Harris Calls on Nelson to Defend Sanctity of Marriage

Harris Campaign Press Release ^ | June 6, 2006 | Katherine Harris

[JulieRNR21]

Howdy! Many thanks for the bump!

[JulieRNR21]

Those 6000 in MA can move to states that don't recognize same-sex marriages create an expensive legal mess!

FoxNews reported that many black ministers lobbied Dem Senators today to support the Marriage Amendment. Blacks overwhelming support defining marriage as between one man & one woman.

I'm very glad Katherine Harris is holding Nelson's 'feet to the fire' on this issue!

[MACVSOG68]

If sanctioned within the law, those 6000 same sex marriages will be telling our children and grandchildren that sexual perversion is normal. It's okay. Come on and try it, you will like it.

I've heard that from a number of folks here, but I have never seen a single shred of evidence of that. And even if they did, which again I'm looking for evidence of, there's no evidence that I have seen that non-homosexual children or teens are in the slightest bit recruitable. I have repeatedly asked for any evidence of this and so far the only response has been either silence or a reference to organizations such as NAMBLA, which has no bearing on this issue at all.

Are there homosexual groups that are trying to infiltrate the schools? Sure. And as a parent I would watch for that kind of promotion and step in, either with the school or in guidance to my children. Again, no evidence that such organizations are either effective or supported by most monogamous homosexual couples.

[MACVSOG68]

Those 6000 in MA can move to states that don't recognize same-sex marriages create an expensive legal mess!

Not so. The Defense of Marriage Act prevents states from having to recognize same sex marriages. And the federal challenges to it have all ended in failure. Even the infamous 9th Circuit has recognized that a state has a compelling interest in maintaining marriage between one man and one woman to promote procreation. There is no danger.

FoxNews reported that many black ministers lobbied Dem Senators today to support the Marriage Amendment. Blacks overwhelming support defining marriage as between one man & one woman.

As do I. But there is absolutely no danger to the definition. If a state judge overturns traditional marriage in a state, it is the business of the state to cure the issue. Obviously there is something in the state constitution that needs a correction. Massachusetts isn't at the mercy of its judges. It's at the mercy of its voters, the people. If they want to amend their constitution, they have the power. This is absolutely all about nothing.

I'm very glad Katherine Harris is holding Nelson's 'feet to the fire' on this issue!

As long as she doesn't tell the whole story, she may succeed. Remember, she is fighting a completely losing battle and is pulling out all the stops. Any one who has looked into this issue knows that marriage is not at all under any winnable attack. Those that understand this and still want the amendment, have a completely different agenda.

[JulieRNR21]

Dennis Prager has a column that discusses the issue of same-sex marriage & children.

Excerpt:

So, same-sex marriage advocates now argue that children do not do better with a mother and a father.

To buttress this absurdity, they repeatedly ask, "Where are the studies" that prove that children do better with a father and a mother? Not only are there no such studies, they claim, but in fact, "studies show" that that children raised with parents of the same sex do just as well as children raised by a father and a mother.

But this claim, too, is dishonest.

As Professor Don Browning of the University of Chicago recently wrote in The New York Times, "We know next to nothing" about the effects of same-sex parenting on children.

"The body of sociological knowledge about same-sex parenting," he and his co-author wrote, "is scant at best. ... There are no rigorous, large-scale studies on the effect of same-sex marriage on the couples' children.

"Steven Nock, a leading scholar of marriage at the University of Virginia, wrote in March 2001 after a thorough review that every study on this question 'contained at least one fatal flaw' and 'not a single one was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research.'"

So the statement that "studies show" that children don't do better with a mother and father is as factually mendacious as it is morally repugnant. Why then are so many fooled by it? Because "studies show" has become the refuge of those who do not wish to think. I hear this lack of thought regularly from college educated callers to my radio show who refuse to think an issue through, or to make a moral judgment, without first having seen what "studies show."

But does anyone who thinks, rather than awaits "studies" to affirm their biases, really believe that a mother is useless if a child has two fathers, or that a father is unnecessary if a child has two mothers? The idea that men and women do not have entirely distinctive contributions to make to the rearing of a child is so absurd that it is frightening that many well educated -- and only the well educated -- believe it.

