According to a news report:
The NAACP voted on Saturday to endorse same-sex marriage, placing the nation’s most influential black civil rights organization on a collision course with many African-American church leaders.
The decision by the group's board of directors was seen as a boon to President Barack Obama who announced his own support of same sex unions earlier this month.
“Civil marriage is a civil right and a matter of civil law,” NAACP president Benjamin Todd Jealous said in a statement after the vote. “The NAACP’s support for marriage equality is deeply rooted in the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution and equal protection of all people,” he added saying people who try to split African Americans on the subject “will not succeed.” . . . .
A Washington Post poll in November found that 58 percent of blacks found gay marriage unacceptable, with only 35 percent saying it is acceptable. Support for the position in the general population is roughly 50/50, other polls have shown. ["NAACP Votes to Support Gay Marriage" Newsmax, May 19, 2012]
-- but, blatantly, this is a lie: unnatural acts, some of which are warning-label deadly, are obviously not "equal" to the creation-order purpose of the act of marital union, and two men and two women (or, in future one shudders to think, what) are not "equal" to husband and wife in a lifelong covenant as joined by God, which "let not man put asunder" --
. . . and so, it is brazenly asserted that unnatural couplings should be allowed to be "married" in the eyes of civil law, on pain of false accusation of bigotry.
In fact, instead, this is a case of destruction by willfully false attempted redefinition in defiance of the evident creation order nature of marriage, opening the door to all sorts of arrangements across time that can claim much the same affection and wanting to be recognised in mutual commitment and legal privileges.
If you doubt me on my concerns, observe this remark by someone who has stood up in defence of civility in the debate initiated by the homosexualist attempt to redefine marriage in law:
In briefly rehearsing well-known defenses of conjugal marriage that others have elaborated elsewhere, I noted in the Post that marriage “has always existed in order to bring men and women together so that children will have mothers and fathers” and that same-sex unions are “not an expansion but a dismantling of the institution.” The response of some readers was not merely that I had not fully fleshed out this argument (which I could readily admit) but that such statements did not even bear the marks of rationality—that they were so obviously wrong that only those in the grip of unreasoning hatred or bigotry could put them forward.
Some of our high public officials, unfortunately, have encouraged this kind of flattening and coarsening of our public discussion. Judge Joseph Tauro, of the federal district court in Boston, in ruling against the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (which defines marriage as between one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law), said last July that the difference between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples is a “distinction without meaning.” How he claimed to know this, since he did not explain it, is anyone’s guess, but it was enough for him to conclude that Congress, in passing DOMA, had acted on an “animus” that “targets” people on the basis of a “sexual orientation” of which Congress “disapproves.” But DOMA was passed by overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress, and signed by a Democratic president, for the express purpose of defending the right of the people in each state to govern themselves on the question of marriage . . . .
Not long after Judge Tauro’s decision last summer came the ruling of Judge Vaughn Walker, of the federal district court in San Francisco, striking down California’s Proposition 8, itself a defensive measure passed by a majority of the state’s voters in 2008 after the state’s supreme court invented a right of same-sex marriage under the California constitution. Judge Walker declared that there was no “rational basis” for Prop. 8. “Tradition alone,” he wrote, “cannot form a rational basis for a law.” Tradition normally has a presumption in its favor in such inquiries, but not for Judge Walker. He sniffed out what was really going on, declaring that “moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.” The law unavoidably speaks in the name of a community’s moral vision, so to what did the judge really object? He called opposition to same-sex marriage a “private moral choice,” with “private” meaning it was not entitled to enactment as public morality. Clearly, for Judge Walker, the reason for this conclusion lay in the second term of the phrase of his, “moral and religious views.” In the most telling passage of his opinion, he claimed—as a “finding of fact,” no less—that “religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful . . . harm gays and lesbians.”
There we have it. Marriage only between a man and a woman is a mere “tradition” with no claim on our attention when a claim of “discrimination” is made on the other side. All that this tradition has going for it is the “moral and religious views” of its supporters. But the law embodies moral choices, so why is this moral viewpoint illegitimate as the basis of a law? The problem is that it is driven too much by the religious commitments of those who hold it—and so it must be dismissed from public life and relegated to the realm of “private moral choice,” disallowed from enactment as the view of the majority in a democratic society. So toxic is it to hold certain religious views that merely believing them works a “harm” to other people. Those who hold these views must not only be prevented from enacting those views as the will of the democratic majority; they must, to the extent possible, be silenced in the public square. They must . . . shut up.
[Matthew Franck, "Religion, Reason, and Same-Sex Marriage," First Things, May 2011.]
*So, in warning, I find myself constrained to again note that what is at stake today is the destruction or survival of marriage, the foundational institution of stable families and communities alike; and with it, the premise that law is based on that which is right and wrong, that which fulfills a built-in purpose, vs. that which frustrates or perverts it; and, in the end, whether there is more to right, wrong and justice than the horrible nihilist motto: might makes 'right.'
Our civilisation is at a fundamental divide and in our day, and we will have to decide which of two ways it will go, on what basis.
As Girgit, George and Anderson observe in the just linked Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy paper:
[T]he current debate is precisely over whether it is possible for the kind of union that has marriage’s essential fea‐tures to exist between two people of the same sex. Revisionists do not propose leaving intact the historic definition of marriage and simply expanding the pool of people eligible to marry. Their goal is to abolish the conjugal conception of marriage in our law 10 and replace it with the revisionist [--> i.e. homosexualised] conception . . .
F/N 10: Throughout history, no society’s laws have explicitly forbidden gay mar‐riage. They have not explicitly forbidden it because, until recently, it has not been thought possible . . . [T]raditional marriage laws were not devised to oppress those with same‐sex attractions. The comparison [to racist anti-miscegenation laws that forbade inter-racial marriages] is offensive, and puzzling to many—not least to the nearly two‐thirds of black vot‐ers who voted to uphold conjugal marriage under California Proposition Eight. See Cara Mia DiMassa & Jessica Garrison, Why Gays, Blacks are Divided on Prop. 8, L.A. TIMES, Nov. 8, 2008, at A1.
[Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, & Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol 34, No. 1, p. 250 of 245 - 287.]
Which, is obscenely slanderous, but is increasingly routine.
[The avant garde philosophers, teachers and artists c. 400 BC say that] The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only . . . .
What is Marriage?
by Sherif Girgis, Robert George, and Ryan T. Anderson
Why I'm Optimistic About Natural Marriage
by Andrew Walker
Why Is Marriage Important? (video)
by John Piper
Who Needs Marriage?
by Chuck Colson
Marriage in Society: The Generation Clash (pps. 47-57)
by Matthew Lee Anderson
What Would Bonhoeffer Do?
by Eric Metaxas
Dennis Prager Debates Perez Hilton on Same-Sex Marriage (Warning: YouTube contains objectionable content)
Religion, Reason, and Same-Sex Marriage
by Matthew J. Franck
A Marriage in Full
by Gary A. Anderson
On Marriage and the Moral Limits of Human Sexuality
by Metropolitan Jonah