GAY TRUTH

February 26, 2014 ( Heritage ) - Yet another judge  has struck down a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman . These rulings claim that the equal protection of the law requires the redefinition of marriage . It does not. State laws that reflect  the truth about marriage should be ruled constitutional . U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia discarded the votes of  76 percent of Texans  as he  struck down   Texas ’s 2005 constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of man and woman. In his opinion for the court, Garcia  claims  that the “court decision is not made in defiance of the great people of Texas or the Texas Legislature, but in compliance with the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedent.” He added that “without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our U.S. Constitution.” But this appeal to inequality fails to address the question of what marri

polyamory: a primer (Photo credit: Pierre LaScott ) August 7, 2013 ( MercatorNet ) - When the Supreme Court struck down section 3 in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in US v Windsor in June, same-sex marriage was not the only beneficiary. The decision seems to have given fresh impetus to polyamory as well. This is not news that “marriage equality” fans welcome. They look upon legalised polyamory as a dangerous foe because it confuses the message of their own campaign. “Marriage should be extended to people who can’t get married, not those unable to marry six people,”  says Jonathan Rauch , author of  Gay Marriage : Why It is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America . However,  Anita Wagner Illig , a long-time polyamory spokeswoman, told  Newsweek  that the DOMA decision had been a great help: "A favorable outcome for marriage equality is a favorable outcome for multi-partner marriage, because the opposition cannot argue lack of precedent for legalizing

Image via Wikipedia ON RAUCH’S GAY MARRIAGE by Elodie Ballantine Emig In his 2004 book,  Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America , Jonathan Rauch makes a good, logical case for same-sex marriage. The only real problem is his basic premise: “homosexuals exist” (p. 87).  By this he means that people who are born homosexual and therefore cannot and probably should not change their orientation exist. Despite millions of dollars spent in the pursuit, no “gay gene” has been found, nor do even most gay researchers expect that it (they?) will be found.  And despite the existence of ex-ex- gays , the ex-gay movement continues to grow. Without recourse to God or His design for human sexuality, though they are behind the scientific and psychological evidence, I can state that homosexuals, as defined by Rauch, do not exist. The reality is that it looks like homosexuals exist; and most people go by appearances. Perhaps more to the point, it also looks lik

Image via Wikipedia Many homosexuals – perhaps most – are not even interested in marriage. Thus it must be asked, just why is it that some homosexuals are so insistent on marriage rights?  Why the very strong push by at least some in the homosexual community to be able to marry? As many homosexuals themselves admit, a major reason why they want marriage is not so much to be like heterosexuals , or because they want to abandon their more free and promiscuous lifestyle, but because of its symbolic value. It will give them public recognition, approval and acceptance.  This has long been the overriding goal of the homosexual lobby: complete social and public endorsement and approval. Thus by getting marriage rights, and, in turn, the last hurdle for homosexuals, full adoption rights, homosexuals will have achieved their longstanding goal: legitimizing the homosexual lifestyle. As even Time magazine admitted, in an article on same-sex marriage, the real goal is complete social acceptance