There are many powerful arguments against same-sex marriage, and in subsequent columns I will offer them. But if you have to offer only one, know that those who push for same-sex marriage base their case on something factually indefensible -- that children do not benefit from having a father and a mother; and on something morally indefensible -- ignoring what is best for children.

Entire column here:

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/dennisprager/2004/05/04/11576.html

[JulieRNR21]

Obviously there is something in the state constitution that needs a correction. Massachusetts isn't at the mercy of its judges. It's at the mercy of its voters, the people. If they want to amend their constitution, they have the power. This is absolutely all about nothing.

---

Did you know that the people of Massachusetts submitted petitions to put the issue before the voters two of years ago? The Democrat controlled legislature has been thwarting the right of the people to have the Marriage Amendment on the ballot since then.

In MA the Commonwealth's Constitution is being held hostage by the homosexual lobby!

Here's an excerpt from a letter which MA Gov. Romney sent to all US Senators. He explains very well why the Marriage Amendment is needed:

Excerpt:

Although the full impact of same-sex marriage may not be measured for decades or generations, we are beginning to see the effects of the new legal logic in Massachusetts just two years into our state’s social experiment. For instance, our birth certificate is being challenged: same-sex couples want the terms “Mother” and “Father” replaced with “Parent A” and “Parent B.”

In our schools, children are being instructed that there is no difference between same-sex marriage and traditional marriage. Recently, parents of a second grader in one public school complained when they were not notified that their son’s teacher would read a fairy tale about same-sex marriage to the class. In the story, a prince chooses to marry another prince, instead of a princess. The parents asked for the opportunity to opt their child out of hearing such stories.

In response, the school superintendent insisted on “teaching children about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same sex marriage is legal.” Once a society establishes that it is legally indifferent between traditional marriage and same-sex marriage, how can one preserve any practice which favors the union of a man and a woman?

Some argue that our principles of federalism and local control require us to leave the issue of same sex marriage to the states—which means, as a practical matter, to state courts.

Such an argument denies the realities of modern life and would create a chaotic patchwork of inconsistent laws throughout the country. Marriage is not just an activity or practice which is confined to the border of any one state.

It is a status that is carried from state to state. Because of this, and because Americans conduct their financial and legal lives in a united country bound by interstate institutions, a national definition of marriage is necessary.

Your vote on this amendment should not be guided by a concern for adult rights. This matter goes to the development and well-being of children. I hope that you will make your vote heard on their behalf.

[Brilliant]

Harris needs to make an issue of Nelson's votes on illegal immigration issues.

[JulieRNR21]

She will be doing that as well....but it is the Marriage Amendment that is currently on the table.

[DBeers]

As long as she doesn't tell the whole story, she may succeed. Remember, she is fighting a completely losing battle and is pulling out all the stops. Any one who has looked into this issue knows that marriage is not at all under any winnable attack. Those that understand this and still want the amendment, have a completely different agenda.

Give this wacko conspiracy theory a rest aleady!

[DBeers]

Homosexual Agenda Ping!

If you oppose the homosexualization of society
-add yourself to the ping list!

To be included in or removed from the
HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA PING LIST,
please FReepMail either DBeers or DirtyHarryY2k.

Free Republic homosexual agenda keyword search [ Add keyword = homosexualagenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

FYI -Floridian FReepers...

All Floridian's -get on Nelson! Demand he support the heteronormative, homophobic, and bigoted heterosexual conspiracy underlying the FMA! Breeders Unite!

LOL

[JulieRNR21]

Thanks for that mega-bump!

Please read my post # 26 about the MA Legislature thwarting the will of the people of the Commonwealth to vote on a Definition of Marriage Amendment. Also Gov. Romney's letter to all US Senators.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

I'm a Harris supporter but it pains me to see the GOP blatantly pandering with this issue. This is a pure election-year stunt and it's not even going to go anywhere in the Senate.

[MACVSOG68]

Dennis Prager has a column that discusses the issue of same-sex marriage & children.

