CA: Same-sex “marriage” debate returns to court
The Desert Sun: “A federal judge ruled this month that a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8 could proceed after an attorney supporting the same-sex marriage ban could not say how allowing gay couples to wed threatens conventional marriage . . . Attorneys representing the group that sponsored Proposition 8 — Charles Cooper and Andrew Pugno — did not return a phone call seeking comment Friday. The Alliance Defense Fund, also a defendant in the suit, referred questions to Pugno.”
Perry v. Schwarzenegger
2 Comments
How is the judge’s question relevant to a voter passed initiative?
It’s not exactly a mystery how gay marriage threatens real marriage. The very idea that gay sex is moral would be officially approved by the state. Children would be required to learn this “valuable lesson.” Marriage would be understood as a license to copulate, according to any desired variation, and have the state “bless it,” rather than a sacred trust whose primary purpose is the begetting and rearing children in a stable family led by a mother and father. Children would be routinely deprived of the gift of gender-complementary mentoring, and fail to develop the inter-gender relational skills that children brought up in normal families receive. These families would be deprived of the unique strengths of complementary bonding and cooperation.
The problem is that scientific studies that approach these issues are automatically discounted (and cannot obtain funding) for being politically incorrect, unless they support the GLBT gospel.