoms. Rachel Evans a spokeswoman for the group referred to the Pope as a “bigot” and said that the Pope condemned millions of people worldwide to getting AIDS through his anti-condom policy.

The Pope condemns no one, he is a beacon of light and truth in a mixed up and sometimes pathetic world. The Pope embraces our dignity as human beings. Contraception and artificial birth control is for animals not for people who are made in the image of God. Humanity was created with the gift of self-control even though we many times choose to ignore or develop it.

Protesters to hand Catholics condoms as pope visits Australia

SYDNEY (AFP) — Catholics attending a mass by Pope Benedict XVI in Australia will be handed condoms by protesters angered by his opposition to contraception, homosexuality and abortion, organisers said Tuesday.

The protest will be staged by the NoToPope Coalition of Christians, atheists and gay groups during Catholic World Youth Day celebrations expected to draw hundreds of thousands of pilgrims to Sydney next month.

“We will march to be with the pilgrims to hand out condoms to the pilgrims, the Catholic youth,” spokeswoman Rachel Evans told a news conference.

“(We will) say to them, ‘Take up the campaign within the Catholic church to allow the Catholic church to promote condoms’,” she said.

The pope condemned millions of people worldwide to getting AIDS through his anti-condom policy, Evans said.

Apart from condom use, the peaceful demonstration would also protest the pope’s stance against homosexuality and abortion, she said, describing the pontiff as “a bigot” over same-sex relationships.

A pastor from Sydney’s Metropolitan Community Church, Karl Hand, said the pope was misrepresenting Christian views.

“I’m compassionate towards people who need condoms, who need abortions, who need all sorts of recognition of their relationship and it’s just not being provided by this massive worldwide church,” he said.

“A lot of the views being taken up by the pope are anti-humanity in general, so that’s upsetting.”

The coalition includes the Metropolitan Community Church, Atheists Sydney, Community Action Against Homophobia and the Socialist Alliance, among other groups, the statement said.

The coalition plans to hold a public rally in the city on July 19 and then march toward Randwick Racecourse, where pilgrims will be gathering for a papal mass the next day which is expected to draw 500,000 people.

The five-day celebration of Catholic youth has been billed as a major boost to the economy of Australia’s largest city, attracting up to 125,000 international visitors.

But there has been a stream of grumbles over the event’s cost, its impact on businesses as well as the inconvenience it will cause the city’s residents.

The coalition said it would also protest state funding of almost 110 million dollars (104 million US) for an event staged by the Catholic Church, saying it should be spent on community services instead.

About 26 percent of Australia’s 21 million people described themselves as Catholics in the most recent census, while 19 percent said they had no religion.

Pope Benedict XVI is due to arrive in Australia on July 13 and will take a four day holiday before joining the World Youth Day celebrations culminating in the papal mass on July 20.

Its Time To Wake Up People

Its time to wake up people. Be prepared to be persecuted for your faith. The culture clash is no longer around the corner its here. Civil Rights are quickly be replaced by Gay Rights and you will soon be considered by the majority a “bigot” for your beliefs.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story

The collision that will play out over the next few years will be filled with pathos on both sides.

Act One: A Love Story

Harriet Bernstein, mother of two and grandmother of six, realized a few years ago that she was drawn to women. She lives in Ocean Grove, N.J., a quiet beach town known as “God’s Square Mile,” because the land is owned by a Methodist retreat center, formally known as Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association.

Eight years ago, she went on a retreat with Jewish gay men and lesbians in the Poconos Mountains and met her future wife.

“I took a chance and went up for a weekend of cross-country skiing and ice skating,” Bernstein recalls. “And I saw this lovely lady across a crowded room, as they say in South Pacific, and immediately decided she was somebody I wanted to get to know. And I did.”

“We came together like magnets,” Luisa Paster adds. “We had all our meals together. We went cross-country skiing. And we exchanged phone numbers at the end of the weekend.”

Bernstein and Paster formalized their union last year, a few months after New Jersey legalized civil unions.

Bernstein fetches the wedding album and flips past photos of the rabbi, the cake (adorned with two brides), and various shots of the two outdoorsy, gray-haired women smiling as they stood on the boardwalk in their white tunics and pants.

Paster then reads the invitation to their civil union, emphasizing the ambiguous wording.

“Location to be announced,” she reads. “That’s because we had to send out the invitations before we had final word on whether we could use the pavilion.”

Act Two: The Conflict

The pavilion in question is an open-air building with long benches looking out to the Atlantic Ocean. It is owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association.

