Wednesday, March 09, 2005


The Marriage (traditional marriage) rally in Olympia today drew a crowd of (I estimate) several thousand. I added myself to the crowd because I support traditional marriage -- one man, one woman.

I believe God defined marriage and no matter what humans want to call it, His definition stands.

That said, I still don't support a federal marriage amendment on principle. Maybe I'll change my mind on that after I attend a debate on the issue in Seattle tomorrow sponsored by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. 7pm at UW.


At 1:10 AM, Blogger Nathan said...

Just out of curiosity, what principle gets in the way of supporting a federal marriage amendment?

I haven't decided where to come down on it myself, though I lean toward supporting it. I'd love to attend the debate tomorrow, but I've got to be at work by 8.

At 8:03 AM, Anonymous Josef of Josef's Public Journal said...


I take a windy and I dare say Kerry-esque, nuanced position on this. How?!?

First, Honorable Justice, I concur with your assertion, "I believe God defined marriage and no matter what humans want to call it, His definition stands." Period.

Second, I also believe gov't should butt out of matters of faith. Some churches DO believe in the concept of gay marriage - how, I dunno. But they do and we do not regulate freedom of religion in this state or this country. Hence my concurrence w/ no marriage amendment and my praise to the Almighty when the Supremes rule appropiately. Then again when they allow for a new gubernatorial general election... re-vote for short.

Third, finally, I think you're cool. Strike that, at the risk of being a royal suck-up: I also think you're drop dead gorgeous if I may say so - I've seen you on TV :-). Make that TVW, when you got swift-boated by that lefty liberal loon McFarlane and beat it back at the Rainier Institute. And at the Seattle P-I Editorial Board...

At 5:12 PM, Blogger Justine said...

I feel absolutely apathetic toward same-sex marriage. As you said, God's law is God's law - no civil law can change it. There are lots of marriages between one man and one woman that don't measure up to God's law, but I'm not in favor of stopping those. Marriage is a civil institution in our country, and, as such, I think that gay marriage will probably be a reality. It would be nice if it were legislated, not adjudicated, so that each state could decide, but, since marriage status affects federal issues like income tax and Social Scamcurity, it will most likely eventually go to the Supreme Court. Since homosexuality is a moral issue not requiring the initiation of force, it's difficult for me even to care. One question does bother me: Where were all these evangelicals during the March for Life in Olympia on January 19?!

Let me just add how fun it is to watch Josef wooing you through these comments to your blog. I'll have to pop onto his site to see if he has a Marsha-shrine-thing going. Good luck to you, Josef!

At 5:41 PM, Anonymous Rick Migliore said...

I don't believe in God, and the only argument against gay marriage must rely on God, because such arguments can't fall back on logic. So I'm 100% in favor of gay marriage. I also belive in separation of church and state.

It's clear to me that gay marriage will one day be legal in all 50 states. Agree or disagree, it is the direction the western world is going. I don't know when it will happen. I'll conservatively say within 100 years.

At 6:09 PM, Blogger Justine said...

Wow, Rick! That is very conservative! I'd guess within 20 years (and that's pretty conservative too) the Supreme Court will find some sort of Constitutional basis for same-sex marriage (most likely the Fourteenth Amendment), sooner if scientists discover a "gay gene" in the genetic code.

I do agree with your first statement, although I do believe very much in God (thank goodness, He believes in me!). I have yet to see an argument against it that doesn't eventually fall back on "and God created them man and woman." I'd love to hear a non-religious argument against gay marriage. Michael Medved tries, but I'm not too impressed so far.

At 9:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Justine, I think the simplest non-religious explanation is this: marriage will cease to mean anything, if it is allowed to include same gendered spouses.

All over the world, in every existing culture, in every religious tradition, there exists a concept of marriage between male and female. It is simply an anthropological fact.

If two men or two women get "married," then the basis and definition of marriage is obliterated. At that point, there will be no legal justification to extend benefits to married couples and not to unmarried ones. Social chaos may result as longterm unmarried couples demand the same family leave act rights as spouses get, demand the government to give them the same tax and other benefits... the list goes on.

Also, the law of unintended consequences holds.

At 12:04 PM, Blogger RLG said...

While there are number of same-sex couples who genuinely desire to become married, the bulk of the agitation by homosexuals desiring to marry is part of the gay agenda. Few problems facing homosexual couples aren’t already being solved by the creation of “civil unions. Legalizing same-sex marriages would further degrade marriage as an institution while contributing to the efforts to “normalize” homosexuality and the gay lifestyle. Opening the door to same-sex marriages opens the door to all sorts of confusions and perversions including polygamy, incest, and pedophilia.

The right to marriage has also been confused with the cause of civil-rights. Marriage is not a “right.” While I wouldn’t endorse all of the point made, a thoughtful commentary can be found at Angry in the Great White North website:

The issue of same-sex marriage is being used as a wedge to advance the gay agenda through sex education that teaches grade-school children to go beyond tolerance of homosexuality to explore their own supposed “latent homosexuality.”

Same-sex marriage is just one avenue, among many, of advancing the gay agenda, along with sex-ed, suing the Boy Scouts, hate crime legislation, Gay Pride Week, insisting that TV sit-coms include homosexual themes, actors, etc. A Constitutional amendment is needed as protection against this assault on the institution of marriage. Then we can back up the Boy Scouts, reform sex education and do whatever else is needed to deal with the problem of homosexual activists.

At 7:57 PM, Anonymous Rick Migliore said...

"Social chaos"? Are you serious?

I'm guessing perhaps 2% of all people are gay. If half of those get married, we're talking about 1%of the population benefiting from gay marriage. Giving the small segment of the population impacted, gay marriage will not cause the end of the world.

The endless revolving door of heterosexual marriage has done more to damage marriage than the homosexuals ever could. I wonder how many of you posting on this blog are heterosexaual and divorced? Probably half of you. Or do you blame the gays for the high divorce rate too?

At 11:34 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Marsha -

I noticed a link to Christ's Church on the site, which advertises speaking engagements by a certain pastor Wilson.

Isn't that the Pastor Wilson who wrote that American slavery was Biblically ordained?

If so, maybe you could give us some insight on your views on interracial marriage, before we hear your views of gay marriage.

And, perhaps you should disclose your connection to a neoconfederate, proslavery church openly so your broader perspectives may be evaluated?

At 6:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

heh cool blog you have here!

I noticed you have a nice blog, read all of your links kept me interested for a good time! well done :)

Thanks for a good read instead of some of the other stuff people post here!

At 11:09 AM, Anonymous romance said...

Really nice blog. I often browse the web for love and dating related sites and articles and last time I found Check it if you’re looking for wedding planner.


Post a Comment

<< Home