Does "anti-gay-marriage" = "anti-gay"?

In the gay marriage debate, one side emphasizes ‘gay’, the other ‘marriage’; and we end up talking past each other. Last May 22, Allen Young, coordinator of the North Quabbin Region Diversity Awareness Group, was given the opportunity to explain why same sex marriage would be a good thing, in the Worcester Telegram's "As I see it" editorial page. He did not; instead he explained how bad people are who disagree with him, calling those who seek civil debate on marriage many names, including; ‘anti-gay’, against civil rights, and discriminatory. Concerning the Bible, Young further inflamed the situation by grouping those maintaining the traditional definition of marriage with the same people who justified “slavery, child labor, women as property and archaic rules about food, clothing and sexuality.”
Mr. Young’s errors, "sloppy eisigisis" really, concerning "a narrow interpretation of ancient scripture" require correction, since he is the one with the narrow interpretation. The Slavery in America until the Civil War is known as Man-Stealing and was expressly forbidden by the Bible (Ex21:16). The slavery of indentured servitude was tolerated by the Israelites, but with provisions to temper it, such as freeing the indentured slaves after 7 years (Lv25) – a thoroughly progressive view compared to the surrounding barbarians. Women were also valued, which is why in ancient Israel the dowry was paid for the women, not by the women as in the pagan world, and the marriage was not an exchange of goods or property, but a covenantal exchange of persons. Those "archaic rules about food" were actually changed for Christians by Jesus himself (Mk7:19), not "as the result of improved information and technology" as Young mistakenly asserted.
Jesus also taught on sexuality, not archaically but clearly; that the two, male and female, become one flesh in marriage (Mt19). Without clear Religious Liberty exemptions, the State will have to punish opposition to same-sex marriage as if it were racist. If the Massachusetts SJC’s declaration that same-sex marriage is a civil right stands, then there can be no Religious Liberty exemptions to it. It's already started with Catholic Charities in Boston and same-sex couple adoption. It will continue.

Against the Law

Canadian City Councillor Fined $1000 for Saying Homosexuality “not Normal or Natural”

Catholic Councillor had his business door vandalized with graffiti - “Homophobia Die”

By John-Henry Westen and Gudrun Schultz

What's in the trash bin?

Planned Parenthood of Worcester is planning to move from Lincoln St. to 470 Pleasant St., a block south from the Leitrum Pub at the corner of Park Ave. and Pleasant. Send email to voice your concern to the Worcester city council about traffic, parking problems, or that abortion in America has absolutely no legal restrictions placed apon it.

A public meeting will be held on this Parking Plan on Wed. January 17, 2007 at 5:30 PM in the Saxe Room, Worcester Public Library, 2 Salem Square. Please spread the word, and attend if you can.

Even though this is a Parking Plan review, ask them what's in the trash bin out back, or where do the fetuses go after the abortion, or can this block the sewers?

Help protect the little guy!

Gotham bull

April 9, 2006, the New York Times Sunday Magazine ran an anti-Pro-Life cover story by Jack Hitt claiming that a woman in El Salvador, Carmin Climaco, was serving a 30-year prison term for aborting her 18-week old 'fetus'. The problem was, Hitt never checked the court records; Climaco was guilty of infanticide of her full term baby, not abortion. A forensic examination showed that it was a full term normal delivery, the child was breathing at the time of birth, and the official cause of death was asphyxia by strangulation, according to the easily obtainable court records. Hat tip to Michelle Malkin on this story.

A retraction of this Pro-choice propaganda is clearly in order, and the NYT ombudsman, Byron Calame called for the NYT editorial board to do just that. But the Editorial board refuses. That says a lot about the truthiness of the New York Times. To paraphrase Twain, there's Lies, Damn Lies, and the New York Times.

Hope

The Marriage Initiative Petition is still alive because the Massachusetts Legislature held a vote at the Constitutional Convention in Boston today and more than the 50 minmum required legislators (61) voted to send the ballot question into next year's Constitutional Convention. If the Petition gets at least 50 votes next year, it will go on the Ballot for voters in 2008. Perhaps the legislators realized that they could not spin a recess vote after the SJC ruled they had a Constitutional duty to vote the petition up or down.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/02/D8MDBAK80.html
We've argued here that this issue was initially about marriage (not homosexuality), but with the political machinations in Boston, this issue became about Constitutionality. The Constitution was upheld today.