Iowa Court, Vermont Legislators Ban Common Sense

The young girl in this photo needs a father, and will be scarred by “gay marriage”

Homosexual “marriage” corrupts children: a lesbian couple celebrates Iowa’s pro-homosexual-“marriage” ruling, with “their daughter, Bre, 6,” as the Des MoinesRegister reports comments. (Two women cannot produce a child — disproving the nonsensical claim that homosexual “marriage” is “equal” to the real thing.) Liberal media like the Register have become shills for the “same-sex marriage” revolution. They ignore the potential harm it will bring to innocent children: how can one assert that young Bre will not be deeply affected emotionally, psychologically and spiritually by growing up in an intentionally fatherless home where deviance like this is modeled as the norm? Go HERE to see the Register’s photo gallery and click on graphic above to enlarge.  

This article excerpted below by my good friend (and former boss) Bob Knight was published today on Townhall.com. Today (April 7, 2009) is another tragic marker of America’s decline into a “post-Christian” nation. A northeastern state, Vermont, has voted in homosexual “marriage” — through an override of the governor’s veto, no less.  This profane legislative act cannot be blamed on reckless judges or “unelected courts.” No, this instead is reckless, godless liberalism in action — as wrongheaded as justifying the convenience killing of innocent, unborn life in the name of personal “choice.”

Most Americans have gotten too comfortable with same-sex perversion (we at AFTAH reject the activist concept of innocuous, innate “sexual orientation”) and extramarital sex. But liberals especially have lost their fear of God — and children, like the one above who (through no choice of her own) is part of an Iowa lesbian couple’s celebration, will pay the price. It’s asking too much of God to “bless America” when America is blessing the counter-Biblical idea of state-sanctioned, homosexually-redefined “marriage.”  — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com

_______________________________

Robert Knight writes:

Iowa Court, Vermont Legislators Ban Common Sense

By Robert Knight
Tuesday, April 07, 2009

To a disturbing number of judges, most of the media, and now the Vermont legislature, marriage was created only to shut out homosexuals. That’s it. There’s no other reason for its presence in the law.

How else to interpret the vote today (April 7) in the Senate and House to override Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas’s veto and to legalize same-sex “marriage?”  Or the rulings in Massachusetts, California, Connecticut and Iowa that find nothing unique about men and women bonding for life? Or headlines like this from the April 4 Wall Street Journal:

“Iowa Supreme Court Overturns Gay-Marriage Ban”

The Iowa law, as with most states, does not mention same-sex relationships. It establishes requirements, beginning with a male-female couple. Characterizing this ruling as overturning a “ban” defines the institution negatively – by what it is not.

In its unanimous opinion in Varnum v. Brien, the Iowa Supreme Court says that real marriage is merely a form of “prejudice” (using that word 21 times) and hints that homosexuals might be better parents than the mother-father variety. The seven justices cite junk science from gay-dominated guilds (the American Psychological Assn., etc.) to float the idea that kids are no better off in a normal home:

“Almost every professional group that has studied the issue indicates children are not harmed when raised by same-sex couples, but to the contrary, benefit from them. …we acknowledge the existence of reasoned opinions that dual-gender parenting is the optimal environment for children. These opinions, while thoughtful and sincere, were largely unsupported by reliable scientific studies.”

Say what? They have it exactly backwards. It’s the “gay parenting” studies that are deeply flawed, as Drs. Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai demonstrate thoroughly in their devastating book No Basis: What the studies Don’t tell us about same-sex parenting. Meanwhile, oceans of data from every conceivable authority show the advantages of the mother-and-father, intact family.

The Iowa court, like the others before it, and the hippy dippy Vermont lawbreakers ask us to believe, absurdly, that men and women have no meaningful differences. Even homosexuals think the sexes are quite different, preferring one over the other.

The creation of counterfeit “marriage” is a finger in the eye of God, who created marriage as the first human institution. Jesus reminded the Pharisees:

“Have you not read that He which made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, for this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh?” (Mark 19:4,5, Gen. 2:24)

But in America’s kookier courts and trendy New England, the Bible – the founding document of Western legal thought – is ruled irrelevant, and marriage is a speed bump on the road to sexual liberation.

The Iowa judges say that keeping marriage male and female “does not substantially further any important governmental objective.”

Really? Society would survive without a single homosexual relationship, but it would collapse without marriage. The law recognizes that marriage is unique and irreplaceable.  Lots of homosexuals are wonderful, caring people, and some have close relationships, but that does not make them “married” any more than a brother and sister can be “married.”

Rep. Barney Frank often asks the straw man question, “How does my gay relationship hurt your marriage?”

On an individual basis, it doesn’t. But creating a falsehood in the law transforms morality into a form of bigotry. The implications are enormous, according to gay columnist Michelangelo Signorile, who said in 1994 that gays should “fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.”

Does that sound like merely adding another harmless category?

Go here to read the rest of Robert Knight’s article on Townhall.com