# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MACKLEMORE & RYAN LEWIS - SAME LOVE feat. MARY LAMBERT (OFFICIAL VIDEO)

# data[].attributes.body
by Doug Mainwaring Wed Mar 27 9:29 AM EST In our sometimes misguided efforts to expand our freedom, selfish adults have systematically dismantled that which is most precious to children as they grow and develop. That’s why I am now speaking out against same-sex marriage. By the way,  I am gay.

A few days ago I testified against pending same-sex marriage legislation in Minnesota’s Senate Judiciary and House Civil Law Committees.The atmosphere at these events (I’ve also testified elsewhere) seems tinged with unreality—almost a carnival-like surrealism. Natural law, tradition, religion, intellectual curiosity, and free inquiry no longer play a role in deliberations. Same-sex marriage legislation is defended solely on grounds of moral relativism and emotions.

Here’s the problem: The national discussion of same-sex marriage treats the issue like a game of checkers, where opponents can quickly gain each other’s pieces without much forethought about the consequences.

In years past, defenders of marriage found it easy to win the battle on the checker board. Appeals to religion and tradition won hands down almost effortlessly. While same-sex marriage advocates argued for a more thoughtful consideration of the topic.
The tide has turned. Same-sex marriage proponents now have all the “kings” on the board, and rule it. One only needs to consider media headlines from the last few weeks. We are bombarded with approvals of same-sex marriage. To the casual onlooker, not steeped in this issue, it would seem that conservatism has embraced same-sex marriage. Each day brings fresh news of Republican political elites, Fortune 500 companies, NFL members, and even Dirty Harry himself, Clint Eastwood, throwing their support behind genderless marriage.

In developing their goals for policy and law, politicians often look no further than the next election cycle. They’re concerned about votes. Supporting same-sex marriage now looks like a winner for them.

The sense of urgency regarding same-sex marriage, now palpably frenetic, is in itself a sign of our national discussion’s devolution into nothing more than slogans and emotions.
Our nation’s individual state legislatures and courts—including the Supreme Court— need to apply the brakes. Now.
Genderless marriage now enjoys an aura of equality and fairness, which suggests that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had same-sex marriages in mind as they penned their magnificent giant leap forward for humanity. While this situation is highly unlikely, those who selfishly seek additional “rights” for themselves have found their justification in the penumbra they now sense surrounding legitimate civil rights. Same-sex marriage will not expand rights and freedoms in our nation. It will not redefine marriage. It will undefine it.
This isn’t the first time our society has undefined marriage. No-fault divorce, instituted all across our country, sounded like a good idea at the time. Its unintended consequence was that it changed forever the definition of marriage from a permanent relationship between spouses to a temporary one. Sadly, children became collateral damage in the selfish pursuits of adults.
Same-sex marriage will do the same, depriving children of their right to either a mom or a dad. This is not a small deal. Children are being reduced to chattel-like sources of fulfillment. On one side, their family tree consists not of ancestors, but of a small army of anonymous surrogates, donors, and attorneys who pinch-hit for the absent gender in genderless marriages. Gays and lesbians demand that they have a “right” to have children to complete their sense of personal fulfillment, and in so doing, are trumping the right that children have to both a mother and a father—a right that same-sex marriage tramples over.
Same-sex marriage will undefine marriage and unravel it, and in so doing, it will undefine children. It will ultimately lead to undefining humanity. This is neither “progressive” nor “conservative” legislation. It is “regressive” legislation. Nowhere on any marriage license application in any state are the applicants asked, “Do you love each other?” Yet this is the basis on which same-sex marriage proponents seek to change our laws. Is the state really in the business of celebrating our romantic lives? The mantra I heard repeatedly was that “marriage is about love, commitment, and responsibility.” But these three things are not the state’s interests in marriage. Marriage, from the state’s perspective, is about kids. Period. That’s the reason the institution exists. We should tremble at and fear the notion of undoing it.

For a nation that has no trouble selfishly creating a seventeen-trillion-dollar (and growing) deficit it will soon hand off to its children and grandchildren, perhaps this is asking too much. But for the sake of all children and those yet to be born, we need to slow down and seriously consider the unintended consequences of undefining marriage. Otherwise, we risk treating our progeny as expendable pawns, sacrificed in the name of self-fulfillment. We can do better than that.
Doug Mainwaring is co-founder of the National Capital Tea Party Patriots. This article reprinted with permission from The Public Discourse.
********************************************
The author makes some very interesting points particularly likening the impact of same sex marriage to no fault divorce in that they both have a significant impact on the children involved. Also interesting is the author's observation that same-sex marriage proponents argue marriage is about love and this is the basis on which they believe laws should be changed. The fact the author is gay is significant in that you can not assume just because someone is gay they are in favor of or advocating for same sex marriage.

