Posted on 02/22/2005 9:32:53 AM PST by concernedAmerican1
Objective political analysts have stated that moral values in general and opposition to same-sex “marriage” in particular were the great catalysts in the November 2004 elections.
If family and moral values were so decisive, then why would same-sex “marriage” be an unresolved issue for conservatives?
* * *
At 4:50 today, Patrick Guerriero, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, is scheduled to present his views on the Federal Marriage Amendment in one of five discussions titled “Conservative Principle and Unresolved Issues: Differences Within the Family.”
It is possible that Mr. Guerriero will limit himself to arguing that the issue of marriage is best left to the states and that we should not pursue a federal constitutional amendment. This would not reflect his position entirely, however, since the Log Cabin Republicans website characterizes the Federal Marriage Amendment as “anti-family.”1
Thanks to activist judges, same-sex “marriage” may be an unresolved legal and political issue in America today. But it is not an unresolved issue from the moral perspective. As explained in detail in the American TFP’s 2004 book Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same-Sex “Marriage” and the Homosexual Movement, same-sex “marriage” violates natural law and divine law.2
The American TFP asks:
1. Is the Federal Marriage Amendment anti-family?
2. Are the “values voters” who want federal and state constitutional amendments to protect traditional marriage and ban same-sex “marriage” anti-family?
3. Is opposition to same-sex “marriage” really an unresolved issue for American conservatives?
TFP encourages all CPAC participants to say NO to these three questions, especially during today’s 4:50 p.m. discussion on the Federal Marriage Amendment.
The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property – TFP www.tfp.org
________________________
1. See www.logcabin.org/logcabin/defendconstitution.html. 2. Defending a Higher Law is available online at www.tfp.org/TFPForum/online_library/Defending_A_Higher_Law.pdf.
Homosexual republicans are nothing but trolls within the Republican party.
BTW: for anyone interested, this is from the website's about page on this group:
"The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) was born of a group of Catholic Americans concerned about the multiple crises shaking every aspect of American life. Founded in 1973, the American TFP was formed to resist, in the realm of ideas, the liberal, socialist and communist trends of the times and proudly affirm the positive values of tradition, family and property.
Central to the TFP mission is the idea that the various crises threatening American society and the Church cannot be seen as separate and disjointed. Rather they originate from a single cause.
. . ."
Tough question. No.
2. Are the “values voters” who want federal and state constitutional amendments to protect traditional marriage and ban same-sex “marriage” anti-family?
Gee, let me think. No.
3. Is opposition to same-sex “marriage” really an unresolved issue for American conservatives?
Another toughie. No.
When are we going to get the amendment against divorce?
Same-sex marriage shouldn't be an issue conservatives are afraid to touch. Start standing up for what you believe in and speaking out.
< Is Same-Sex “Marriage” an Unresolved Issue for American Conservatives? >
No.
And don't forget the amendment against both parents working and leaving the child in day care. Which will be listed after the amendment against deliberate single parenting. Those two amendments would do more to protect the family and society than the one against same sex marriage, even if the latter sin seems "ickier."
Why would you want to make divorce illegal? That is just absurd.
Divorce has to be possible. (it has been allowed by the orthodox christian church for way over a millenia).
I think what you really are suggesting is that reform of the divorce laws occur which are counter to the direction of the ABA model divorce laws. a model code which pushes marriage as an adult sex activity and divorce as a "feel like it" cashout value of a marriage (ala an insurance policy)
You can't eliminate no fault, HOWEVER there is nothing saying you can't put ALL the considerations for divorce which would achieve the same results.
As absurd as two men or two women getting "married" being a threat to the family is?
If one is in favor of same-sex marriages, then what on Earth could one be possibly 'conserving'?
But then again, the free traders never seem to have an answer for that question either yet are still considered 'conservatives', so maybe an absence of knowledge proves nothing in the final analysis.
The only thing "unresolved" about it is that its still being "discussed" [read: How can we shove this down their throats and MAKE them accept it?]
Thats why the marriage ammendment is required: to argue that we should leave it to the states is to allow judicial action in some states and the inevitable application of the full faith and credit clause making all states accept it whether they want to or not.
It is wrong. It is not only anti-family in itself, it is unnatural, unhealthy, and it ruins children. It is a leprosy on our social fabric[as if there aren't enough lessions and tumors on it already] and we must stop it from being "mainstreamed". 'mo-ism has lived in the shadows for millennia and its there for a reason: it is naturally abhorrent.
Yes it DOES affect every marriage simply by lowering the respect for marriage itself: think how a black mass mocks the Catholic mass.
The latter sin "seems" "ickier" only because it involves highly unsanitary practices that can (and does) lead to disease and death. However, if the icky people who decide to engage in this icky behavior would just shut up about it I don't think there would be anyone calling for any changes in laws.
Trying to teach kids this perverse behavior is normal is a not only is very icky but is a worse sin than refusing to take care of the children you give birth to.
Shalom.
I covered it until I got tired of the subject:
:)
bump
If you want on/off the ping list see my profile page.
Well -if there were divorce advocates brainwashing children in public schools suggesting divorce was good and divorcees were claiming minority status and claiming hate crime victomhood status etcetera etcetera it might be on the horizon. Personally, I consider divorce and its results evil -regardless of homosexual activists who suggest homosexuality is okay or moral relatively attempt to suggest two wrongs make right...
Nope. The issue should be left to the states to decide and no state should be required to recognize another state's position on gay marriage. If that requires a Constitutional Amendment, so be it.
I don't have ANY unresolved issues on this subject at all! And a bunch of RINO's aren't going to change my mind.
Just say NO
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.