Veritas Rex

Group Relationships...the new Same-Sex Marriage

This recent article in the Boston Globe strikes at the heart of what traditional marriage supporters have been arguing for years.  Changing the definition of marriage legally (and religiously, as a few denominations have done) to include same-sex relationships ultimately will make marriage meaningless within our culture.  Sure, some will continue to view marriage as it has always been, the union of one man and one woman, regardless of how the government or a few wacky religious sects define it.  However, the wider culture will move closer and closer to rejecting the concept of marriage entirely because of their accurate view that redefining marriage as we have always known it ultimately makes it a meaningless idea, a joke.  Especially to those who do not root their understanding of the concept of marriage from some source of absolute truth larger then themselves.   

The Boston Globe article takes a look at the hundreds of couples in and around Boston practicing a polyamorous lifestyle.  After approving a redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples in the spirit of "tolerance, inclusivity, fairness and love" what consistent argument is there for denying marriage and it's legal benefits to these groups of people who are practicing their various and sundry relationships in the same alleged spirit?  If marriage must be redefined for homosexual couples, why not groups of people?  Isn't that the "tolerant" thing to do?  Mustn't we recognize the "love" these groups have for one another as the GLBT PC police has tried to strong arm state governments around the nation into doing?  

Passing a Marriage Amendment here in Indiana defining marriage as only the union of one man and one woman would protect it from this sort of redefinition.  The time is now.  Here is the language of this year's Marriage Amendment (the same language currently in the Wisconsin and Kentucky Constitutions):

Only a marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.

H/T:  ADF

Hate what God hates, Love what God loves

Same-Sex Divorce Backdoor to Same-Sex Marriage in Indiana?

As self-identified GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual and Transgendered) activists have done in other states and attempted to do in Indiana (Morrison v. Sadler), they are once again attempting to legalize same-sex marriage through judicial fiat.  However, this time they are taking strategy from the Oklahoma playbook; they are attempting to legalize same-sex marriage through a same-sex divorce. 

The idea is that if a judge grants a same-sex marriage, he will have had to recognize the underlying same-sex marriage from another state or country as valid before granting the divorce.  Once this legal recognition of same-sex marriage is recognized it gives self-identified GLBT activists a legal foothold to force same-sex marriage on Indiana.

In Indiana the case is In re Marriage of Tara Ranzy and Larissa Chism, No. 49D12-0903-DR-014654 (Ind. Marion County Super. Ct.). 

In this case two self-identified lesbians "married" in Canada, moved to Indiana and are attempting to have the state of Indiana recognize their "marriage" through a divorce proceeding.   This is less about two self-identified lesbians getting a divorce (after only 4 years of marriage...so much for the argument that redefining marriage will strengthen it) and more about self-identified GLBT activists attempting to overturn Indiana's marriage laws through judicial activism.

Supporters of traditional marriage are hopeful that Attorney General Zoeller and his staff will thoroughly defend our state DOMA law, which defines marriage as only between one man and one woman.  It is also encouraging to note that the Alliance Defense Fund has shown interest in helping defend Indiana's marriage laws.  

This case further highlights the need for Indiana to re-join the mainstream of U.S. public policy and pass a Marriage Amendment as 30 other states have done.  We will continue to be targeted by this type of radical activism until we fully protect marriage within Indiana's constitution.  By not joining the common sense approach of 30 other states and amending our constitution we appear weak to self-identified GLBT activists and draw a huge target on our backs for these sorts of legal attacks.   

H/T - ADF and Proposition 8 and the Right to Marry

Indiana Family Institute Denounces Westboro Baptist Church's Message: "God Hates Fags."

Merriam-Webster's Fictionary Dictionary

This is quite an amazing story when you think about it.  In their divinely omniscient wisdom, Merriam-Webster has decided to redefine marriage.  Check out the second definition:

"Marriage 

(1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>"

This may seem like a small thing to some, but to me this brings up a bigger issue of the criteria by which we as a people define terms.  As anyone in the political world knows, he who gets to define the terms wins the debate. 

Soon children will be returning to schools across America, hopefully learning math skills, how to spell, and the definition of words, among other things.  They will be opening their new dictionaries and learning that marriage as mommy and daddy have described it is not what they are being taught (and if they don't have a mommy or a daddy or mommy and/or daddy have taught them something else, they need the true vision of marriage even more).  

By defining marriage as the union of two people of the same sex we are sending a message to the next generation that marriage is nothing more than a cold, steril contract.  This vision of marriage devoid of it's true value showed itself within public policy through no-fault divorce in my parents generation and is now taking the next logical step in stripping marriage of it's power and worth through same-sex "marriage."  Like most things, if there are no boundaries to marriage it becomes void of any true worth or meaning.

In truth, marriage is meant to be a beautiful divine mystery and gift handed down to us by our Creator.  That marriage relationship was meant to be an earthly reminder of the ancient eternal relationship between Christ and His church (those who dedicate their lives to His service) that carries on to this day.  However, without obeying the boundaries that go with marriage we never realize and experience it's true power.  We see this not only within false knock offs of marriage (homosexual unions), but first within true marriages where husband and wife failed to recognize the true purpose of marriage (to glorify, serve and obey God with their unified lives). 

