December 15, 2006
Gay Unions OKay In New JerseyTopics: Political News and commentaries
Via My Way News, we find that in response to pressure from New Jersey's highest court to offer marriage or its equivalent to gay couples, the Legislature voted Thursday to make New Jersey the third state to allow civil unions.
Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine said he would sign the measure, which would extend to same-sex couples all the rights and privileges available under state law to married people. The bill passed the Assembly 56-19 and the Senate 23-12."Love counts," says Democratic Assemblyman Wilfredo Caraballo. "The court left it up to the Legislature to decide whether to call such unions "marriages" or something else"? What kind of nonsensical crap is this?In its 4-3 ruling, the court left it up to the Legislature to decide whether to call such unions "marriages" or something else."Love counts," Democratic Assemblyman Wilfredo Caraballo, a chief sponsor of the bill, said as the debate opened. "The gender of whom one loves should not matter to the state."
But Republican Assemblyman Ronald S. Dancer said: "It's my personal belief, faith and religious practice that marriage has been defined in the Bible. And this is one time that I cannot compromise my personal beliefs and faiths."
What about natural law, Wilfredo and company? What about the faith traditions and religious practice of the last 2,000 years (even longer - there was that not-so-little matter of Sodom in Genesis)?
Wilfredo and his politically correct, secularist-agended, anti-faith friends (I include the NJ court in this grouping) that support same-sex marriage (after all, that's where they're actually headed) are doing they're best to march to the gay agenda (the truth is that there are multiple homosexual agendas), and ignore the "under God" part of our "One nation under God" foundations. While our nation extends freedom of expression and practice to all faiths, and those with none at all, while supporting none over another, it was founded on the basis of Judeo-Christian values. And the idea of homosexual marriage has never, that is never, been even up for consideration - because it has never made any sense to our far more rational predecessors and forefathers.
Although I disapprove of homosexual relationships in human beings (I'm specific here since surely, some gay advocate is going to write-in and say "animals do it"), I fully support homosexuals being treated "with respect, compassion and sensitivity" (the position of the Holy See) and not condemning them for their orientation , nevertheless, I consider the homosexual act as having nothing to do with life-giving, deprave, and against natural law (The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man). In other words, to even thinking about the idea of calling a homosexual relationship - a marriage - even if some cleric or court calls it that, is - nuts, nonsensical, irrational, degrades the sacredness of marriage (even more than married people often do themselves by divorce and adultery), and immoral.
All this having been said, when you get down to it, the idea of homosexual marriage is against the reasoning of natural law:
People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal.So, the take home message here is actually a question: What in the hell is going on with the New Jersey courts and Legislature, and what's in the water that causes them to lose all reason, moral values, and common sense?
The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality--that it is wrong because it is unnatural.
Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.
By the way, I actually don't have a problem with homosexual unions - so long as they abstain from sexual intimacy.
I anxiously await with bated breath, the barrage of forthcoming emails from folks of a different persuasion and view.
Related: Gay Marriage
Posted by Richard at December 15, 2006 6:24 AM
Articles Related to Political News and commentaries:
- Gay Unions OKay In New Jersey - Dec 15, 2006