lumigan tramadol tadalafil

Who says same-sex unions don’t threaten marriage?

2007-06-05
By

At the law’s signing Governor Lynch said he believes that the civil unions will not ‘threaten’ marriage – something that Bishop Robinson must also mistakenly believe.

By Robert Duncan

New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch signed last week a law that makes civil unions for homosexual couples legal. It is planned that the law will go into effect in January 2008. New Hampshire is now the fourth state to allow civil unions.

While politicians after the vote are one thing, one would expect religious leaders to be made of different material. Of course that would suppose they not be American Episcopalian bishops.

According to the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson, Episcopalian bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire, the law is “not a radical departure,” and instead is “a real confirmation of what New Hampshire has always been about: the freedom of its own citizens and fairness for everyone.”

Of course gay Bishop Robinson could be accused of speaking to his own agenda.

Robinson – who attended the signing of the law – said the decision to bless a same-sex union will be left to the local Episcopalian priests.

“Just like in marriages, every priest will have the option to bless or not to bless,” Robinson is quoted as saying to press.

What is particularly noteworthy is Robinson once again believing that he is the ultimate authority in moral matters. Robinson’s comments are in disregard of the leaders of Anglican Communion having given the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops until September 30 to provide assurances it will neither authorize same-sex blessings, nor consent to the consecration of bishops living in a same-sex relationship.

Addressing Robinson’s comments, IRD Director of Anglican Action Ralph Webb said in a Monday press statement that “Bishop Robinson’s allowance of blessing civil unions as a local option-even though such blessings are not required of priests-provides yet another illustration of how the Episcopal Church opposes the traditional definition of marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman.”

According to Webb, “It’s tragic that just within the last year, we have seen increasing evidence of a hardening of this position. Some Episcopal Church parishioners, parishes, parachurch groups, and diocesan bishops opposed state marriage amendments upholding the traditional definition of marriage last fall. And this spring, the denomination’s Executive Council passed a resolution urged against future General Conventions being held in states where the marriage amendments are in effect.”

“What’s at stake here is the Judeo-Christian understanding that no other relationship -whether that of cohabiting heterosexual couples or same-sex partners – in which two people commit to living together can approximate marriage or should receive the church’s blessing,” Webb said.

Webb notes this Episcopal Church’s own Book of Common Prayer speaks to the issue of tradition Judeo-Christian marriage, but that “it’s the Episcopal Church’s stance against that understanding that has led to many of the current problems in the Anglican Communion today.” In turn, Webb said that “has led it to disregard the concerns of the primates of the Anglican Communion. It is also partially that stance that has led many thousands of Episcopalians to leave the denomination in the last few years.”

At the law’s signing Governor Lynch said he believes that the civil unions will not “threaten” marriage – something that Bishop Robinson must also mistakenly believe.

Perhaps Gov. Lynch and Bishop Robinson would do well to look across the ocean at Spain, where following the Socialist government’s platform – that includes fast-track divorces and same-sex marriages – that country now has the distinguished award of leading Europe in divorces coupled with one of the world’s lowest birthrates (ex-immigrants).

It would be hard to argue such policies haven’t “threatened” marriage.

*****

Robert Duncan is a journalist and ombudsman for foreign press in Spain. He is an Executive Board Member and Vice-President for the Organización de Periodismo y Comunicación Ibero-Americana, and Vice-President of the energy and telecommunications association, APSCE. He is News Editor for Spero News, and Editor-In-Chief of EnerPub. More of his writings can be found here, as well as at the Santificarnos website.

He has also been published in World Catholic News, National Catholic Register, Renew America, Lifesite.net, as well as Capital Hill Coffee House, Common Conservative, The Conservative Voice, Enter Stage Right, News By Us, Conservative Crusader, World Net Daily, Mens News Daily and others. Robert was the bureau chief for an international news agency in Madrid for many years, and was published regularly in Dow Jones Newswires, with articles appearing in The Wall Street Journal.

19 views
Didn't make Oprah's Book Club. And Ronnie doesn't care. Man up. Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.


  • thurston861

    No Offense Cons. I got it.

    SK – answer – I mention the confrontation of the King by the Barony at Runnymede 1215. Labels you provide I am not familiar with nor am I an expert.

    Obviously, the money has to be coming from soemwhere (Oppotunity), but the real issue is the Motive, as that has infected the population to go along with the whole thing.

