If you are constitutionally opposed to the Supreme Judicial Court’s introduction of a civil definition of marriage, what do you have to say about the current ability of civil authority to dissolve marriage, which is declared “until death us do part” or even beyond in some sects? Or is that the next step in the program to covert the US into a medieval theocracy? I am baffled by those who seem to need civil authority to back (legitimate?) what I was taught were a part of one’s personal faith.
Derrick Jackson, who usually is more aggravating than elightening, really skewers this perception in today’s op-ed: Mass. court cuts through the homophobia
If politicians really wanted to strengthen American families, they’d be better off funding after-school programs and creating jobs. If the Catholic Church is serious about families, it should make sure its new procedures against child abuse are working. Railing about gay marriage in a society where half of straight marriages end in divorce is gutter politics that exploits one of our deepest remaining strains of bigotry.
Update: And this Salon run through of the right-leaning blogs comes up with further points to ponder: Right Hook
But “Jim Noble” tells “Always Right” why a Constitutional amendment may not make a difference.
“Traditional marriage has 3 elements:
1) It is permanent (no divorce)
2) It is sexually exclusive (adultery is a felony)
3) It is between a man and at least one woman.
Which of these does your amendment restore?”