# data[].attributes.body
Because marriage says "We are a FAMILY" in a way no other word does.
******************************
This video is interesting because the couple talks about their love and how that has influenced their feelings about same sex marriage.

# data[].attributes.body
Fourteen states - CA, CT, DE, IA, ME, MD, MA, MN, NH, NJ, NY, RI, VT, and WA - plus Washington, D.C. have the freedom to marry for same-sex couples.

Five states now offer broad protections short of marriage. CO, HI, and IL allow civil union, while OR and NV offer broad domestic partnership. WI has more limited domestic partnership. With these advances, a record number of Americans live in states that recognize relationships between same-sex couples:

Over 35% of the U.S. population lives in a state that either has the freedom to marry or honors out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples.

Over 41% of the U.S. population lives in a state with either marriage or a broad legal status such as civil union or domestic partnership.

Over 43% of the U.S. population lives in a state that provides some form of protections for gay couples.

# data[].attributes.body
Pope Says Church Is ‘Obsessed’ With Gays, Abortion and Birth Control

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
originally printed in the
NY Times September 13, 2013

Six months into his papacy, Pope Francis sent shock waves through the Roman Catholic church on Thursday with the publication of his remarks that the church had grown “obsessed” with abortion, gay marriage and contraception, and that he had chosen not to talk about those issues despite recriminations from critics.

His surprising comments came in a lengthy interview in which he criticized the church for putting dogma before love, and for prioritizing moral doctrines over serving the poor and marginalized. He articulated his vision of an inclusive church, a “home for all” which is a striking contrast with his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, the doctrinal defender who envisioned a smaller, purer church.
Francis told the interviewer, a fellow Jesuit: “It is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time. The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently.

“We have to find a new balance,” the pope continued, “otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel.”

The pope’s interview did not change church doctrine or policies, but it instantly changed its tone. His words evoked gratitude and hope from many liberal Catholics who had felt left out in the cold during the papacies of Benedict and his predecessor, John Paul II, which together lasted 35 years. Some lapsed Catholics suggested on social media a return to the church, and leaders of gay rights and gay Catholic groups called on bishops to abandon their fight against gay marriage.

But it left conservative and traditionalist Catholics, and those who have devoted themselves to the struggles against abortion, gay marriage and artificial contraception, on the defensive, though some cast it as nothing new.

The interview with Francis was conducted by the Rev. Antonio Spadaro, editor in chief of La Civiltà Cattolica, an Italian Jesuit journal whose content is approved by the Vatican.
“We have a great pope,” said Father Spadaro. “There is a big vision, not a big shift. His big vision is to see the church in the middle of the persons who need to be healed. It is in the middle of the world.” The pope’s words are likely to have repercussions in a church whose bishops and priests in many countries, including the United States, have often seemed to make combating abortion, gay marriage and contraception their top public policy priorities. Francis said that those teachings have to be presented in a larger context.
“I see the church as a field hospital after battle,” Francis said. “It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol and about the level of his blood sugars. You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else.”

“A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality,” he told Father Spadaro. “I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person.” The interview also serves to present the pope as a human being, who loves Mozart and Dostoyevsky and his grandmother.

Asked what it means for him to “think with the church,” a phrase used by the Jesuit founder St. Ignatius, Francis said that it did not mean “thinking with the hierarchy of the church.”

“This church with which we should be thinking is the home of all, not a small chapel that can hold only a small group of selected people,” he said. “We must not reduce the bosom of the universal church to a nest protecting our mediocrity.”

Jim Yardley contributed reporting from Rome.

***********************************

My family would be considered liberal Catholics and we are very excited about a church that embraces and welcomes everyone. I liked this article because it made Pope Francis seem human.

# data[].attributes.body
The Catholic Church and Same Sex Marriage
Male and Female He Created Them: The Church and ‘Same-Sex Marriages’
Issue: Why does the Church oppose government-sanctioned homosexual “marriages”?
Discussion: Two men cannot legitimately marry each other, nor can two women, no matter what any earthly judicial or legislative body may say. Marriage is by nature defined by the conjugal act between one man and one woman, a monogamous or exclusive union in which the two become one in a lifelong partnership (cf. Gen. 2:24; Mt. 19:4-6).This truth is understandable not only through divine Revelation, but also through natural reason. For by nature, man and woman are made for each other. They complement each other both physically and socially. In contrast, homosexual relationships are unnatural and do not contribute to the growth of society. In fidelity to the teachings of Christ, the Catholic Church opposes homosexual activity and state approval of homosexual relationships.

