Divorcing Ourselves from Moral Society

Yesterday, the New Jersey Senate handed gay rights activists an early Valentine by passing a bill to recognize same-sex marriages.  Gov. Chris Christie has vowed to veto the people, suggesting that the matter be put up for public referendum, instead.  Polls suggest that it would fail, something even Democrats acknowledge.

The vote was 24-16, a change from January 2010, when the Senate rejected the bill, 20-14.

According to Fox News, Steven Goldstein, chairman of the gay rights group Garden State Equality crowed, “It doesn’t mean the world is changing; it means the world has already changed.  So wake up and smell the equality.”

Legislatures can pass all the bills in favor of sodomistic marriages that they like; these will not make the marriage of two men or two women right in the eyes of God; and that is what marriage is about.  The government grants the license but God, not Man, sanctions the union.

Conservatives are not completely heartless.  If they don’t condone homosexual acts, they at least recognized the rights of Gay Americans to arrange their own affairs in pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.  Civil unions, no more right in the eyes of God than a marriage, were at least palatable to society in general.  They served the purpose of allowing homosexuals to live as they choose, and the rest of us to mind our own business.  Civil unions meet the equality test in every way except the procreation, something homosexual couples are utterly incapable of doing.

Only two real differences exist between civil unions and marriages for homosexuals:  they cannot force a clergyman to marry them and they cannot adopt children, and in the latter, the civil union laws could probably be amended, if they haven’t already. 

Fox News notes that New Jersey has no law or state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, neither its court nor lawmakers have allowed gay nuptials.  Seven states and Washington, D.C., allow gay marriage.  In 2006, the New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled that the state had to give the legal protections of marriage to committed homosexual couples, but that it need not call those protections marriage.  Lawmakers then createdg civil unions.

Gay rights advocates say civil unions have not provided true equality. They complain that they set up a separate and inherently unequal classification for gays -- something social conservatives dispute.  Last month, Gov. Christie vowed to veto the legislation.  He said that such a fundamental change should be up to a vote of the people, and he has called for a referendum on the issue.  Democrat leaders responded by saying they will not allow a vote, arguing that a majority of the people should not be entrusted with deciding whether to protect a minority.

Gay-rights supporters believe they can get enough lawmakers on their side to override the veto.  Two-thirds of both chambers of the Legislature would have to vote in favor of the bill happen by the time the current legislative session ends in January 2014.  According to Fox, Sweeney hinted he knows which senators he'll try to persuade but won't name them publicly.

Sen. Raymond Lesniak, a Democrat from Elizabeth, said that if all lawmakers voted their conscience and didn't cave to political pressure, there would be enough Senate votes now to override a veto. And he said that some lawmakers could switch positions, partly because of the influence of gay friends or family. "You never know who's going to come forward -- a daughter, a son, a neighbor of significant meaning of a senator or assemblyperson -- and change a mind," he said.

Two Democrats voted no and two Republicans voted yes in what was otherwise a party-line vote.

“It is my opinion that our republic was established to guarantee liberty to all people,” said Jennifer Beck, a Republican from Red Bank who voted yes.  “It is our role to protect all of the people who live in our state.”

Sen. Gerald Cardinale, a Republican from Demarest, was the only senator to speak against the bill, saying allowing gays to marry goes against nature and history. "This bill simply panders to well-financed pressure groups and is not in the public interest," he said.

If homosexuals were such an acceptable and equal portion of society, they would not need to intimidate their Conservative relations by coming out of the closet to expose their so-called hypocrisy in voting their consciences.  This is how Liberals, or Progressives if you prefer, reward tolerance and mercy.

Not all homosexuals are on board with this type of legislation; they accept their status as minorities in a moral society.  Gay marriage is about more than two of a kind mating.  This about overturning the entire moral structure of our country.  This is about forcing clergyman to perform sacramental rites against their consciences.  The contraception mandate was Round One.  We’ve seen what Obama’s promises are worth, rescinding the conscience clause on Obamacare as soon as it suited him.

No minority should have the right to overturn such an institution as marriage to palliate them to the harm of the greater society. Yet,  thanks to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as  the 14th Amendment, both of which have been judicially interpreted to include homosexuals as a minority, even if the bill is put up for referendum, the gay activists know they can challenge it in court, as California did.

The danger is that marriage will suffer the same fate as the conscience amendment.  Progressive assurances that the clergy will be exempt from religiously sanctioning such unions are as worthless as the previous promises were.

Obama has proven a most “faithless” president.  Time and again, he’s flouted the Constitution, broken promises, gambled away our money, flirted with foreign powers – did you know that Interpol now has jurisdiction to arrest U.S. citizens over American law, and that part of their mandate is to enforce Shariah law? – usurped control over our individual rights, particularly through Obamacare and will eventually seize all private property and hand control of it over to the United Nations through the Agenda 21 mandate.

America should demand a divorce from this president.