Posted on 07/11/2004 11:05:01 PM PDT by goldstategop
Death of the family
Joseph Farah
Dr. James Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, had some surprising news on a recent visit to the nation's capital.
The move for a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution to define the institution as one between one man and one woman is faltering in Congress.
"Some members of Congress are running to the tall grass," he told a gathering at the National Press Club. "They're scared to death of this issue. They don't want to touch it with a 10-foot pole, and they're giving all kinds of answers for why not, and most of them are just phony. Well, one of them that a lot of Republicans are giving is that we ought to leave it to the states – it's a states issue."
It's not easy to get an amendment to the Constitution approved. Getting congressional approval should be the easy part. But, surprisingly, that's not been the case.
Dobson made clear in his talk that the federal marriage amendment is the only way to safeguard the institution today. And I think he's right.
"You know and I know that it only takes one decision by the Supreme Court to overturn everything the states do," he continued. "That's not going to protect it. It doesn't even have to be the Supreme Court. It can be a lower federal judge that could make this decision. The only way to protect the family and the institution of marriage is with a federal marriage amendment. And that's why we are fighting for it every way we can, and why I see it as the latest in a long line of tampering efforts with the institution of marriage."
Dobson called the push for same-sex marriage "the most dangerous national policy being considered." He said it would "completely redefine what constitutes marriage."
"Marriage has been the bedrock of civilization for 5,000 years," he continued. "People say that marriage is an outmoded Christian idea. Well, not true. First of all, it started with the Garden of Eden and started with a Jewish perspective. But it is neither Christian nor Jewish; it is universal. It is every continent on Earth. It's Asia and has been. On all recorded time, Asia and Africa and Europe and North America and South America and Antarctica, everywhere where humankind has taken root, marriage has been what it has been."
Dobson said we throw the institution of marriage on the ash heap of history at our own peril as a civilization.
"This is the most serious social experiment that will ever have been perpetrated, and if it occurs, it will have incredible effects on the family," he said. "In fact, it will destroy the traditional family."
He cited as evidence such experiments in the Scandinavian countries.
"Norway, Sweden, Denmark in the '90s began permitting homosexual unions," he said. "And so we've got this experience. What's happened? Marriage has been destroyed. It's essentially gone. In Norway, there are some areas where 80 percent of the children are born out of wedlock. And for the Scandinavian countries generally, it's 60 percent born out of wedlock. When given a choice, when you change the definition, people don't marry, they cohabit. And that's what is taking place in the Scandinavian countries, and it will also happen here."
Dobson said more than 10,000 studies have confirmed that children do best when they have a committed mother and father.
"Social scientists argue about everything," he said.
They don't agree about anything. This one they agree about, that children do best under those kind of stable circumstances. And when you change it, well, let's put it this way: The findings have revealed that a child who has those characteristics at home – mother, father, committed – are less likely to be on drugs later on, they're less likely to be held back in school, they're less likely to drop out, they're less likely to be in juvenile crime.
For the girls, they're less likely to get pregnant as teenagers and they're more likely to be healthy emotionally and physically. That's what the research shows. And yet we're going pell-mell into a social experiment with, at the very best, unpredictable results. But some of us think we know where that is going.
Dobson said the institution of marriage in the United States was already under attack because of public-policy decisions made with little debate beginning in the 1960s. He cited:
no-fault divorce laws now in place in all 50 states;
the marriage penalty tax;
the Supreme Court ruling that removed parental authority over children's abortion decisions;
the once-popular notion that men and women are really the same except for the ability to bear children;
Dobson says scientific arguments contending men and women think alike ended with new technology – MRIs, CAT scans and PET scans – that could view brain activity.
"You may know that at about eight weeks of age, testosterone flows over the male brain and changes it forever," he said. "It even changes the color. It gets a grayer look to it. And especially it changes the ability of the left brain to communicate with the right brain. And that linkage there, that rope of fibers, is called the corpus callosum, and this testosterone damages that so that never again will a boy or a man be able to feel the same things that a woman feels. And when a woman says that men are brain damaged ... there's some validity to that. But we're different. We are very, very different. It's not patriarchal methods of child rearing. We are very, very different."
Personally, I don't have to see the inside of someone's brain at work to know that men and women are different.
But, evidently, members of the U.S. Congress remain unconvinced. They don't think we need to protect the most basic, foundational institutional building block of Western Civilization – the family.
Dr. Dobson is making noise. Maybe it's time for you to weigh in.
Homosexual Agenda Ping - last ping of the night...
I'll read it tomorrow.
I'm sure I agree.
