Gay Marriage—Nothing New Under the Sun
Gay marriage and homosexuality were part of the moral
landscape faced by the first Christians in Ancient Rome.
By Benjamin Wiker, Catholic World Report
Given that the gay marriage agenda will
be increasingly pressed upon Catholics by the state, we
should be much more aware of what history has to teach us
about gay marriage—given that we don’t want to be among
those who, ignorant of history, blithely condemned
themselves to repeat it.
Contrary to the popular view—both among
proponents and opponents—gay marriage is not a new issue. It
cannot be couched (by proponents) as a seamless advance on
the civil rights movement, nor should it be understood (by
opponents) as something that’s evil merely because it
appears to them to be morally unprecedented.
Gay marriage was—surprise!—alive and well
in Rome, celebrated even and especially by select emperors,
a spin-off of the general cultural affirmation of Roman
homosexuality. Gay marriage was, along with homosexuality,
something the first Christians faced as part of the pagan
moral darkness of their time.
the American College of Pediatricians'
"Tradition and science agree that biological ties and dual gender
parenting are protective for children. The family environment in
which children are reared plays a critical role in forming a secure
gender identity, positive emotional well-being, and optimal academic
achievement. Decades of social science research documents that
children develop optimally when reared by their two biological
parents in a low conflict marriage. The limited research advocating
childrearing by homosexual parents has severe methodological
limitations. There is significant risk of harm inherent in exposing
a child to the homosexual lifestyle. Given the current body of
evidence, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is
inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously
irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual
parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or reproductive
manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available
Retrieved Mar 1,
Texas Court Upholds Ban on Gay ‘Marriage’
By Peter J. Smith
DALLAS, Texas, September 3, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com)
- A Texas appeals court has struck down a trial court’s ruling Tuesday that
the state’s ban on same-sex “marriage” violated the rights of a homosexual
couple seeking a divorce. The court declared that “the natural ability to
procreate” constituted the rational basis to restrict marriage to a man and
The Court of Appeals for the 5th District of Texas
struck down the previous ruling that said that two homosexual
plaintiffs married in Massachusetts, identified as J.B. and H.B., had a
right to a same-sex “divorce” in Texas based on the “full faith and credit
clause” of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs obtained a marriage license
from Massachusetts in September 2006, moved to Texas in 2008, and later that
year J.B. demanded a no-fault divorce.
Marriage fee gets surprise
House OKs cost increase, but some
lawmakers say bill slipped past them
By POLLY ROSS HUGHES
May 16, 2007
AUSTIN — In a switch some blamed on end-of-session blur, the House
sent Gov. Rick Perry a bill Tuesday that doubles marriage license fees
to $60 unless future brides and grooms take a class on how to be good
Before the Senate approved the bill with the fee hike last week, the
House had taken it out, calling it a marriage tax and government
meddling in private lives.
Tuesday, the House reversed itself, returning a carrot-and-stick
approach to the bill. You take the eight-hour class, your marriage
license is free. You don't, you pay double.
Full article at:
A Sterile Worldview
by Chuck Colson
October 25, 2006
According to a recent Los Angeles Times
article, Russia "has lost the equivalent of a city of 700,000 people every
year since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991." We're talking about
the population of San Francisco or Baltimore—a grim reminder of how
fruitless some worldviews can be.
If demographic trends hold steady, Russia's
population, which stands at 142 million today, will drop to 52 million by
2080. At that point, according to Sergei Mironov, the chairman of the upper
house of the Dumas, the Russian parliament, "there will no longer be a great
Russia . . . it will be torn apart piece by piece, and finally cease to
Mironov isn't alone in his fears. Russia's
demographic crisis raises "serious questions about whether Russia will be
able to hold on to its lands along the border with China or field an army,
let alone a workforce to support the ill and the elderly."
Even more disturbing than the numbers are the
reasons behind them: that is, "one of the world's fastest-growing AIDS
epidemics . . . alcohol and drug abuse . . . [and] suicide" are among the
leading causes of Russia's shrinking population.
Full article at:
In Our View - The Married Minority
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Columbian editorial writers
Move over smug married
types. Unmarried couples and singletons now make up the majority of American
households, according to a New York Times' analysis of new government
figures. Bridget Jones must be smiling. If only she'd known this sooner, she
would not have spent so much time swimming in Chardonnay, feeling like "a
tragic freak" and pining for Mark Darcy.
The Census Bureau found that more households than
not have unmarried people. Just 49.7 percent of the nation's 111.1 million
households in 2005 were made up of married couples, down from 52 percent
five years ago.
There are many culprits an increase in cohabitation
is one. But marrying age is likely the most significant factor driving this
shift. Among Americans aged 35-64, married couples still make up a majority
of all homes. It's in homes headed by people aged 25 to 34 that this
unmarried trend lives and thrives.
... Family-friendly workplaces are still important
and good for the bottom line, as is treating all singletons fairly.
Full article at:
by Gary L. Bauer, Chairman Campaign for Working Families
August 1, 2006
Pro-family advocates have repeatedly warned that
attempts to redefine marriage will lead to polygamy and perhaps even a total
devaluation of marriage. Our concerns have been greeted by the cultural
elites with scoffing and skepticism. But now we don't have to speculate
anymore; the proponents of homosexual "marriage" admit it and they have
posted their manifesto online at http://www.beyondmarriage.org.
