Wednesday, February 23, 2011

The end of "one man, one woman"?

So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."

Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.

Genesis 2:21-24

Amongst all the slogans of "hope" in the Obama campaign, I don't recall any campaign pledges to redefine marriage. Do you?

Here is this shocking breaking news story as reported by MSNBC.
In a major reversal, the Obama administration has notified Congress that it will no longer defend the federal law that says marriage can exist only between a man and a woman.

Attorney General Eric Holder says he has recommended, and the president has agreed, that the law unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex couples who are legally married but whose status is not recognized by the federal government.

"Given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination," Holder wrote in a statement, the administration has concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation must be subject to a higher constitutional standard than ordinary laws. And the federal Defense of Marriage Act does not meet that test, he says.

Read the full statement here.

Here's the immediate practical effect of this change:

-The Defense of Marriage Act remains in effect unless a federal court strikes it down or Congress repeals it.

-The government will stop defending the law in two court cases, in New York and Connecticut, where the law has been challenged, and in any other cases challenging the law.

-If the law is to be defended, members of Congress would have to step up and join those lawsuits.

In the statement, Holder argued that the legal landscape has changed since the Defense of Marriage Act was passed 15 years ago and signed into law by President Clinton. He mentioned the Supreme Court's ruling striking down criminal laws against homosexuality, the repeal of the military's Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy, and the fact that several lower courts have found the DOMA law unconstitutional.
The repeal of Don't Ask/Don't Tell was couched as a minor change in the way that the military treated homosexuals. We were told Don't Worry/Be Happy.

Christians who warned of the repercussions of such a decision were called alarmist. This is the way that the Humanist agenda is imposed on society – by small incremental steps. At each step if we look further ahead down the road to the logical conclusion we are ridiculed as being reactionary.

I wonder how many people that voted for Obama are right now wishing that they could reverse the clock and undo that gross error? Whether you are Christian or not, you can not help but realize the profound change that this signifies for the American culture.

It is quite amazing to me that while any number of serious political and economic issues that face the United States remain in an unresolved state of stalemate, the Humanist agenda continues its death march forward.

Related articles:

1 comment:

  1. Republican John Boehner, the House Speaker, released this statement.

    "While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the President will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation."

    President Obama seems to be willing to stake his political career on a fringe issue which directly affects only a tiny minority of the population. Would he stick his neck out like this for African Americans or for Hispanics, or (heaven forbid) for Christians?

    This does nothing to bring the country together politically at a time when we are faced with many challenges. It is morally wrong and Obama and the Democrats must realize that there will be repercussions given the recent electoral results

    Personally, I am not happy with being thrust into the arms of the Republicans simply because there is no alternative. I would much prefer that a significant portion of the Democratic party would speak out strongly against the positions their party has taken on abortion and marriage.

    With this action, Obama has virtually guaranteed that our next president will be a Republican. Given the insensitivity towards the less fortunate of the Republican party this is not something that I look forward to. But it seems that there will be no choice in the near future but to vote Republican. While this will slow down one part of the humanist agenda, it will greatly strengthen the pro-eugenic pro-population-control part of the humanist agenda.

    Catholics need to be careful that they are not kicked around like a political football. We have to be careful of labels like "liberal" or "conservative" since neither of these political philosophies truly reflect the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Church.