    Poinsoning seems obvious. ORwell spoke of Newspeak. Poisoning seems the obvious way to make change without inciting any attention to change.

    If you know of the “Noblese Oblige” I have a 28 Page pdf file from the Congressional Record on how Carnegie created all of his Endowments in order to merge America Back to the Motherland and even used the motivations of Women to acheive his aims, in his duiscussion with the then King of England.

    So Poisoning again is shown, and those of opportunity are NAMED, for the Record.

    Yes SK, there is not a True Noble Character in the lot and there are no Patriot Statesmen, as Joyanna wrote, they are all Self-Seeking Internationalst, probably just Whores of Rhodes, Rockefeller, Carnegie, and the Rothchilds, whose camps continue in their competition against each other for ehterial CONTROL by some perverse RIGHT.

  • conservativation

    Capt….I wasn’t debating….to be honest I only scanned Thurstons post. I read scotts comment about holding court and I typed a very lame joke.

    Geez.

  • scottkirk

    ?? could poisinig and defiling liberty also be construed as treason.

  • scottkirk

    Thurston..you mention 1215, and the bourgeous revolution that dethroned the king…
    The question I’ve asked is …are the current “bourgeous” that are funding this feminist social control….Are they poisining the and defiling the classic interpretation of western liberty and free enterprise???
    The Noblese Oblige was the concept of the fortunate helping the less fortunate…If god blessed you with a cup that overfloweth, then you let others have some… There was a time when successful entepreneurs built churches, and libraries, and funded state parks, ect. ect.
    I’ve read that the current lot of bourgeous that god has given material blessings to, are not only not keeping their end of the NOBLESE Oblige agreement…In fact the current lot of fortunates are so selfish and greedy that they are jeopordizing the noble concept of liberty that our forfathers fought for to protect.

  • thurston861

    Scott I believe that if you type U.S.C. Treason PEnalty into a Search engine yu will find the Penalty is Death. Since there is an Oath of Office involved and that goes back to the Magna Carta, it is arguable that includes the whole family..according to Sir Winston Churchill.

  • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioClassAction/ Scott Strohm

    thurston861,

    I’m more than curious (from #8 above):

    “Any Act of Congress, Ruling of Court, Executive Order, to the contrary or supports a public policy or teaching tot eh contrary is TREASON. High TREASON.”

    What is or what should be the consequence for such treason?

  • scottkirk

    captain…how are you sir???

    Maybe you could elaborate a little on the content of Mr. thurstons last thoughts…

  • CaptDMO

    Neither scottkirk, nor conservativation said,
    One word concerning the content of thurstons thesis.
    Instead they hide the chiding closet.

    You both debate like girls.

  • conservativation

    Every swingin MND writer wants to be called a member of the Hung Jury….so predictable.

  • scottkirk

    thurston..talk to mike on MND and entertain us laymen with a moot court..I’m sure you could find some to act as jurors, and defendants ect. ect. and you the prosecutor..We here on MND will cast our votes as kind of friends of the court..
    It would be loads of fun, and you could show us youre procedural savy..

  • thurston861

    all of the Rights of Man in our law come from a foundational document of English law, the Magna Carta (June 15, 1215), which was without a historical doubt, a tax protest document which demanded control and accountability of government to individual rights, and the seed of all individual rights under English and American Law.

    . . . here is a law which is above the King and which even he must not break. This reaffirmation of a supreme law and its expression in a general charter is the great work of Magna Carta; and this alone justifies the respect in which men have held it.

    –Winston Churchill, 1956

    “Thus he bound not only himself, but his “heirs, for ever” to grant “to all freemen of our kingdom” the rights and liberties the great charter described. With Magna Carta, King John placed himself and England’s future sovereigns and magistrates within the rule of law.”

    source: National Archives, Washington, D.C., website on the Magna Carta.

