Printer Friendly

Courts refuse to impose "gay" marriage.

New York--The New York Times (NYT) had a bad time during the month of July, 2006. The pro-homosexual newspaper was almost in a state of shock when on one day, July 6, the highest courts in two states, New York and Georgia, ruled that their constitutions do not guarantee a right to same-sex "marriage," and that they, the courts, do not have the right to impose it on the citizens. One could have expected this in Georgia, but in liberal New York? The newspaper had apoplexy: "Gay marriage ruling shows that New York isn't as liberal as it (and the USA) thinks," read the commentary by Sam Roberts (July 10).

This was not the end of it. Five days later, the NYT had to report "In Nebraska and Tennessee, more setbacks to gay rights: Court rulings add to defeats elsewhere" (July 15, 2006). "Opponents of same-sex marriage celebrate again," it stated; "now they have the right to amend their constitutions in the coming elections by proposing to ban such marriages."

A Wall Street Journal editorial thought this was not such a bad thing: "The politicians won't be able to hide behind judges" ("Gay democracy," July 10, 2006). "Politicians will have to come out of the closet themselves," it added.

Again that same week, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts allowed a constitutional amendment against same-sex "marriage" to stand for a citizen's vote in the election. As the (four) Massachusetts' bishops had argued, neither the judiciary nor the legislature should substitute itself for the sovereignty of the people, especially on such a foundational matter as the meaning of marriage for the common good of society (Zenit.org, July 10, 2006).

On July 26, it was the turn of the Supreme Court of Washington State to uphold the constitutionality of the State law limiting marriage to only the union of a man and a woman.

Finally, on July 31, a High Court in England ruled (in the case of Wilkinson vs. Attorney General) that a same-sex "marriage" legalized in Canada would not be recognized in Britain.

How did the pro-"gay" media in Canada handle the American and British "setbacks?" Well, they just forgot to report them!
COPYRIGHT 2006 Catholic Insight
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2006, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

 
Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:United States
Publication:Catholic Insight
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Sep 1, 2006
Words:364
Previous Article:U.S. traditional marriage amendment fails in Senate.
Next Article:Homosexual activists disrupt Pentecost Mass.
Topics:


Related Articles
An equal right to marry.
Blame Canada: equal marriage rights in Canada will also allow U.S. gays to wed legally. How will that affect the fight for marriage rights at home?
Opening marriage: do same-sex unions pave the way for polygamy?
Portland's lifetime commitment: as Oregon continues to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry, some are describing the Pacific Northwest state as the...
Our wedding album: the images of May 17, from towns across Massachusetts, express emotions no words could capture, as overjoyed gay and lesbian...

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters