- Bill limits automated license plate readers
- Private uni’s subject to FOIA says House
- Guest Commentary: Earth Day or April Fools Day?
- State Roundup: Concerns raised about proposed change in DUI pot standard
- Bill would decrease pot penalties; small amounts would draw only ticket, fine
- Senate votes to restore human service cuts; bill moves to House for consideration
- Bill to restrict red light cameras passes House
- State Roundup: Budget fix in current FY not yet done
- State Roundup: GOMB Director won’t support borrowing
- Economists: pros, cons to raising the state fuel tax
Changing definitions of marriage
Gay marriage is what we all pray our marriage will be until death.
Homosexual marriage, however, has been called an abomination by many in the Christian church.
Why the media continue to use gay as a definition of homosexuality has always made me wonder. If I were homosexual and proud of it, I certainly would be proud of the established definition of such homosexuality. Marriage is defined as a Holy Sacrament of the Catholic religion. Who is the government to think they can define religious definitions? Our Constitution provides protections against government forming religion. When government changes definitions, they are performing a change. Civil unions are on the way to allow homosexual unions with the same government benefits of marriage. Why does no one call for homosexual marriage? Could it be that homosexuals are ashamed of the definition of their choices? Sorry, but when I am gay and fun loving, it does not include my sexual preference.
Daniel Robert Smyth
From the March 27-April 2, 2013, issue