    Both Cited by Dr. Nelson Ying of Balquhain, BS, MS, PhD
    Baron of Balquhain
    University of Central Florida
    http://members.aol.com/balquhain/MagnaCarta.html

    “Here is a law which is above the King and Parliament, and which even He and They must not and may not legally break. And in the event they or anyone else were to try to abrogate it, such attempt at abrogation shall have no force nor effect [1297] and can be safely ignored with no legal ill effect. In addition, in the event of successful attempts at abrogation of such liberties, customs, or rights, the King has commanded and do hereby compel any and all subjects to swear oath to join the barons to assail the properties and persons and families of those (saving the King, Queen and the royal children) who had successfully completed such abrogation, including but not limited to that of the individual Members of Parliament who had voted in favor of any such successful attempts at abrogation [1215]. This reaffirmation of a supreme law and its expression in a general charter is the great work of Magna Carta; and this alone justifies the respect in which men have held it.”
    –Quote by Sir Winston Churchill, 1956, with
    –Corollary by The Baron of Balquhain, 2000

    There you go.

    Churchill just outlined the Righteous Grounds for the Declaration of Independence and the Revolution.

  • scottkirk

    sounds like thurstons getting ready to hold court right here on MND.

  • thurston861

    SBaker – further back please…..

    further than the 1930″s Socialist Revolution where the USSCT did the Case of Buck v. Bell where America embraced Sangerite Eugenics before Adolf Hitler and Co.

    Before the 1920′s. (Which might mean that evolution was the key to the philosophic notion of the 19th Amendment)

    I proffer that Robert E. Lee ws finally wrong on a subject generally when he wrote the ‘Play Inherit the Wind’, because he did not make it clear that the Indvidual Right could not exist whatsoever wthout a Government willing to Bow to the G-D who gave Rights to Man. (But I might not have read the Play with the Proper Eye)

    If the message was there, Evolution would have never been discussed again, and the arguments in the court would have been equally different. For the underlying support for the Rights of Man and a Government limited in its jurisdiction over those Rights to only be when they touch the Rights of another individual (in the least) would have been the sole issue.

    Not what a Man Chooses to believe.

    For a Man cannot be in our government and believe in Communism, and seek to change the nature of our government nor culture. The Oath was supposed to stand in the way of that. THe understanding that in authority fo Office you have no right to move the Marker, the Agreement.

    The Declaration of Independence is clear and certain and under 1 U.S.C. §1 it is the Organic Law of the Land, G-D gave Man his Rights. Any Act of Congress, Ruling of Court, Executive Order, to the contrary or supports a public policy or teaching tot eh contrary is TREASON. High TREASON.

  • S Baker

    Thurston nailed it. If man is the bestower of rights, then man can take them away. God must be removed from the scene for this to occur and the worshippers of government figured this out in the 1940s.

  • thurston861

    The State abandoned the WORD, which is the foundation of the Law, when it adopted Evolution to then be able to adopt Marxism, and thus eliminate the idea od unaleinable Rights of Man. No G-D = No G=D Given Rights.

  • Marcus1962

    The truth of G-d’s design for marriage is obvious when compared to man’s attempts to usurp that. Sky high divorce rates and relational dissatisfaction. How can you teach G-d’s Word in truth when you won’t live by it or acknowledge it’s authority over you?

  • S Baker

    It seems obvious that marrying queers cheapens marriage which is part and parcel to the marketing of deviant behavior. At one time, people in Appalachia married close relatives and were considered deviant. Now we have homos in Massachusetts and CA getting married which is even more deviant but since it is marketed by Hollywood as normal, the weak-minded buy it as another form of normal. Stay tuned for the Will and Trigger show.

  • thurston861

    Statist Marraige was supposed to be an eccumenical agreement between the Churchs, and not a terrible idea except for the ignoring of teh Founding Father’s point about Governments ceaslessly seeking broader and evermore powers.

    The Following is taken from an article here http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationships/couplesandmarriage/articleOPRAH.aspx?cp-documentid=4909829&GT1=10114:

    Myra Tillotson Nuriddin: “Seven years of invisibility piled up”

    Her Story
    Myra was 47 years old and divorced when she met Sulaiman, a man who had 10 children from three previous relationships. Myra, mother to a grown son, and Sulaiman eventually said their “I dos.” Their decision not to invite all of Sulaiman’s children to the wedding backfired, and Myra’s relationship with her stepchildren suffered. Tension built up for years, and Myra often felt disrespected and resented by Sulaiman’s children. “But if I brought it up with Sulaiman, he’d say, ‘Don’t play children’s games; you’ll never win,’” Myra says.

    Wake-Up Moment
    One Christmas Eve, Myra invited all of Sulaiman’s children over for dinner. After a full day of cooking, her stepchildren trickled in more than an hour late. Angry and hurt, Myra remembers Sulaiman’s oldest son walking right past her when he finally arrived for dinner. “Seven years of painful invisibility piled up into that one moment, and I lost it,” Myra says.