Just as husbands and wives that fail to stick within the boundaries of marriage (sexual fidelity, true love - servanthood/sacrifice/dedication/loyalty, etc.) will fail to experience the true divine nature and power of marriage and will end up leaving that marriage void of true worth and meaning or destroying it entirely through divorce, homosexuals who enter into unions fail the boundaries of marriage before they even say "I do" by the very nature of their relationship specifically banned by their Creator.  No wonder divorce among homosexuals is much higher than even their heterosexual counterparts. 

The answer is not a redefinition of the term "marriage".  No matter what you call it, if you don't stay within the boundaries it will still be void of it's power, worth and meaning.  The answer is to return marriage to it's true meaning, within it's Divinely created boundaries in our personal lives, our churches and our government.  If those who have worked and are working so hard to redefine marriage and its boundaries worked harder on restoring the true meaning and boundaries of marriage within their own lives, then their church, and then their government, they would find the true power and value they so desperately seek from the mysterious institution of marriage.  Sadly, merely redefining the word and it's boundaries will never give them what they seek.

Trouble in Leftyville?

From time to time I like to check out the websites and blogs of organizations that battle IFI in our efforts to make the Hoosier state an even better place to live, work and raise a family.  This time I came across a post by Bil Browning over at The Bilerico Project.  Many of our VR readers will remember that The Bilerico Project is a left-wing gay activist blog housed in Indianapolis. 

It looks like there is a rift developing between a few factions within the gay rights movement here in Indianapolis.  Bil calls out Indiana Equality (the lobbying arm of the militant gay activist community) for letting IFI get the scoop on them regarding the Marriage Amendment's reintroduction in the Special Session of the Indiana General Assembly.  One commenter even slammed IE's lobbyist, Mark St. John, and called for new leadership. 

Beauty Pageant Contestant Takes a Stand for Marriage

Thank you Miss California!

Speaker Bauer Turns A Deaf Ear To Iowa Warning

Below is the press release Rep. Eric Turner, the IN House author of the Marriage Amendment, put out regarding Iowa's Supreme Court decision redefining marriage. 

Rep. Turner is right on the money when he says:

"Speaker Bauer has said many times Indiana's statute is sufficient to protect the sanctity of marriage," Rep. Turner said. "If he believes in that sanctity, he needs to take the Defense of Marriage Amendment seriously."

There is overwhelming support for the Marriage Amendment within the Indiana House of Representatives.  There are many within Speaker Bauer's own caucus who support the Marriage Amendment, including co-author Rep. Dave Cheatham.  It's a shame that one man is holding back so many pro-marriage, pro-family, pro-life, pro-education, pro-limited government, pro-tax reform, etc. measures this year.

STATEHOUSE (April 3, 2009) - What happened in Iowa today is a perfect example of why Indiana needs the Defense of Marriage Amendment in the state constitution, Rep. Eric Turner (R-Marion) said.

The Iowa Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling today finding that the state's same-sex-marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of homosexual couples. Iowa now joins Massachusetts and Connecticut in permitting same-sex marriage.

"Indiana has a statute prohibiting same-sex marriage, but as we can see from Iowa's example, it is not safe," Rep. Turner said. "This decision comes from the Midwest, the country's heartland. It didn't come from one of the liberal coasts. The assault on family values is moving inland."

Vermont homosexual activists prove civil unions not enough

Some of my moderate friends have argued in the past that something like Vermont civil unions would be a good compromise for Indiana.  We don't redefine marriage, yet we give proponents of alternative sexual lifestyles additional benefits.  Homosexual activists in Vermont prove this proposed "compromise" to be naive.  What started out as a compromise of civil unions has become a stepping stone to same-sex marriage.

What my moderate friends do not fully appreciate is that the fight over marriage is not really a fight over legal rights, its a fight over self esteem.  If God is either nonexistent, irrelevant or a figurehead made of our own preferences, then who do we turn to for ultimate approval?  Big Brother. It is incredibly naive to believe that these radicals will stop until they have forced their view of sexuality upon every last citizen.  Allowing civil unions is not compromise, it's surrender.

More on Iowa Marriage Redefinition

From Citzenlink:

Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Marriage Law

Seven judges in Iowa have changed the definition of marriage for the entire state by voting unanimously to ignore the state’s Defense of Marriage Act. Six homosexual couples had sued in December 2005, demanding marriage licenses. The court agreed today, thus ignoring the Legislature and a majority of Iowans.

“The Iowa marriage law was simple, settled and overwhelmingly supported by Iowans," said Douglas Napier, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. "There was simply no legitimate reason for the court to redefine marriage."

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst at Focus on the Family Action, said the ruling took his breath away.

"The justices brazenly asserted that their role was not only to redefine marriage, but also to legislate whatever new social agenda they favored, 'free from the influences' of a society resistant to such change," he said. "Such an admission is breathtaking in its arrogance and scope."

Tony Perkins, president of FRC Action, called on Iowa to join the 30 states that have amended their constitutions to protect marriage.

"We need to remember that the marriage-amendment movement has been many times more successful than the same-sex 'marriage' movement," he said. "We urge Iowans to contact their legislators and urge them to move quickly to pass a constitutional amendment protecting marriage.

"We hope the Legislature will heed the powerful swell of statewide support for an amendment and reclaim from the High Court its rightful place as the state's policy-making body."

In Vermont, marriage advocates remained hopeful after the House failed to get the votes needed to override a promised veto of same-sex "marriage" legislation.
Gov. James Douglas has pledged to veto S. 115, which passed the House with a 95-52 vote and had already cleared the Senate in a 26-4 vote. One hundred House votes were needed to push the legislation through.