Look What Pelosi Wants in 2012 Democrat Party Platform
If you’re a Democrat, then you will be for homosexual marriage if Nancy Pelosi gets her way. Keep in mind that every state that has voted on homosexual marriage has turned it down, including the very Democrat state of California. It’s been the courts that have overturned the will of the people. Here’s how the Same-Sex Marriage plank will read:
“We support the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation, with equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law, including the freedom to marry. Government has no business putting barriers in the path of people seeking to care for their family members, particularly in challenging economic times. We support the Respect for Marriage Act and the overturning of the federal so-called Defense of Marriage Act, and oppose discriminatory constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny the freedom to marry to loving and committed same-sex couples.”
The Constitution doesn’t say anything about marriage because the definition of marriage is a creation ordinance (see Gen 1–2; Matt. 19:1–10). Given the basic tenets of atheism and evolution, there is no such thing as marriage. Animals don’t marry.
If these secularists want to be consistent with their secular worldview, then they should include a platform plank that states that there is no need for marriage, that it is a relic of religious superstition.
There’s nothing in the above plank that would prohibit multiple marriages, incestuous marriages, or arranged marriages. Redefining marriage, according to Pelosi, is to help with “challenging economic times.” All of these new marriage relationships could be justified because of economic reasons. Somebody could argue that a polygamous marriage would help economically. A father could marry his daughters in order to keep his tax deductions.
Trending: When Does the Bible Say Life Begins?
Pelosi wants to overturn the glue that has held civilization together for millennia.
Some Democrats will argue that homosexual marriage doesn’t affect them. So if some 45 year-old man wants to marry your 16 year-old daughter, you’d be OK with that? What if a 50 year-old man wanted to marry your 18 year-old son and 16 year-old daughter? That would be OK, too?
How could a national homosexual marriage edict affect business owners? We only need to see what’s happening in England. Owners of a private hotel were ordered to pay nearly $6000 in damages to a homosexual “couple” because they were denied access. The owners told the court that they had “a longstanding policy of rejecting all unmarried couples.” They “told the appellate court they believe sex outside of marriage is amoral and that renting a room with one bed to an unmarried couple would be ‘promoting a sin.’” But lawyers for the homosexuals “said that by only allowing married couples to stay in their hotel, the [hotel owners] were indeed discriminating against gay couples because same-sex marriage is not legal in the U.K.”
Liberals have always claimed that it’s wrong for one group to use the law to impose morality on another group. Liberals only say this when they’re out of power. Once they’re in power, imposing their morality on other people is all they do.