July 2015 
					
					Gay Marriage—Nothing New Under the Sun
					 Gay marriage and homosexuality were part of the moral 
					landscape faced by the first Christians in Ancient Rome. 
					By Benjamin Wiker, Catholic World Report
					
					 
					Given that the gay marriage agenda will 
					be increasingly pressed upon Catholics by the state, we 
					should be much more aware of what history has to teach us 
					about gay marriage—given that we don’t want to be among 
					those who, ignorant of history, blithely condemned 
					themselves to repeat it.  
					Contrary to the popular view—both among 
					proponents and opponents—gay marriage is not a new issue. It 
					cannot be couched (by proponents) as a seamless advance on 
					the civil rights movement, nor should it be understood (by 
					opponents) as something that’s evil merely because it 
					appears to them to be morally unprecedented.  
					Gay marriage was—surprise!—alive and well 
					in Rome, celebrated even and especially by select emperors, 
					a spin-off of the general cultural affirmation of Roman 
					homosexuality. Gay marriage was, along with homosexuality, 
					something the first Christians faced as part of the pagan 
					moral darkness of their time.  
					
					
					More ... 
					 | 
				
		
			
			 March 2011 
			From 
			the American College of Pediatricians'
			
			
			
			
			
			
			"Tradition and science agree that biological ties and dual gender 
			parenting are protective for children. The family environment in 
			which children are reared plays a critical role in forming a secure 
			gender identity, positive emotional well-being, and optimal academic 
			achievement. Decades of social science research documents that 
			children develop optimally when reared by their two biological 
			parents in a low conflict marriage. The limited research advocating 
			childrearing by homosexual parents has severe methodological 
			limitations. There is significant risk of harm inherent in exposing 
			a child to the homosexual lifestyle. Given the current body of 
			evidence, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is 
			inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously 
			irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual 
			parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or reproductive 
			manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available 
			science." 
			
			 
			
			
			Retrieved Mar 1, 
			2011 from
			
			
			
			http://www.acpeds.org/Homosexual-Parenting-Is-It-Time-For-Change.html) 
			 
			
 
			Sept 2010 
Texas Court Upholds Ban on Gay ‘Marriage’ 
LifeSiteNews.com 
By Peter J. Smith
	DALLAS, Texas, September 3, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com)  
	- A Texas appeals court has struck down a trial court’s ruling Tuesday that 
	the state’s ban on same-sex “marriage” violated the rights of a homosexual 
	couple seeking a divorce. The court declared that “the natural ability to 
	procreate” constituted the rational basis to restrict marriage to a man and 
	a woman. 
	The Court of Appeals for the 5th District of Texas
	
	struck down the previous ruling that said that two homosexual 
	plaintiffs  married in Massachusetts, identified as J.B. and H.B., had a 
	right to a same-sex “divorce” in Texas based on the “full faith and credit 
	clause” of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs obtained a marriage license 
	from Massachusetts in September 2006, moved to Texas in 2008, and later that 
	year J.B. demanded a no-fault divorce. 
	
	More .... 
 
 
Marriage fee gets surprise 
blessing 
House OKs cost increase, but some 
lawmakers say bill slipped past them 
By POLLY ROSS HUGHES 
May 16, 2007 
	
	
	
	
		AUSTIN — In a switch some blamed on end-of-session blur, the House 
		sent Gov. Rick Perry a bill Tuesday that doubles marriage license fees 
		to $60 unless future brides and grooms take a class on how to be good 
		spouses. 
		Before the Senate approved the bill with the fee hike last week, the 
		House had taken it out, calling it a marriage tax and government 
		meddling in private lives. 
		Tuesday, the House reversed itself, returning a carrot-and-stick 
		approach to the bill. You take the eight-hour class, your marriage 
		license is free. You don't, you pay double. 
		Full article at:
		
		http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4807939.html  
	 
 
 
A Sterile Worldview
 
Vanishing Russia 
by Chuck Colson 
October 25, 2006 
	According to a recent Los Angeles Times 
	article, Russia "has lost the equivalent of a city of 700,000 people every 
	year since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991." We're talking about 
	the population of San Francisco or Baltimore—a grim reminder of how 
	fruitless some worldviews can be. 
	If demographic trends hold steady, Russia's 
	population, which stands at 142 million today, will drop to 52 million by 
	2080. At that point, according to Sergei Mironov, the chairman of the upper 
	house of the Dumas, the Russian parliament, "there will no longer be a great 
	Russia . . . it will be torn apart piece by piece, and finally cease to 
	exist." 
	Mironov isn't alone in his fears. Russia's 
	demographic crisis raises "serious questions about whether Russia will be 
	able to hold on to its lands along the border with China or field an army, 
	let alone a workforce to support the ill and the elderly." 
	Even more disturbing than the numbers are the 
	reasons behind them: that is, "one of the world's fastest-growing AIDS 
	epidemics . . . alcohol and drug abuse . . . [and] suicide" are among the 
	leading causes of Russia's shrinking population. 
 