“A building very similar to this has been on this site since the late 1800s,” says the Rev. Scott Hoffman, the group’s administrator.

During the summers, Hoffman says, the pavilion is used for Bible studies, church services, gospel choir performances and, in the past at least, weddings. Heterosexual weddings.

When Bernstein and Paster asked to celebrate their civil union in the pavilion, the Methodist organization said they could marry on the boardwalk — anywhere but buildings used for religious purposes. In other words, not the pavilion. Hoffman says there was a theological principle at stake.

“The principle was a strongly held religious belief that a marriage is between a man and a woman,” Hoffman says. “We’re not casting any aspersions or making any judgments. It’s just, that’s where we stand, and we’ve always stood that way, and that’s why we said no.”

The refusal came as a shock to Bernstein, who says Ocean Grove has been revived by the gay community.

“We were crushed,” she says. “I lived my whole live, fortunately, without having any overt prejudices or discrimination waged against me. So while I knew it was wrong, I never knew how it felt. And after this, I did know how that felt. It was extremely painful.”

Luisa says that initially, they walked away from the situation. “We were so stunned, we didn’t know what to do. But as we came out of our initial shocked stage, we began to get a little angry. We felt an injustice had been done,” she says.

So the couple filed a complaint with New Jersey’s Division of Civil Rights, alleging the Methodists unlawfully discriminated against them based on sexual orientation. Attorney Lawrence Lustberg represents them.

“Our law against discrimination does not allow [the group] to use those personal preferences, no matter how deeply held, and no matter — even if they’re religiously based — as a grounds to discriminate,” Lustberg says. “Religion shouldn’t be about violating the law.”

The Methodist organization responded that it was their property, and the First Amendment protects their right to practice their faith without government intrusion. But Lustberg countered that the pavilion is open to everyone — and therefore the group could no more refuse to accommodate the lesbians than a restaurant owner could refuse to serve a black man. That argument carried the day. The state revoked the organization’s tax exemption for the pavilion area. Hoffman figures they will lose $20,000.

Now, with the help of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Christian legal firm, Hoffman is appealing the case to state court. He says religious freedom itself is in jeopardy.

“And that potentially affects every religious organization in America, not just Christian organizations, but every religious organization. And I get calls from Jewish rabbis who are equally concerned — people from across the spectrum who think it’s a battle worth fighting. And we agree,” Hoffman says.

Act Three: A Nationwide Story

As states have legalized same-sex partnerships, the rights of gay couples have consistently trumped the rights of religious groups. Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, says that does not mean that a pastor can be sued for preaching against same-sex marriage. But, he says, that may be just about the only religious activity that will be protected.

“What if a church offers marriage counseling? Will they be able to say ‘No, we’re not going to help gay couples get along because it violates our religious principles to do so? What about summer camps? Will they be able to insist that gay couples not serve as staff because they’re a bad example?” Stern asks.

Stern says if the early cases are any guide, the outlook is grim for religious groups.

A few cases: Yeshiva University was ordered to allow same-sex couples in its married dormitory. A Christian school has been sued for expelling two allegedly lesbian students. Catholic Charities abandoned its adoption service in Massachusetts after it was told to place children with same-sex couples. The same happened with a private company operating in California.

A psychologist in Mississippi who refused to counsel a lesbian couple lost her case, and legal experts believe that a doctor who refused to provide IVF services to a lesbian woman is about to lose his pending case before the California Supreme Court.

And then there’s the case of a wedding photographer in Albuquerque, N.M.

On January 28, 2008, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission heard the case of Vanessa Willock v. Elane Photography.

Willock, in the midst of planning her wedding to her girlfriend, sent the photography company an e-mail request to shoot the commitment ceremony. Elaine Huguenin, who owns the company with her husband, replied: “We do not photograph same-sex weddings. But thanks for checking out our site! Have a great day!”

Willock filed a complaint, and at the hearing she explained how she felt.

“A variety of emotions,” she said, holding back tears. “There was a shock and anger and fear. … We were planning a very happy day for us, and we’re being met with hatred. That’s how it felt.”

Willock declined to be interviewed, as did the owners of Elane Photography. At the hearing, Jonathan Huguenin said that when he and his wife formed the company two years ago, they made it company policy not to shoot same-sex ceremonies, because the ceremonies conflicted with their Christian beliefs.

“We wanted to make sure that everything we photographed — everything we used our artistic ability for, everything we told a story for or conveyed a message of — would be in line with our values and our beliefs,” he said.

