|
|
|
Refer a Friend | October 26, 2006
Same-Sex Marriage by Any Other Name...
 The New
Jersey high court is known to be both political and
liberal. Now it has set itself up as a "super-legislature,"
mandating what lawmakers can and cannot do. However, with a Democratic
majority in control in Trenton,
and their charade of opposition intact, make no mistake-they will gladly move
to do the court's bidding. Yesterday, Gov. Jon Corzine
(D-NJ) said, "I look forward to the legislative process implementing the
Court's decision." It's painfully obvious that lawmakers are willing to
take their marching orders not from the people but from unelected judges. The
court ordered the legislature to act in 180 days, knowing full well that it
would take the state far longer to strike back with a constitutional
amendment that protects marriage. But strike back it must. As a first line of
defense, the state must move forward to amend its constitution. Twenty states
have already done so and eight more are prepared to join them November 7. The
ruling should serve as a wake-up call for those who believe marriage does not
need federal protection. We must have a U.S. constitutional amendment
defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. That prospect is
highly unlikely if the Democrats regain control of Congress. Nancy Pelosi,
Howard Dean, and the Democratic National Committee have vowed to fund and
fight against marriage amendments on the state level. Imagine what they could
do on a national scale, not only to the legislative process but also in its
confirmation of judges, who could all wage similar wars on the values we hold
dear. On the eve this election, candidates from both parties need to answer:
will you stand up for traditional marriage or not?
Homosexual Marriage: Going to the Chapel?
 By their decision to grant same-sex unions, the New
Jersey State Supreme Court has succeeded in one thing-stoking the fires of
conservatives who value marriage, family, and religious freedom. In its
opinion, the court indicates that a confrontation with the church is near.
"However the Legislature may act," the majority writes,
"same-sex couples will be free to call their relationships by the name
they choose and sanctify their relationships in religious ceremonies in
houses of worship." The court is already working to strip marriage of
any meaning, and now it looks to foist its counterfeit on the church. Will we
soon see this same "discrimination" as grounds to force
homosexuality on our houses of worship? The church is already under
attack-from those inside who want to advance an agenda of approval, and those
outside, who hope to use the politics of intimidation to crush the freedom of
religion. The ruling makes this much clear: the church must be prepared to
defend its right of conscience and conviction.
Playing the Anti-Religion Card
 The Virginia
chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, with a nice assist from the
Washington Post, is playing up an anti-religious theme in an unlikely place:
a local zoning dispute involving the location of a massage therapy business.
The story involves a 4-3 decision this week by the city council of Manassas, Virginia,
to deny the application of a resident of its historic district for a permit
to operate the massage business part-time in his home. The massage therapist
is now alleging, with the ACLU's help, that the permit was denied solely
because he and his housemate are homosexual. Reporting on the story, the
Washington Post asserted that many residents who testified against the
proposal "were members of a local church, All Saints Catholic Church,
who do not live in the neighborhood." No basis for that information is
cited in the story. As with other jurisdictions around the country, Manassas citizens who
testify at public hearings provide names and addresses to establish residency
and any taxpayer can speak on any topic. At least one person who attended the
hearing on the permit says that neither the sexual orientation of the permit
applicant nor the religious affiliations of the citizens who spoke on the
topic, both pro and con, came up at the hearing. The ACLU is shameless, but
the Post at least should be ashamed of succumbing to religion-baiting.
|
|