        Full article at:
		
		
		http://www.informz.net/pfm/archives/archive_344784.html  
 
In Our View - The Married Minority 
Sunday, October 22, 2006 
Columbian editorial writers 
	Move over smug married 
	types. Unmarried couples and singletons now make up the majority of American 
	households, according to a New York Times' analysis of new government 
	figures. Bridget Jones must be smiling. If only she'd known this sooner, she 
	would not have spent so much time swimming in Chardonnay, feeling like "a 
	tragic freak" and pining for Mark Darcy.  
	The Census Bureau found that more households than 
	not have unmarried people. Just 49.7 percent of the nation's 111.1 million 
	households in 2005 were made up of married couples, down from 52 percent 
	five years ago.  
	There are many culprits an increase in cohabitation 
	is one. But marrying age is likely the most significant factor driving this 
	shift. Among Americans aged 35-64, married couples still make up a majority 
	of all homes. It's in homes headed by people aged 25 to 34 that this 
	unmarried trend lives and thrives.  
	... Family-friendly workplaces are still important 
	and good for the bottom line, as is treating all singletons fairly. 
 
Full article at:
http://www.columbian.com/opinion/news/10222006news69571.cfm  
 
Beyond Marriage 
		by Gary L. Bauer, Chairman Campaign for Working Families 
		August 1, 2006 
	Pro-family advocates have repeatedly warned that 
	attempts to redefine marriage will lead to polygamy and perhaps even a total 
	devaluation of marriage. Our concerns have been greeted by the cultural 
	elites with scoffing and skepticism. But now we don't have to speculate 
	anymore; the proponents of homosexual "marriage" admit it and they have 
	posted their manifesto online at http://www.beyondmarriage.org.
	 
	No longer content with "the narrow terms of the 
	marriage debate," they are now advocating, "Legal recognition for a wide 
	rage of relationships, households and families - regardless of kinship or 
	conjugal status." They also demand, "Access for all, regardless of marital 
	or citizenship status, to vital government support programs, including but 
	not limited to health care, housing, Social Security and pension plans, 
	disaster recovery assistance, unemployment insurance, and welfare 
	assistance." 
 
	
		
			
				
				My Father Was an Anonymous 
				Sperm Donor
				
					By Katrina Clark 
				December 17, 2006 
				The Washington Post 
				
					
						I really wasn't expecting 
						anything the day, earlier this year, when I sent an 
						e-mail to a man whose name I had found on the Internet. 
						I was looking for my father, and in some ways this man 
						fit the bill. But I never thought I'd hit pay dirt on my 
						first try. Then I got a reply -- with a picture 
						attached. 
						From my computer screen, my own 
						face seemed to stare back at me. And just like that, 
						after 17 years, the missing piece of the puzzle snapped 
						into place. 
						The puzzle of who I am. 
						I'm 18, and for most of my 
						life, I haven't known half my origins. I didn't know 
						where my nose or jaw came from, or my interest in 
						foreign cultures. I obviously got my teeth and my 
						penchant for corny jokes from my mother, along with my 
						feminist perspective. But a whole other part of me was a 
						mystery. 
					 
					Full article at: 
					
					
					http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/15/AR2006121501820.html?referrer=emailarticle
					 
  
			 
		 
	 
 
July 2006  
Washington State Supreme 
		Court Upholds Homosexual "Marriage" Ban 
		By Gudrun Schultz 
	 
	SEATTLE, Washington, July 26, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Supreme Court of 
	Washington issued a long-awaited ruling today, upholding the state's ban on 
	homosexual "marriage," Seattlepi.com reported this morning. 
	 
	In a 5-4 decision, the Court upheld the state's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act 
	(DOMA), which defines marriage as solely the union between one man and one 
	woman. 
	 
	DOMA was instituted to "promote procreation and to encourage stable 
	families," Justice Barbara Madsen wrote in the decision. 
	 
	"The legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to 
	opposite-sex couples furthers the State's legitimate interests in 
	procreation and the well-being of children." 
	 