    Resolution
    After confronting Sulaiman with her concerns, she found a therapist who suggested that she and Sulaiman try an Imago workshop focusing on couples and communication. At the workshop, they learned how to “mirror” each other. “When I’m angry, Sulaiman repeats what I’m saying to him before he responds. That calms me instantly,” Myra says.

    The Imago method has also helped work things out with her stepchildren. For their 10th wedding anniversary, Myra and Sulaiman renewed their vows. “All the kids were invited,” Myra says. “When I first said ‘I do’ to Sulaiman, I thought it was just the two of us. This second time around, I knew it was actually 13.”

    See! This Women finally gets it!

    Marraige is all about a Society, but in our case now it is so sick, preverted and debauched that the notion of Marriage is alien to the secular debauched culture. There might not even be Members of the Culture who are worthy of it anymore.

    The Homo’s think it is all about the two and their love (sexual victimization) of one another.

    This Woman’s experience illustrates precisely why they are wrong.

    Sure Marraige is a Choice, but it is a choice to CONSTRUCT something together.

    Something my Mother received the Full picture and weight of on September 2, 2006 as she proceeded down a line of her 13 Grand Children and 8 Children each handing her a Rose of corresponding colot to place in her Boquet to hold in her 50th Wedding Anniversary Mass.

    No Lesbian or Sodomite will ever have that experience. EVER!

    Why?

    Because My Mother repeated the following words as she walked the line receiving the individual Flowers:

    “Child Birth (the cumulative effort of all 8) was easier than this (moment).”

    THAT! Is what a Woman gets out of Marriage. A Whole People.

    Can the State rebuild Marraige? NEVER.

    Can the Church rebuild and reconstruct Marraige? Not with the State and NEVER with materialism, and certainly NOT with a Feminized Jesus.

    Then the evidence is clear, We Men must redefine, reconstruct, and reclaim Marraige from the debauchery of the State. If the Church helps, it had beter have redefined its Master First, but it will be welcome to help.

  • thurston861

    All the more reason to have spiritual people redefine marriage as a whole and walk away from the State.

    That would be one move seperating church and state.

    If the piece of paper allows two men to be legally joined and physically abuse one another in sodomic acts, such a piece of paper does nothing for the honor of a Woman of true character.
    Just like Wives and Mothers in Cities drove the XProstitutesfrom the Markets on certain days, then pressed Men to outlaw prostitution as a means of attacking the wealth and independence of the Madames, so will be the backlash against statist marriage by women of true character.

    This Homo Marriage thing is going to make Traditional Women adhere and bond firmly to Men with thoughts like me.

    It is simple supply side economics applied to the License.

    Politicians debauch the item/currency demand for the item goes down. Thus the focus on what is a marriage moves away from the State…for people of true character.

    This is why my Bitch is so overjoyed for me to call her my Wife, yet we cannot live together because of a piece of paper present here, absent there, and the State laws on common Law marriage by cohabitation, and the WAR ON MEN FOR PROCREATING AND BEING POOR, which set Men up for prison.

    Great work Cons!

    I marvel at how that Church Men’s group is going to change, pulling men seemingly out of nowhere compelling them to come in, and pulling in men from other churches that refuse to talk about the complicity it has been involved in.

  • conservativation

    Sorry Robert, I argue quite keenly that these unions do not threaten marriage in the least. Before someone coughs up coffee on the keyboard, no, I do not support these marriages at all, and see it as a clear sign of overall moral decay, in the US and in the church.

    The problem I see is that marriage should be threatening these unions, not these usions threatening marriage. If marriage were as it should be in the church this movement would have zero legs. Its the pinnacle of hypocrisy that churches emote constantly over the desecration of an institution that they themselves desecrate at every single turn. I submit that if marriage was real in the church, if it had meaning and value in the church, and if that meaning and value guided culture, rather then culture guiding the church, there would be no massive desire for same sex marriage. At risk of generalizing I doubt more then a small number of these relationships would result in marriage if marriage was more “permanent”.

    Marriage ought to be such a serious endeavor that there would be no issue here, and the existence of Elvis Drive Thru weddings in Vegas would fade away.







Right.

Man up.

Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.

Search