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
If only America cared as much as they ought. Even more "traditional" people are completely clueless about the importance of marriage as a social, economic, and cultural unit. It is about much more than just "being in love and wanting to feel for each other forever." That kind of simplistic thinking is selfish and naive. Heck, in Biblical times, a married couple barely knew each other. They had to CHOOSE very explicitly to love each other if the marriage was going to work.
The purpose of marriage is for a couple to give strength to each other through love and support [practical and economic as well as emotional], thereby improving/multiplying the contributions they can make to society--even if they are never able to have children.
America is going too far down the slippery slope to Sodom, and if we continue this path, in spite of God's warnings, we are sure to decline and be on a dreadful path to destruction. I am horrified at just how far we have gone.
Remember, if ten good men remain, there is yet hope.
I took the time to let my senators know my views. They still won't vote for the FMA but they can't claim I didn't care. Every one needs to Freep their senator. If enough people speak up, we may end up making a real difference. Your voice counts.
Thats the problem, if they were a minority they would fight. Since being in the majority they want to be Democrats.
That's all the more reasom to write, e-mail, fax and phone them. The principled few will support us on this from their conviction but the rest will go along if there is enough heat from the people back home. In other words, if they are unconvinced the family needs to be protected, its up to us to make them see the light.
This couldn't be done without sodomites infecting the body politic at high levels. We need investigations, shaming, and shunning of the perverts that are subverting the sanctity of marriage. BTW if the Federal government is going to allow tax and other benefits to sham sodomite "marriages", it must not be left to the states. There won't be enough perverted states to bring about a Constitutional amendment allowing pervert marriages.
This is exactly the kind of argument that will repel people. The slightest hint of anti-gay bigotry is going to doom our effort to preserve traditional marriage. My view is gays should be allowed to live as they wish but they don't have the right to redefine the meaning of marriage for the rest of society. I don't much care what gays and lesbians do behind closed doors but I cherish the family and will fight every effort to subvert or change it.
You will get majorities for the proposed Amendment in both Houses of Congress, primarily on Republican votes. However, I do not think either house will be able to muster the necessary 2/3rds majority.
We won't win this battle this year. What matters is getting the votes on this issue on the record.
July 9, 2004
Dear Friend:
Thank you for your message about same-sex marriage. I appreciate hearing from you.
I voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. That law limited the federal definition of marriage to a legal union between one man and one woman for the purpose of federal laws and benefits, and also included a provision that allows states to decline to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.
Decisions about the legal status of marriage historically rest with state and local authorities, and the laws of the states regarding marriage, divorce, adoption, and other family matters vary widely. I do not support a Constitutional amendment either recognizing or prohibiting same-sex marriages as a national standard. While I do not support same-sex marriage, the Constitution has been amended only 17 times since the adoption of the Bill of Rights, and this issue does not rise to the level of constitutional necessity.
At the same time, I want to be clear that I oppose discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation, race, religion, age, gender, disability, color, or national origin. I am a cosponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), designed to prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. In addition, I am a cosponsor of the hate crimes bill, which would amend the federal criminal code to establish or strengthen penalties for people who intentionally cause bodily injury to another person because of actual or perceived sexual orientation, disability, national origin, race, color, religion, or gender.
I appreciate knowing your thoughts about the issue of same-sex marriage and will keep your concerns in mind as this issue is considered further.
Thank you again for contacting me. Please feel free to keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator
P.S. If you are ever visiting Washington, please feel free to join Senator Fitzgerald and me at our weekly constituent coffee. When the Senate is in session, we provide coffee and donuts every Thursday at 8:30 a.m. as we
hear what is on the minds of Illinoisans and respond to your questions.
We would welcome your participation. Please call my D.C. office for more details.
GRRRR! Boilerplate response.
Notice how he addressed my concerns that homosexuals are redefining the meaning of the word "marriage;" and are among the most affuent people of society, hardly an indicator of discrimination.
My Senator is a squad leader of the fifth column.
I don't much care what gays and lesbians do behind closed doors but I cherish the family and will fight every effort to subvert or change it.
^^^^^
First , they demanded that we accept what they do "in the privacy of their bedroom."
OK - Laws were changed to agree with this position.
Now they want what they do "in private" to be treated as normal, and taught to our children as normal, and anyone who tries to tell children that this behavior is not "normal" will be accused of Hate Speech, and penalized.
I emailed my Senators, I should call too.
Catholic Action Ping!
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Action Ping List.
You can go directly here to email your Senators and/or Representatives:
The second worst social experiment. Killing our children by the millions is number one. But this is a close second. And it's passage will indirectly contribute to increasing the number of abortions, among countless other social ills.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.