GAY TRUTH

RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT SPECIFIC LAWS AND POLICIES RELATED TO MARRIAGE 1. Marriage should continue to be defined by government for society as a whole. I gave arguments in support of this policy in sections E and F above (pp. 221–23). 2. Laws should define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. This would mean that laws should continue to exclude same-sex marriages and polygamous marriages, just as they have in the past. 3. Laws should make other restrictions on marriages that reflect historical and traditional standards. (These are standards that Christians also think reflect biblical moral standards.) It is appropriate that marriage be restricted to those who have attained a certain age (eighteen in many states today) and who give their consent to be married. Marriage should also be restricted to those who are not already married, so as to protect the status of marriage as a union between one man and one woman and to prevent adulterous relationships from being co

August 2, 2012 ( thePublicDiscourse.com ) - It was only yesterday, was it not, that we were being assured that the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex partnerships would have no impact on persons and institutions that hold to the traditional view of marriage as a conjugal union? Such persons and institutions would simply be untouched by the change. It won’t affect your marriage or your life, we were told, if the law recognizes Henry and Herman or Sally and Sheila as “married.” Those offering these assurances were also claiming that the redefinition of marriage would have no impact on the public understanding of marriage as a monogamous and sexually exclusive partnership. No one, they insisted, wanted to alter those traditional marital norms. On the contrary, the redefinition of marriage would promote and spread those norms more broadly. When some of us warned that all of this was nonsense, and pointed out the myriad ways that Catholics, Evangelicals, Mormons, Eastern

Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Although same-sex “marriage” is not recognized by the federal government , President Barack Obama has continued to change federal benefit regulations to grant unmarried homosexuals the same rights as married couples . The purpose of the regulations is  “to ensure same-sex domestic partners are treated as family members”  and “have access to these benefits to the same extent as spouses of Federal employees and their children.”   The Obama administration has imposed a series of new government rules extending federal benefits to the same-sex partners and stepchildren of unmarried homosexuals, but not unmarried heterosexuals. One  controversial proposed rule  would allow the children of same-sex partners to remain on federal workers’ taxpayer-funded insurance until they turn 26. The last regulatory change was accomplished by  “tweaking

Image via Wikipedia Even where legal recognition and marital rights and benefits are available to same-sex couples (whether through same-sex civil “marriages,” “ civil unions ,” or “ domestic partnerships ”), relatively few same-sex couples even bother to seek such recognition or claim such benefits. The most simple way to document this is by comparing the number of same-sex couples who have sought such legal recognition in a given state18 with the number of “same-sex unmarried-partner households” in the most recent U.S. Census.19 When a relatively small percentage of same-sex couples—even among those already living together as partners—even bother to seek legal recognition of their relationships, while an overwhelming majority of heterosexual couples who live together are legally married, it suggests that homosexuals are far more likely than heterosexuals to reject the institution of marriage or its legal equivalent. In California , same-sex “marriage” was only legal for a few m

Image via Wikipedia A circuit court judge has ruled that Wisconsin ’s domestic partner registry law does not violate a voter-approved constitutional amendment banning same-sex “marriage” or a marriage-like legal status for homosexual couples. “ The state does not recognize domestic partnership in a way that mirrors how the state recognizes marriage,” Dane County Judge Daniel Moeser wrote in a ruling released Monday. The constitutional amendment, which was approved by 59 percent of Wisconsin voters in 2006, states, “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.  A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.” Pro- traditional marriage advocates argue that the domestic partnership law passed by a Democrat-controlled legislature in 2009 sets up an institution for homosexuals that parrots marriage. However, the judge disagreed