No longer content with "the narrow terms of the
marriage debate," they are now advocating, "Legal recognition for a wide
rage of relationships, households and families - regardless of kinship or
conjugal status." They also demand, "Access for all, regardless of marital
or citizenship status, to vital government support programs, including but
not limited to health care, housing, Social Security and pension plans,
disaster recovery assistance, unemployment insurance, and welfare
My Father Was an Anonymous
By Katrina Clark
December 17, 2006
The Washington Post
I really wasn't expecting
anything the day, earlier this year, when I sent an
e-mail to a man whose name I had found on the Internet.
I was looking for my father, and in some ways this man
fit the bill. But I never thought I'd hit pay dirt on my
first try. Then I got a reply -- with a picture
From my computer screen, my own
face seemed to stare back at me. And just like that,
after 17 years, the missing piece of the puzzle snapped
The puzzle of who I am.
I'm 18, and for most of my
life, I haven't known half my origins. I didn't know
where my nose or jaw came from, or my interest in
foreign cultures. I obviously got my teeth and my
penchant for corny jokes from my mother, along with my
feminist perspective. But a whole other part of me was a
Full article at:
Washington State Supreme
Court Upholds Homosexual "Marriage" Ban
By Gudrun Schultz
SEATTLE, Washington, July 26, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Supreme Court of
Washington issued a long-awaited ruling today, upholding the state's ban on
homosexual "marriage," Seattlepi.com reported this morning.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court upheld the state's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA), which defines marriage as solely the union between one man and one
DOMA was instituted to "promote procreation and to encourage stable
families," Justice Barbara Madsen wrote in the decision.
"The legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to
opposite-sex couples furthers the State's legitimate interests in
procreation and the well-being of children."
Washington's ban on homosexual marriages, which passed the state Legislature
with an overwhelming majority in 1998 despite the veto of Governor Gary
Locke, was challenged in 2004 by 19 homosexual couples. Backed by gay
activist organizations including the Northwest Women's Law Center, Lamba
Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, the couples
launched two suits claiming the ban violated their constitutional right to
The Court's decision to uphold the same-sex
marriage ban marks a significant victory for supporters of traditional
marriage in the country, following close behind the New York State Appeals
Court ruling earlier this month upholding the state's constitutional ban on
As in the Washington state decision, New York's ruling was made primarily on
the grounds of protecting the best interests of children. The Court said the
state of New York was justified in refusing to recognize same-sex marriages
based on concern for the welfare of children alone, stating:
"To recognize marriage between people of the same sex would result in the
abolition of male and female by making gender irrelevant, and the abolition
of gender would have devastating effects on children. Children do best when
raised with a mom and a dad."
Massachusetts remains the only state in the union to permit homosexual
An additional seven states are facing lawsuits seeking to overturn marriage
laws, including New Jersey and California.
See previous LifeSiteNews coverage:
Seattle Archbishop Condemns Gay "Marriage", Fears State-made Theology,
Judge Legalizes Same-Sex "Marriage" for Washington State
New York's Highest Court Rules 4-2 In Favor Of Traditional Marriage
Supreme Court Opinions:
French Government Report Says No
to Homosexual “Marriage
affirm and protect children’s rights and the primacy of
those rights over adults’ aspirations.”
The most philosophical and learned of Supreme Court Justices, Joseph Story, published an (anonymous) essay on “Natural Law” in 1836. The whole essay deserves word by word study as a profound statement of the principles underlying the Constitution as Story believed. He addresses the issue of marriage and polygamy in some of the most thoughtful sentences ever written by a US Justice, as follows:
“Marriage is an institution, which may properly be deemed to arise from the law of nature. It promotes the private comfort of both parties, and especially of the female sex. It tends to the procreation of the greatest number of healthy citizens, and to their proper maintenance and education. It secures the peace of society, by cutting off a great source of contention, by assigning to one man the exclusive right to one woman. It promotes the cause of sound morals, by cultivating domestic affections and virtues. It distributes the whole of society into families, and creates a permanent union of interests, and a mutual guardianship of the same. It binds children together by indissoluble ties, and adds new securities to the good order of society, by connecting the happiness of the whole family with the good behavior of all. It furnishes additional motives for honest industry and economy in private life, and for a deeper love of the country of our birth. It has, in short, a deep foundation in all our best interests, feelings, sentiments, and even sensual propensities; and in whatever country it has been introduced, it has always been adhered to with an unfailing and increasing attachment.
“Polygamy, on the other hand, seems utterly repugnant to the law of nature. It necessarily weakens, and in most cases, destroys the principal benefits and good influences resulting from marriage. It generates contests and jealousies among wives; divides the affections of parents; introduces and perpetuates a voluptuous caprice. It has a tendency to dissolve the vigor of the intellectual faculties, and to produce languor and indolence. It stimulates the sensual appetites to an undue extent, and thus impairs the strength and healthiness of the physical functions. It debases the female sex. It retards, rather than advances, a healthy and numerous population. It weakens the motives to female chastity and to exclusive devotion to one husband. Besides; the very equality in point of numbers of the sexes seems to point out the law of God to be, that one woman shall be assigned to one man. And in point of fact, the countries, where polygamy has been allowed, have been uniformly debased, indolent and enervate, having neither great physical, nor great intellectual ability.
“If marriage be an institution derived from the law of nature, then, whatever has a natural tendency to discourage it, or to destroy its value, is by the same law prohibited. Hence we may deduce the criminality of fornication incest, adultery, seduction, and other lewdness [presumably including sodomy?]; although there are many independent grounds, on which such criminality may be rested.”