HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE...

Well, there is a big old controversy about gay and Lebanese marriage going on in California. Imagine that...California in the middle of an idiotic court case!!!

But, I've got to concede that Massachusetts might be more gay and idiotic than California, since their Supreme Court required the State legislature to write a law making it legal. (By the way, the Patriots got upset in the Super Bowl...a coincidence?...I don't think so.)

An article from the San Jose Mercury News ( Aliens obviously...I mean, they live in San Jose, and they are from Mercury) spells out the story pretty good. It seems that several homos have sued to overturn Proposition 22, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Evidently, some lower court sided with the complainers, and it kicked the can up the road to the California Supreme Court.

A quote:

The California Supreme Court is seemingly as divided as society is over gay marriage.

For more than three hours Tuesday, the seven justices of the state's high court shifted back and forth on whether to uphold California's ban on same-sex marriage, at times appearing to spar with each other as they weighed their most important civil rights case in decades.

Well, let me just ask the obvious question: What idiot thinks that US Society is divided over gay marriage? The Aliens in San Jose/San Francisco might be divided over gay marriage, but the rest of us ain't!

I guess if you define "divided" as "any fraction of the whole" then Americans might be "divided." But that fraction is pretty minor. Come on! Nobody can tell me that even close to half the US population believes that homos ought to be able to get married.

Now y'all know that I am Libertarian, and believe that what folks want to do with their lives is their own business. I ain't for legislating morality (it don't ever work...immorality is in a mans' heart, not in his actions). But I ain't for a Court redefining what marriage is, either (but that could happen in this case).

Earlier this week, Barack Obama was at a church in Ohio, addressing the subject of gay marriage. While he was doing the Ohio Two-Step around it, he said this: "I don't think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state," said Obama. "If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans."

Well, I have read The Saviors' Sermon On The Mount a time or two, and I don't get the connection there. I have also read that "obscure passage" in Romans that Paul the Apostle wrote.

I have looked at several "takes" on Obamas' obviously idiotic reference to Jesus in his answer on the computer. I ain't even a Roman Catholic, but I think the Catholic News Agency had the best take on Obamas' idiocy.

A quote:

The Sermon on the Mount, as recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, includes the Beatitudes, an endorsement of scriptural moral commandments, and condemnations of murder, divorce, and adultery. The passage in Romans (1:27) referred to by Obama condemns those who have rejected their creation in God’s image by their actions, among the acts mentioned is homosexual sex.

Kiera McCaffrey director of communications for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, responded to Obama’s remarks on same-sex unions.

"It seems pretty bogus using (the Bible) to justify civil unions," McCaffrey told Cybercast News Service. "He should be using secular reasons to back it up.

"He can search the whole Bible and not find anything that justifies gay marriage or same-sex unions," she said.

Other religious leaders were also puzzled by Obama’s connection of the Sermon on the Mount and same-sex unions...

I am probably going to offend all my friends right now, but here we go!

I don't mind "same sex civil unions."

I will use "secular reasons" to justify my opinion on this one.

We have always recognized them in the business world. They are called "partnerships." Two fellows, or two gals, or a fellow and a gal go into business. They go to the bank and borrow money to start a business. The bank tells them, "you are entering into an obligation that both of you are responsible for." If one of the "partners" flakes out, the other one is responsible to repay the loan (even if the other partner leaves them high and dry).

That is a "civil union." It is a legal agreement that two people enter into. They agree to take on the obligations, and responsibilities...or to enjoy the profits of the enterprise equally.

In a Civil Union between gays, or Lebanese, either partner would be responsible for the debts, obligations, and actions of the other...just like real married people. I figure that after a few years of that, the homos would be begging the Courts to "overturn" their ruling. It's a lovely thought to be "united" legally with the one you "love." But it's a whole lot tougher to live with the consequences. It has been easy for the gays...yes, say your vows, make your pledges to each other...but when things go bad you can just swagger on down the road. No legal obligations to tie you down.

Almost all "marriage" is just a "civil union" anyway.

This is where I'm gonna fry alot of potatoes. I will use my doctrine to justify my opinion on this one.

I believe that "marriage" can only be defined as the union of a man and a woman that have been made "holy" by the blood of Jesus. Some call it "holy matrimony." Stay with me here...

As a Christian, I believe that the most righteous thing I can do without Christ is just "filthy rags." Without the redemption of Christ, there is nothing I do that can be classified as "holy." I believe that most "marriages" that take place are not between two Christians...believers in Jesus, that have given their will over to Him, and have committed to yield their own humanity to Christ.

Shoot, I'll say it: Most married people aren't even married at all in the Biblical sense of marriage. They are living in a "civil union." They have made a legal partnership. The partnership is recognized by the State, and carries with it responsibilities and rewards. It is not "holy matrimony." It is a legal union.

So, let the gays and lesbians make their legal partnerships. Let them pay each others' bills, enjoy each others' health insurance, get the social security benefits...but also go through messy divorces like straight folks do (alimony, splitting up the household goods, responsible for the mortgage, car notes, etc.) I'll bet it doesn't last long when that crowd has to deal with the tough issues of breaking up in the legal system.

But don't let some Court change the definition of "marriage." The people of California spoke overwhelmingly that their wish is that marriage have a specific definition (one man, one woman). If 4 of 7 idiots in robes undo the will of millions of Californians...well...look out!!! It's liable to get ugly out there.