"The judge who ruled against intelligent design in the Dover case has just overturned Pennsylvania’s defense of marriage law.
PennLive.com describes the latest ruling from Judge John E. Jones III, famous for his 2005 ruling in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case that evolutionists hailed as a victory (12/30/05) against the “intelligent design movement” (actually, the Discovery Institute opposed the defendants’ actions in that case). Now, Judge Jones has overturned Pennsylvania’s 1996 Defense of Marriage Law that only recognized traditional marriage between one man and one woman, and refused to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.
The text of his opinion makes his feelings clear:
Today, certain citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are not guaranteed the right to marry the person they love. Nor does Pennsylvania recognize the marriages of other couples who have wed elsewhere. Hoping to end this injustice, eleven courageous lesbian and gay couples, one widow, and two teenage children of one of the aforesaid couples have come together as plaintiffs and asked this Court to declare that all Pennsylvanians have the right to marry the person of their choice and consequently, that the Commonwealth’s laws to the contrary are unconstitutional. We now join the twelve federal district courts across the country which, when confronted with these inequities in their own states, have concluded that all couples deserve equal dignity in the realm of civil marriage.
It appears that Jones’s definition of marriage is based not on biology, age, or ability to procreate, but on “the person of their choice” or “the person they love”. So far, in other words, his decision appears limited to marriages of two persons; but if choice and love are the criteria, why should marriage be limited to two? And why must it be limited to persons? Could other plaintiffs not consider this an injustice or inequity, if they can prove love and choice are driving their decisions? If a future DOMA law cast the net of protection around traditional and gay couples only, how would Jones rule, using his same principles, if polygamist defendants came “to end this injustice”?
According to Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Judge Jones’s decision, which came within 24 hours of Oregon’s similar ruling, was particularly harsh: The deluge of rulings hit Pennsylvania next, where Judge John Jones wrote one of the harshest opinions yet, insisting that laws affirming natural marriage should be discarded “into the ash heap of history.” CEH
And that’s the way it was with us before Christ came.
We were like children;
we were slaves to the basic spiritual principles of this world. (like Judge Jones is)
Galatians 4:3NLT
PennLive.com describes the latest ruling from Judge John E. Jones III, famous for his 2005 ruling in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case that evolutionists hailed as a victory (12/30/05) against the “intelligent design movement” (actually, the Discovery Institute opposed the defendants’ actions in that case). Now, Judge Jones has overturned Pennsylvania’s 1996 Defense of Marriage Law that only recognized traditional marriage between one man and one woman, and refused to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.
The text of his opinion makes his feelings clear:
It appears that Jones’s definition of marriage is based not on biology, age, or ability to procreate, but on “the person of their choice” or “the person they love”. So far, in other words, his decision appears limited to marriages of two persons; but if choice and love are the criteria, why should marriage be limited to two? And why must it be limited to persons? Could other plaintiffs not consider this an injustice or inequity, if they can prove love and choice are driving their decisions? If a future DOMA law cast the net of protection around traditional and gay couples only, how would Jones rule, using his same principles, if polygamist defendants came “to end this injustice”?
According to Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Judge Jones’s decision, which came within 24 hours of Oregon’s similar ruling, was particularly harsh: The deluge of rulings hit Pennsylvania next, where Judge John Jones wrote one of the harshest opinions yet, insisting that laws affirming natural marriage should be discarded “into the ash heap of history.” CEH
And that’s the way it was with us before Christ came.
We were like children;
we were slaves to the basic spiritual principles of this world. (like Judge Jones is)
Galatians 4:3NLT
At the CREATION....
And Adam said,
This is now bone of my bones,
and flesh of my flesh:
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother,
and shall cleave unto his wife:
Genesis 2:23,24