Daily Republic, The Other Side June 4, 2009
What if they don't burn for eternity?
By Kelvin Wade | | June 04, 2009 22:52
Thank you, God, that the California Supreme Court had the fortitude to uphold Proposition 8, banning gay marriage in California. Heterosexual married couples were on the brink of annihilation with that ruling. Still, there is something troubling in last week's ruling.
The job is only half done. Inexplicably, the courts left 18,000 gay couples still united in wedded bliss. Even as you read this, thousands of homosexual couples are making a mockery of Leviticus by satisfying their carnal lusts within the confines of matrimony. Yes, behind closed doors, wedded boys are kissing.
What are we to do about the married gays prancing about in our midst? The court has left us with no instructions on how we deal with this special case of married gays. At least when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom granted marriage licenses (whether we liked it or not) to homosexuals in 2004, the California Supreme Court had the good sense to render the marriages null and void.
What are we supposed to tell the children? Are we supposed to say that heterosexuals can marry, gay couples cannot marry but that married gay couple over there belongs to yet a different category? Do we tell them that unmarried gay couples have officially been moved from second class citizens to third class?
How can anyone rest until these unions are torn asunder? Married heterosexual Californians must live every day with the constant assault upon their marriages. The very existence of married gay couples is shaking the foundations of heterosexual marriages up and down the state.
How can we rail against gay marriage and say 'God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' when in fact, Adam and Steve are happily married and living in the condo down the street?
And now former Solicitor General Ted Olson and super-lawyer David Boies, adversaries in the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court case, have teamed up to file a federal constitutional case supporting gay marriage. Can you see the seductive power of this issue? These men battled in one of the most consequential cases in U.S. history in 2000 and now they're in bed together on this issue.
We can't just allow 18,000 gay couples to live happily ever after in connubial bliss. I mean, what if fire and brimstone doesn't rain from the heavens? What if California doesn't break off the continental shelf and sink into the Pacific?
What if no one decides to marry their pet?
I know it sounds completely absurd but what if nothing at all happens to heterosexual marriages? What happens if the two biggest things undermining traditional marriage, heterosexual couples living together and affairs, remain more of a 'threat' than gay marriage? And what if our schools and churches aren't co-opted by the gay agenda and things go on just like they always have?
What if Californians find that they simply aren't bothered by the relationship choices of other Californians and are more concerned with their jobs, mortgages and health care? What if gay marriage isn't the end of us all? What then? Peace.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
NOTE: I've received a request to explain the column. I hesitate to because it's like explaining a joke. An explained joke is never funny. I thought from the tone of the piece that people would understand that it is tongue in cheek. I went in the Steven Colbert mode for this column.
The orginal text was even more over the top but it met with the editor's scalpel. My point was to make it so over the top that readers would know i was kidding.
I was motivated to write this column because of the 18,000 gay married couples the court decided to leave intact. So now California doesn't recognize gay marriage except for this special category of married gays. It's absurd.
But the jist of the column is in the final couple of paragraphs. I think the real fear among opponents of gay marriage is that their fears won't be born out. I think the fear is that if a state has gay marriage, the public would see that it has no effect on hetero marriage. The school system and churches aren't overrun by the gay agenda. They're afraid that all of the fearful things they've predicted won't come to pass. And that's largely what we've seen in Massachusetts and other states. And if that happens, the public may not embrace gay marriage but they'll accept it and move on.
I wrote the column the way I did because it grabs one's attention.
Are you a stupid criminal? Don't be a stupid criminal. Click HERE.
My brother Tony sold out to Starbucks and this is my response: Click HERE
The job is only half done. Inexplicably, the courts left 18,000 gay couples still united in wedded bliss. Even as you read this, thousands of homosexual couples are making a mockery of Leviticus by satisfying their carnal lusts within the confines of matrimony. Yes, behind closed doors, wedded boys are kissing.
What are we to do about the married gays prancing about in our midst? The court has left us with no instructions on how we deal with this special case of married gays. At least when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom granted marriage licenses (whether we liked it or not) to homosexuals in 2004, the California Supreme Court had the good sense to render the marriages null and void.
What are we supposed to tell the children? Are we supposed to say that heterosexuals can marry, gay couples cannot marry but that married gay couple over there belongs to yet a different category? Do we tell them that unmarried gay couples have officially been moved from second class citizens to third class?
How can anyone rest until these unions are torn asunder? Married heterosexual Californians must live every day with the constant assault upon their marriages. The very existence of married gay couples is shaking the foundations of heterosexual marriages up and down the state.
How can we rail against gay marriage and say 'God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' when in fact, Adam and Steve are happily married and living in the condo down the street?
And now former Solicitor General Ted Olson and super-lawyer David Boies, adversaries in the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court case, have teamed up to file a federal constitutional case supporting gay marriage. Can you see the seductive power of this issue? These men battled in one of the most consequential cases in U.S. history in 2000 and now they're in bed together on this issue.
We can't just allow 18,000 gay couples to live happily ever after in connubial bliss. I mean, what if fire and brimstone doesn't rain from the heavens? What if California doesn't break off the continental shelf and sink into the Pacific?
What if no one decides to marry their pet?
I know it sounds completely absurd but what if nothing at all happens to heterosexual marriages? What happens if the two biggest things undermining traditional marriage, heterosexual couples living together and affairs, remain more of a 'threat' than gay marriage? And what if our schools and churches aren't co-opted by the gay agenda and things go on just like they always have?
What if Californians find that they simply aren't bothered by the relationship choices of other Californians and are more concerned with their jobs, mortgages and health care? What if gay marriage isn't the end of us all? What then? Peace.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
NOTE: I've received a request to explain the column. I hesitate to because it's like explaining a joke. An explained joke is never funny. I thought from the tone of the piece that people would understand that it is tongue in cheek. I went in the Steven Colbert mode for this column.
The orginal text was even more over the top but it met with the editor's scalpel. My point was to make it so over the top that readers would know i was kidding.
I was motivated to write this column because of the 18,000 gay married couples the court decided to leave intact. So now California doesn't recognize gay marriage except for this special category of married gays. It's absurd.
But the jist of the column is in the final couple of paragraphs. I think the real fear among opponents of gay marriage is that their fears won't be born out. I think the fear is that if a state has gay marriage, the public would see that it has no effect on hetero marriage. The school system and churches aren't overrun by the gay agenda. They're afraid that all of the fearful things they've predicted won't come to pass. And that's largely what we've seen in Massachusetts and other states. And if that happens, the public may not embrace gay marriage but they'll accept it and move on.
I wrote the column the way I did because it grabs one's attention.
Are you a stupid criminal? Don't be a stupid criminal. Click HERE.
My brother Tony sold out to Starbucks and this is my response: Click HERE
Comments