"Narrow-minded bigots" have eliminated the marriage of a loving couple, "destroying" a family. What will this do to their child? They share a home and a life. How can people be so cruel?
They live in Romania, so the UN should get involved in this ASAP. A court has annulled their marriage, and to add insult to injury, the court even
fined the couple – and had the option of
jailing them. Their child - naturally conceived by them - may still be taken away.
Luminita fled her village Dobrovat aged 17 because of a violent alcoholic father.
She turned up 20 miles away in Mogosesti where Vasile saw her living on the streets and offered her a home.
Now how can anyone not see the love? Perhaps if there were some advertisements run during a major televised sporting event, we could see just how normal they are.
They are dealing with "discrimination" and "hate":
Vasile said: "People treat us like we have the plague. It is harder for me to find a job now and people are not nice to us anymore."
And religious people are using "hate speech" against them:
They say God will punish us one day for what we are doing." Luminita added: "We will accept any legal solution for our case but we want our daughter to stay with us."
Sounds a lot like what we've been hearing in human interest stories from news sources sympathetic to the marriage neutering cause, right? Except that we're dealing with a man and woman who are both biological parents to their child, and here in California, couples who obtained the court-created neutered marriage licenses before the passage of the California Marriage Amendment are not being fined, have not had their marriages annulled by a court, and nobody is threatening to take away any of the children in their homes. So, this couple has it worse.
But why?
Well, as it turns out, what they didn’t know is that, although they grew up 20 miles apart and didn't meet until they were grown,
they share the same biological mother. She told them after the couple lived together for three years and were expecting their child.
Although
I need not argue that their marriage should be valid or invalid,
I defy any marriage neutering proponent to explain why this couple shouldn't have their marriage licensed or recognized by the state if they move to, say, California, and yet two men or two women should be able to get a state-issued marriage license. Remember – they already have a child together. Shouldn't that child be protected by having her parents legally married if they so choose?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(I'm sorry, I'm the queen of typos today. Argh.)
ReplyDeleteInteresting question. I'll be watching for the answers that roll in. Then again, it won't surprise me if there aren't any because homosexuals cannot logically justify one redefinition and turn around and deny the next, equally deviant revision. It would not make sense.
I found this under...
ReplyDelete"Accept it ... or never see them again."
Ah, the Brave, New World, Scottish variety, controlled by the courts, overseen by social workers, and thoroughly infected with the politically-correct, anti-family, anti-woman, anti-child virus of pro-homosexual insanity.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09012808.html
No, they shouldn't be married because marriage says that it is OK for them to have more children together, it's OK to be conjugal and conceive children for as long as they are married, and I think we all agree that they shouldn't be allowed to make more children. If they are looking for some kind of legal structure that gives them protections as a couple but does not let them conceive children together, they can define Civil Unions as marriage minus conception rights and allow couples who are prohibited from conceiving to enter CU's.
ReplyDeleteI will bite the bullet and say that the marriage needs to be annulled for the sake of maintaining the just laws of a society that does not condone incestuous marriages. This is a truly painful situation because incestuous marriages, unlike neutered pairings, are true marriages and this particular marriage was contracted without their knowing they were closely related. With artificial insemination practices there may be many such marriages taking place in our nation.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, under no circumstances should their baby be taken away and the society should do everything possible to assist the couple carry on a healthy and normal life without any form of persecution. Some societies have accepted incestuous marriages others have not, and the chances of any biological problems developing are extremely remote. In certain "select" cases the offspring may even be stronger. The problems tend to ensue when there is a lot of non-selective inbreeding taking place, which is hardly possible in this circumstance.
There is no way to prevent them from conceiving without forcefully separating them, which I would oppose. Leave them alone and don't create societal scandal.
I think the smartest things is to let a bunch of uninformed voters decide their outcome, that's the only way true justice will prevail.... ;)
ReplyDeleteAlthough I need not argue that their marriage should be valid or invalid, I defy any marriage neutering proponent to explain why this couple shouldn't have their marriage licensed or recognized by the state if they move to, say, California, and yet two men or two women should be able to get a state-issued marriage license. Remember – they already have a child together. Shouldn't that child be protected by having her parents legally married if they so choose?
ReplyDeleteJHG's "answer":I think the smartest things is to let a bunch of uninformed voters decide their outcome, that's the only way true justice will prevail.... ;)
Good evasion of the question, JHG.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20M9ywn7Zgs
ReplyDeleteJohn Hosty-Grinnell has a point. Alot of voters who voted yes on Prop 8 probably have no knowledge at all of the homosexual. Many homosexuals do live their lives very much like heterosexuals and want to be treated with a little more respect than what they have been put through. People need to be more educated on homosexuals and their lives before voting to take their rights away. Many states around the nation do not have gay marriage yet, but California had it and then people ripped their rights right out from under them. Those same people who voted Yes on 8 are not trying to get over 18,000 marriages annulled. I just have a question, one I have also asked my own mother and she was stumped. What would you do if people stepped in to your marriage and forced it to be annulled? You would have no control over your own marriage. It would be gone, just like that. Gay marriage was given to these couples who wanted to be committed to each other and show the world, it was stopped in the state of California and now people want to take away other peoples marriages. These people have feelings and they got rooked.
