1996: President Bill Clinton announced he would be signing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) into law, thus making marriage federally recognized as being only between one man and one woman. At the time Clinton stated, “…this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation.” Clinton later flipped on the issue, and stated he regretted signing DOMA into law.
Dwight Duncan, associate professor of law at Southern New England School of Law:
Currently, the federal Defence of Marriage Act says that for purposes of federal law (tax, social security, military, immigration, etc.), marriage is only between a man and a woman. It also says that states will not be required to recognize the same-sex marriage of another state under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the United States Constitution. Gay activists have announced their intention to challenge the constitutionality of those provisions. Recent developments in family law, both in the United States and abroad, necessitate a national strategy to preserve marriage’s central role in the creation, and formation, of our posterity.
Homosexual advocates are prepared to litigate tirelessly to force a new national consensus regarding marriage. Those who disagree strenuously with that agenda but who agree with most Americans and the consensus offered by history-across time and space and cultural and religious differences-that marriage is uniquely a relationship between the sexes, naturally related to procreation and the upbringing of children, need a democratic response that is just as national in scope.
Such a response is the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. The current version endorsed by President Bush makes clear that states can still, if they wish, enact civil unions legislatively and democratically. But the intention is to solidify the national consensus regarding the definition of marriage, and to prevent courts from judicially imposing same-sex marriage, as happened in Massachusetts, through constitutional-amendment-posing-as-interpretation. This approach is actually consistent with federalism: otherwise, one state may well dictate to the rest of the country its preferred definition of marriage, the way Nevada easy divorces once swept the country, giving us our culture of divorce.
Not everyone agrees with George Bush and initially President Clinton. Homosexuals and sympathisers like President Obama encourage the redefinition of marriage to include a union of homosexuals. Whew! I think they will win, the idea is to show they are populist and I know it will backfire on them personally- I don’t think Obama or the PM of Britain will be chuffed if their kids come back home gay.
The whole world is going mad I tell you and it will only take a matter of time for Africa to join in. The headlines in Africa thankfully still read: “Homosexuality still a crime in 38 African countries”. Whaeey! But I ask my self for how long, for how long?
Remember how not too long ago virginity was one major requirement for young people to marry, well that along with numerous other ‘African Beliefs’ have faded away with time and so called ‘civilisation’. So I think sadly Africa will bow to the dictates of the world in time.
It must be noted that:
I do not agree with indiscriminate killings of gays and I also strongly disagree with any society accepting it as a legal partnership recognised by law. I don’t think people should be hounded or hunted down for being gay- I also don’t think gay people should flaunt it by adopting children.
I do not agree with Hollywoods role in trying to brainwash young people into believing everyone can have whatever sexual orientation they want. Hollywood shapes peoples minds and it is wicked of them to do this. They even ban or go after artists who abusively call other people ‘Fags’ or ‘gay’ immediately labelling them homophobic. It seems there is a bid to force the acceptance of gay people down everyone’s throats.
I strongly believe that society has a role to play in maintaining the sanity of future generations, and a recognition of gay marriages will affect the social fabric for a long time. It will become much more difficult for kids to differentiate between what is wrong and what is right. Kids will be trying out homosexual activities as well as heterosexual activities with reckless abandon and the society will be worse for it.
I disagree with the pro-gay campaigners who try to equate discrimination against gays to racial discrimination. I know westerners will disagree with me but being Gay is a choice, on the other hand you cannot choose where you are born into, or can you? No one is born gay 😐
At this rate I think by the year 2050 somebody will come up with an argument for marriage to be recognised amongst masturbators (Woman and toy/fingers, Man and hand or toy) or maybe Man and animal. I mean they can all be deemed sexual orientations can’t they?
I hope somehow we get saved and marriage remains like nature obviously has indicated between a man and a woman.
Adam and Eve not ‘Eve and Elizabeth’ or ‘Adam and Steve’ please.
I leave with a quote from Alibaba(Nigeria) “IF ANYONE HAS A RIGHT TO SAY HE LIKES SOMETHING, I ALSO HAVE A RIGHT TO SAY I DON’T LIKE THAT THING. THATS THE RIGHT TO EXPRESSION”
Have a good week- say no to violence against gays but also say no to it becoming legal.
Lol! Pictures for amusement