HammerStone said:
I checked the link and there is nothing there in the way of legal language.
What does 'protection of the family' mean in legal terms? It makes an interesting headline, but what's it about really? The column points out objections by USA & UK, but what did the delegations object to?
What rights are granted and what obligations are intended?
There is nothing in this story of substance. What is the point?
Here's my point.................................
Modern democracy as we've known it in America is dead.
Since the late 1960's when gay leadership decided to force their life style upon Americans though the court system, no popular vote against it has been allowed to stand. In fact, the recent Supreme Court decision was a violation of the constitution not an affirmation of it. There is no provision in the constitution at all about marriage, gay or otherwise. If I'm wrong here I'm sure someone will point it out, but I doubt it. Instead the Supreme Court has made law. This is outside their mandate, but it hasn't stopped them in the past.
The four dissenting judges in the case "Obergefell v. Hodges" were accused of being inflammatory and of behaving in a "treasonous manner".
Apart from the fact that the word 'treasonous' was misused by journalists (the word seditious is more accurate in this instance), it is not recognized by proponents of the gay rights movement that anyone should be allowed to speak against it, even a Supreme Court jurist. Three of the judges who made the most prominent statements were Scalia, Thomas and Roberts all of whom made substantive remarks to support
popular vote as a means to decide the issue.
The American people have been denied the right to vote by a minority group with a subversive agenda.
Gays assert that theirs is an issue of rights, but I do not agree. Rights are derived from humanity, while the gay lifestyle is a result of deviant behavior. A black man or a red man or an Asian man has certain rights because he was born human and ought to share the same advantages and obligations of citizenship under the law as any other man. Gays, however, assert rights derived from their choice of who they will accompany to the bedroom. They claim it is a private act, yet when ACTION is used to define allowed behavior (by their own definition) suddenly the parameters of human rights are abrogated.
Rights? What rights? Today the gays have their 'rights' at the expense of everyone else. We are no longer even allowed to speak against it in public else we risk being hauled before a court of law on charges of hate language. Think I'm wrong? Try making an anti-gay statement at work during your next break and see what happens. What happened to freedom of speech? As I wrote earlier, democracy in America is dead.
No UN decision will reverse the new American definition of the composition of family. The legalization of same sex marriage has added another group of individuals to the governmental web of control over our private lives. Gays will have to abide by the same legal restrictions of marriage and divorce as normal society. They will have to pay the same legal fees for joining and separating and they will have to suffer the same legal ignominy as everyone else. No longer will they be able to freely jump from one bed to another like over-sexed animals.
Congratulations gays. In robbing the rest of the country of its right of self-governance you have robbed yourselves of your sexual liberty as well. There may be no justice in America, but a bit of irony remains.
There is also the decision and judgment of the court of heaven and the statements made from the throne of the Almighty, but no one in America really cares about that. In the end it's really all about us.
and that's me, hollering from the choir loft...