ReplyDeleteOops, typo in one section of my last comment, instead of not getting their marriages annulled when speaking of the people who voted for 8, I actually was trying to type the word "now" for they are now trying to get the marriages annulled.
ReplyDeleteKim, what does this have to do with the subject of this particular thread? It appears to be another evasion of the question raised above by Playful Walrus, which all of you who support neutering marriage refuse to address because you know full well that you can't.
ReplyDeleteAgain, please explain why this couple referred to above shouldn't have their marriage recognized, and yet two men or two women should.
Also, regarding that You Tube video:
ReplyDeleteThat video's point, that the term "bashing" only applies to actual murder or violent physical attacks, would be relevant only if the term's use, when used by gay rights advocates and liberals, was limited to refer merely to those kind of extreme instances. However, I defy anyone who has listened to the use of the term over the years to tell me that it is only used to refer to actual physical violence. It is not; it is also regularly used against anyone who merely criticizes any aspect of the gay rights agenda, whether they do so out of bigotry or not.
And sorry, but the term does not "belong" to one side for them to expand its definition when it is applied to them, and then to contract the definition when its applied to the other side. Such tricks are used to stifle debate and excuse excesses on one side only, and will not fly.
And I shouldn't have to say it, but I totally condemn the violence and murders mentioned in the video. But don't start arguing that opposition to neutering marriage is itself an act of "violence".
Getting back to the subject of the thread, by not letting the couple referred to above stay married, are we also doing violence to them?
Kim Schultz - Welcome to Opine I have been over and checked out your blog. You seem sincere and respectful. Please visit often.
ReplyDeleteKim Schultz (wrote)
"What would you do if people stepped in to your marriage and forced it to be annulled? You would have no control over your own marriage. It would be gone, just like that. Gay marriage was given to these couples who wanted to be committed to each other and show the world, it was stopped in the state of California and now people want to take away other peoples" marriages. These people have feelings and they got rooked.
I have no doubt these people feel that way. This is understandable. In my eyes and the eyes of many however we lay the blame at the feat of the California Supreme Court and the Gay marriage movement in general.
The California decision was illegal and bad law. It set up false expectations and flawed analogies comparing this difficult question to simple black & white reasoning.
62% of Californians had already voted to defend marriage when the court ruled, they were also generous enough to extend domestic partnerships to gay couples. The fact that compromise is not enough reveals that the move for same-sex “marriage” is a intolerant, undemocratic and ill-liberal movement.
Believe it or not people are genuinely concerned with traditional marriage. Family breakdown was an issue for Americans long before gay marriage turned up on the radar screens. In my eyes the gay community we be helping itself to the prestige of marriage and jumping aboard a sinking ship with no regard for the rest on that ship.
Hosty-G: I think the smartest things is to let a bunch of uninformed voters decide...
ReplyDeleteThanks to John Hosty for displaying the kind of contempt for our form of government that has characterized the neutered marriage side of this debate. Just because every jurisdiction that has been allowed to vote on neutering marriage has refused to do so, proponents of neutering marriage hate democracy.
We'll just add that to the "nothing bad has happened yet" file.
op-ed, we love our country and it is a democratic republic. That is why we want equality and ask for respect. The Pledge of Allegiance does say the words "equality and justice for all". How about trying a little bit of that too. John Hosty-Grinnell hasn't displayed contempt for our form of government yet, he's just trying to get people straight on the facts of the matter. Does not mean he displays contempt for our form of government.
ReplyDeleteKim: Does not mean he displays contempt for our form of government.
ReplyDeleteSo, John respects the vote? Let's reread:
"I think the smartest things is to let a bunch of uninformed voters decide..."
To which you responded:
"John, I think it's important to remember that we are a democratic republic and the vote is ..."
Oh, wait. You didn't say that at all.
You said "John Hosty-Grinnell has a point."
Did you you forget that the vote is essential to being a "democratic republic?"
The Pledge of Allegiance does say the words "equality and justice for all".
Ummmmm, you may want to double check that...
Well, I guess we can say that Pearl's prediction above was accurate. No answers to the questions posed by the subject of the thread. The game of neutered marriage advocates: evade, evade, evade.
ReplyDeleteYes, RK, let's restate the question:
ReplyDeleteWhy should this couple be denied a marriage licensed or their mutual support denied recogniztion by the state if they moved to, say, California, and yet two men or two women should be able to get a state-issued marriage license.
Shouldn't their child be protected by having her parents legally married if they so choose and they, as adults, mutually consent to it?
Why would they not to be treated as the equal of same-sex couples?
There's love, sexual attraction, caretaking, a public commitment -- except that last thing, the public commitment, taints their union, right? Why?
The silence and evasion from SSMers on this speaks volumes.
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone has explained why they should not be married. Yes, there's love, sexual attraction, caretaking, public commitment, and even children they are raising together, but they are also a man and a woman and clearly capable of procreation and have produced their own offspring together. I would even say that, seeing as they got married first, they are capable of responsible procreation (though I confess to not really knowing what that means and who decides what is responsible and what difference it makes).
ReplyDeletePlease take some time to address the case instead of just insulting the other side.