The defendants’ attorney, Jordan Lorence at ADF, says that of course a Christian widget-maker cannot fire an employee because he’s gay. But it’s different when the company or a religious charity is being forced to endorse something they don’t believe, he says.

“It’s a very different situation when we’re talking about promoting a message,” Lorence says. “When it’s ‘We want to punish you for not helping us promote our message that same-sex marriage is OK,’ that for me is a very different deal. It’s compelled speech. You’re using the arm of the government for punishing people for disagreeing with you.”

In April, the state human rights commission found that Elane Photography was guilty of discrimination and must pay the Willock’s more than $6,600 attorneys’ fee bill. The photographers are appealing to state court.

In the meantime, they wonder whether all the hassle is worth it and whether they should get out of the photography business altogether.

Georgetown University professor Chai Feldblum says it is a compelling case of what happens in a moment of culture clash. Feldblum, who is an active proponent of gay rights, says the culture and state laws are shifting irrevocably to recognize same-sex unions. And while she knows it’s hard for some to hear, she says companies and religious groups that serve the public need to recognize that their customers will be gay couples.

“They need to start thinking now, proactively, how they want to address that. Because I do think that if a gay couple ends up being told their wedding cannot be filmed, five couples will not sue, but the sixth couple will.”

And as one legal expert puts it, the gay couples “would win in a walk.”

 

When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash

NPR.org, June 13, 2008 · In recent years, some states have passed laws giving residents the right to same-sex unions in various forms. Gay couples may marry in Massachusetts and California. There are civil unions and domestic partnerships in Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Oregon. Other states give more limited rights.

Armed with those legal protections, same-sex couples are beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them, claiming that a religious group’s view that homosexual marriage is a sin cannot be used to violate their right to equal treatment. Now parochial schools, “parachurch” organizations such as Catholic Charities and businesses that refuse to serve gay couples are being sued — and so far, the religious groups are losing. Here are a few cases:

Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill “condoning discrimination” — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.

Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state’s highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City’s ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.

Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls’ parents sued, saying the school was violating the state’s civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.

Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state’s civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman’s right to medical treatment will trump the doctor’s religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.

Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee’s religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.

Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.

Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple’s application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company’s owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.

Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple’s legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.

Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state’s Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association’s tax benefits. The case is ongoing.

Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city’s marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts’ leases. Meanwhile, the mayor’s office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts’ $1-a-year lease for a city building.

Gay Marriage

“Gay marriage”, which I’m pretty sure the term is now an oxymoron by the redefining of the word gay over the past 50 years, has been in the news quite a bit lately. The California Supreme court has recently stated, in a 4 to 3 decision (Thank You Lord for the 3), that the California state constitution protection of the “fundamental right to marry” extends equally to homosexuals. In less than 24 hours the Governor of New York issued a directive to his state agencies that they must recognize these homosexual “marriages” as they would any other “legally” performed union. In this case both the governor and justice are truly blind.

The homosexual agenda has over taken our country like a California wild fire. For too long our country has ignored the mortal sin of homosexual acts like expanding dead underbrush of a great, but ignored forest. In the name of tolerance we have allowed homosexuality to persist and expand within our world. Now the evil one has come to light this underbrush in the name of equality and flames are arising across our country. Small fires of this homosexual agenda started popping up years ago and most people assumed that they would quickly be put out; unfortunately that has not been the case. Because of our countries religious apathy and ignorance these homosexual fires have expanded and have shown extremely difficult to snuff out. The amount of dead underbrush this fire has to burn off of is now great because with have not tended our religious forest properly, and if we aren’t careful it appears the whole forest could be burnt. If we do not act now we will provide our future generations with a scorched earth.

The homosexual agenda is attempting to duplicate the playbook used by Martin Luther King Jr. and the 1960s civil rights effort by trying to make us think that homosexual acts are somehow on par of one’s civil rights. Due to our countries warped sense of logic people are buying into the argument. You’ll hear people constantly defend homosexual acts by saying that homosexuals did not choose their sexual orientation but were born with an attraction to people of the same sex. Is this not the same argument that a pedophile uses to justify his mortal sin?

We are all given crosses to bare in our life, and I thank the Lord that mine at this point in time are not as heavy as the cross of same sex attraction, but we must all bare our own crosses and not set them aside for what if Christ had set aside His Cross?

Let us offer our Mass intentions today for our country, for marriage between a man and a woman, and for those with the cross of same sex attraction.

Categories

free counters