The Catholic Church teaches that Christ elevated marriage to the level of a sacrament. A husband and his wife are called to imitate and participate in the nuptial union of Christ and His bride, the Church (cf. Eph. 5:21-33), in a communion of life and love that is open to the gift of children. God created man in His image and likeness. He created them male and female, so that through marriage they might reflect the communal love of the Holy Trinity (cf. Gen. 1:26-28). From all eternity, the Father pours His entire being into His Son, and the Son into the Father. The eternal bond of love between Father and Son is the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity. This is an oversimplified explanation of a most profound mystery, the community of Persons in whose image we were created.A man and a woman become one in marriage in a mysterious way that reveals the unity shared by the Father and the Son.
As the infinitely loving bond between the Father and Son constitutes the Third Person of the Trinity, so in a similar way a child embodies the love of a husband and wife. The union of husband and wife is so profound that nine months later the couple often have to give it a name when a child is born! That is why the Church teaches that marriage is a communion of life and love ordered toward the good of the couple and the procreation and education of children, and that there is an unbreakable bond between the love-giving and life-giving aspects of marital love. *******************************************************
My church believes the purpose of marriage is procreation. I do not share this view. I believe marriage is a union between two individuals who are committed to each other and want to build a life together. Two people bound by love committed to each other whether they can procreate or not.

# data[].attributes.body
SAME LOVE

*************************

Beautiful song that describes the power of love. Message is being gay isn't a choice it is who you are and we all want the SAME LOVE. The video takes you on a journey with a boy who knows he is gay. Very emotional. It is moving and makes the idea of gay marriage seem reasonable, right and fair.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MACKLEMORE & RYAN LEWIS - SAME LOVE feat. MARY LAMBERT (OFFICIAL VIDEO)

# data[].attributes.headline
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Gay Marriage Reflects The Constitution's 'Genius'

# data[].attributes.subject
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Gay Marriage Reflects The Constitution's 'Genius'

# data[].attributes.body
PHILADELPHIA -- Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who recently officiated at a friend's same-sex wedding, told a Philadelphia audience Friday that growing acceptance of gay marriage reflects the "genius" of the U.S. Constitution. Ginsburg said equality has always been central to the Constitution, even if society has only applied it to minorities – be they women, blacks or gays over time.

"So I see the genius of our Constitution, and of our society, is how much more embracive we have become than we were at the beginning," Ginsburg said in a far-ranging discussion of her work at the National Constitution Center, steps from the nation's founding at Independence Hall.

Ginsburg, the second woman named to the high court, has now served for 20 years and leads the court's liberal minority. Her increasingly candid and forceful writing – often as the voice of the dissent in 5-4 cases – has attracted ardent fans, including New York University law school student Shana Knizhnik, who wore a "Notorious R.B.G." t-shirt – a twist on the similarly named Brooklyn rapper.Knizhnik, 25, of Philadelphia, who designed the shirt and has sold about 2,000 of them, so admired the justice's writings and accomplishments that she started a blog this year devoted to "Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in all her glory."

"Her story's so amazing and inspiring," said Knizhnik, who plans a career as a public defender. "The work she continues to do and fight for, despite the rightward direction the court seems to be going in. Especially seeing a woman up there is so great. I would love to have even a fraction of the career she's had." In recent years, the Supreme Court has repeatedly decided pivotal issues by a single vote, from the Bush v. Gore election to the health care reform act to the June decision to strike down part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Ginsburg has often been on the losing side of the epic battles, but said some would have turned out differently had the first female justice, Sandra Day O'Connor, not retired in 2006.

"The year she left us, in every case where I was among the four, if she had remained, I would have been among the five. So her leaving the court made an enormous difference," Ginsburg said.

Ginsburg criticized her majority colleagues for what she called "activist" decisions that overturned laws better understood by Congress, such as the Voting Rights Act, which had been extended by a series of bipartisan presidents, most recently George W. Bush.

"That's an example of striking down legislation on a subject that the people in the political arena are better informed about than the court is," she said.
Ginsburg, 80, gave no hint she would wind down her judicial career anytime soon, noting that the fall docket includes such important issues as campaign finance limits and affirmative action. And, despite her sharp ideological differences with some colleagues, including close friend Antonin Scalia, she said their work environment remains cordial.
"One of the hallmarks of the court is collegiality," Ginsburg said. "You could not do the job that the Constitution gives to us if you didn't, to use one of Justice Scalia's favorite expressions, "Get over
it."
***************************************************************
Although she is the oldest currently serving Supreme Court justice, Ginsburg is the feistiest when it comes to individual civil rights and probably the most progressive when it comes to LGBT people.