	Washington's ban on homosexual marriages, which passed the state Legislature 
	with an overwhelming majority in 1998 despite the veto of Governor Gary 
	Locke, was challenged in 2004 by 19 homosexual couples. Backed by gay 
	activist organizations including the Northwest Women's Law Center, Lamba 
	Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, the couples 
	launched two suits claiming the ban violated their constitutional right to 
	equality.   
	The Court's decision to uphold the same-sex 
	marriage ban marks a significant victory for supporters of traditional 
	marriage in the country, following close behind the New York State Appeals 
	Court ruling earlier this month upholding the state's constitutional ban on 
	homosexual "marriage." 
	 
	As in the Washington state decision, New York's ruling was made primarily on 
	the grounds of protecting the best interests of children. The Court said the 
	state of New York was justified in refusing to recognize same-sex marriages 
	based on concern for the welfare of children alone, stating: 
	 
	"To recognize marriage between people of the same sex would result in the 
	abolition of male and female by making gender irrelevant, and the abolition 
	of gender would have devastating effects on children. Children do best when 
	raised with a mom and a dad." 
	 
	Massachusetts remains the only state in the union to permit homosexual 
	"marriage." 
	 
	An additional seven states are facing lawsuits seeking to overturn marriage 
	laws, including New Jersey and California. 
	 
	See previous LifeSiteNews coverage: 
	 
	Seattle Archbishop Condemns Gay "Marriage", Fears State-made Theology, 
	Lawsuits 
	
	http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jul/06072501.html 
	 
	Judge Legalizes Same-Sex "Marriage" for Washington State 
	
	http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/aug/04080411.html 
	 
	New York's Highest Court Rules 4-2 In Favor Of Traditional Marriage 
	
	http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jul/06070601.html  
	Supreme Court Opinions: 
	
 
 
Feb 2006 
                
French Government Report Says No 
						to Homosexual “Marriage 
	
	
	"To 
						affirm and protect children’s rights and the primacy of 
						those rights over adults’ aspirations.” 
 
 
Clark County 
Marriage Statistics 
			
          
                
			  
			  
			  
			  
			  
			  
			  
			  
			  
			  
			  
			   | 
		
	
The most philosophical and learned of Supreme Court Justices, Joseph Story, published an (anonymous) essay on “Natural Law” in 1836. The whole essay deserves word by word study as a profound statement of the principles underlying the Constitution as Story believed. He addresses the issue of marriage and polygamy in some of the most thoughtful sentences ever written by a US Justice, as follows:
“Marriage is an institution, which may properly be deemed to arise from the law of nature. It promotes the private comfort of both parties, and especially of the female sex. It tends to the procreation of the greatest number of healthy citizens, and to their proper maintenance and education. It secures the peace of society, by cutting off a great source of contention, by assigning to one man the exclusive right to one woman. It promotes the cause of sound morals, by cultivating domestic affections and virtues. It distributes the whole of society into families, and creates a permanent union of interests, and a mutual guardianship of the same. It binds children together by indissoluble ties, and adds new securities to the good order of society, by connecting the happiness of the whole family with the good behavior of all. It furnishes additional motives for honest industry and economy in private life, and for a deeper love of the country of our birth. It has, in short, a deep foundation in all our best interests, feelings, sentiments, and even sensual propensities; and in whatever country it has been introduced, it has always been adhered to with an unfailing and increasing attachment.
“Polygamy, on the other hand, seems utterly repugnant to the law of nature. It necessarily weakens, and in most cases, destroys the principal benefits and good influences resulting from marriage. It generates contests and jealousies among wives; divides the affections of parents; introduces and perpetuates a voluptuous caprice. It has a tendency to dissolve the vigor of the intellectual faculties, and to produce languor and indolence. It stimulates the sensual appetites to an undue extent, and thus impairs the strength and healthiness of the physical functions. It debases the female sex. It retards, rather than advances, a healthy and numerous population. It weakens the motives to female chastity and to exclusive devotion to one husband. Besides; the very equality in point of numbers of the sexes seems to point out the law of God to be, that one woman shall be assigned to one man. And in point of fact, the countries, where polygamy has been allowed, have been uniformly debased, indolent and enervate, having neither great physical, nor great intellectual ability.
“If marriage be an institution derived from the law of nature, then, whatever has a natural tendency to discourage it, or to destroy its value, is by the same law prohibited. Hence we may deduce the criminality of fornication incest, adultery, seduction, and other lewdness [presumably including sodomy?]; although there are many independent grounds, on which such criminality may be rested.”