Now you have raised an entirely separate issue from the one at hand. Prager reflects a number of commentors reflecting that in the end, we know nothing about same sex parenting. This has absolutely nothing to do with the marriage amendment. It will not prevent same sex unions other than marriage, as the President has said. I'm still against the amendment for several reasons, some of which I have previously listed.

I don't want same sex marriage in my state, and there is no threat to that. Neither you nor I have any right to interfere in the constitutional wrangling within the state of Massachusetts. They will eventually work it out. Either the people will pass an amendment prohibiting same sex marriage or they will permit same sex marriage by not altering their constitution. It's not up to the remaining 49 states to pull their chestnuts out of the fire. That's the essence of federalism. It works if you give it a chance.

I'm not considering any of the studies either way, because it will take a number of them all meeting the stringent standards of statistical excellence.

As for the one contention I did make it a previous post, I have seen nothing indicating a propensity of same sex couples to either attempt to influence children into their sexual lifestyle nor do I believe it would succeed with a non homosexual child.

There is really only one powerful argument against same sex marriage. That is that marriage is designed for procreation. I'm not aware of any other.

[Blue Highway]

Here ya go Buckeye...

[MACVSOG68]

I did read the letter from Romney earlier. I sympathize with his inability to get much out of his legislature, but understand, given its very liberal character. But as you noted the problem is with the legislature, not the judiciary. The state supreme court ruled that the constitution was being violated. Immediately a corrective amendment was prepared, but the legislature is the problem at this point.

The FMA will say that the Massachusetts constitution actually doesn't require something the judiciary of the state says it does. Can you not see the constitutional crisis this creates in any state such as Massachusetts? The three branches of government in the state will no longer be equal. You will argue that it is the fault of the judiciary, but it is not. The judiciary cannot stop a constitutional amendment from being enacted to cure the problem.

Taking it one step farther, the FMA would say that no state constitution can be construed to require same sex marriages. But what if the state wants to put that into their constitution, and enact laws persuant to that? What is the legal standing of a judge who follows the US Constituion and refuses to legalize the same sex marriage, but is violating the laws of his own state? The homosexual lobby is not holding the state hostage. The people can still vote and it is their representatives who are failing to move the amendment through the statehouse, not the gay lobby.

[JulieRNR21]

I don't want same sex marriage in my state, and there is no threat to that. Neither you nor I have any right to interfere in the constitutional wrangling within the state of Massachusetts. They will eventually work it out. Either the people will pass an amendment prohibiting same sex marriage or they will permit same sex marriage by not altering their constitution.

---

You are fortunate you not live in MA as many of my friends do. They are extremely frustrated.

Same-sex Marriage was forced on MA by the vote of one judge in the MA Supreme Court.

Now the will of the people in MA, who have said they want the opportunity to vote for or against a Marriage Amendment, is being ignored by the MA Legislature because the homosexual lobby controls the Democrats who have a huge majority. In the past, the MA House 'adjorned' rather than deal with the people's petition.

It will soon come up again for a vote because the Legislature must approve Amendments that go on the ballot.

And the homosexual lobby will again exert enormous influence over the Democrats to ignore the people.

[Tenniel]

Anyone else notice that her stirrups are waaaaayy too long?

.

.

.

Didn't think so.

[MACVSOG68]

I'm a Harris supporter but it pains me to see the GOP blatantly pandering with this issue. This is a pure election-year stunt and it's not even going to go anywhere in the Senate.

I agree completely with you. In fact, except for a hard corps with a different agenda, I fear she could actually lose votes depending on how she portrays this.

[pleikumud]

It's impossible for Nelson to "demonstrate that he's not a liberal", since he is a clone of Kerry, Klinton, and Kennedy.

[Jim Noble]

So we need to make the definition of traditional marriage part of our national Constitution.

My point was that you cannot put traditional marriage into the Constitution, or anywhere else, because people overwhelmingly favor easy divorce and decriminalization of adultery.

Calling what's left after you allow unilateral divorce and don't punish adultery "traditional marriage" is really dishonest. There's nothing traditional about it at all.