A Time for Action: The Federal Marriage Amendment

BreakPoint ^ | 4 February 04 | Mark Earley

[longtermmemmory]

It does say that. But the courts have been allowed to evolve.

Before the courts would simply make the law unconstitutional and say now pass some other law. Never did they say "pass a law that says this specifically"

Since the courts have no "police power", how will they enforce their ruling? Order a baliff to arrest the governor?

The FMA now is a necessity.

[AdamSelene235]

Government has enormous cultural influence.

That sounds like a more fundamental problem than Adam and Steve. Why don't we fix that first instead of turning the Constitution into a three ring circus?

[King Black Robe]

Divorce, adultery, etc... are bad. But no one is trying to say otherwise. We are not giving special gov't privileges to anyone based on the above. They are tolerated but not celebrated.

Queers are a totally different story. They want their lifestyle embraced by all. They want it taught and protected in school curriculum (this comes home to me and mine). They want Boy Scouts to be forced to approve. Already, teens are getting into this "bisexual chic" garbage. It is affecting everyone already. Equating an unnatural sexual act with one that is the connecting fiber of human life -- connecting us to both our past and our future -- is insane. Marriage is so much more than sex. It is the foundational structure of society. Just because it needs mending doesn't mean it is a good idea to destroy what is left of it.

Gay marriage will also force all other gay issues into the queer win column (something the courts are already trying to do with Lawrence). The Boy Scouts lose. Everyone who values traditional morality will be forced to compromise their beliefs -- at least from time to time, be it at school, work...whatever.

Lastly, if self-governing states cannot decide this for themselves, without the Courts legislating it from the bench, then there is no reason any form of marriage can be legislated against. Hello anything consenting adults desire. Who cares about the children and the future of our culture?

[kingu]

Let me see if I understand this; rather than restricting the courts to actually being arbiters of law, you want to just make a new amendment to the constitution? Doesn't that just bandaid over the issue at hand?

The need is to reestablish the separation of powers, and if you're bent on ensuring that an amendment is passed, this seems to be a more productive use of time rather than turning a very simple document into a dictionary.

[little jeremiah]

Here again is what the homosexuals themselves state as their reasons for "gay" marriage. They admit that they want to destroy civilization and remake it into a hedonistic sexual free for all.

An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
"Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine:

...to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake --and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely."

"Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."


"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." Michenlangelo Signorile in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994.)

Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.
Crain writes: "...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position." (Washington Blade, August, 2003).

Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)

Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)

Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. "(quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)

Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." (quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)

1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit."

[little jeremiah]

Read my post #25. The homosexuals admit that their goal in achieving "gay" marriage is to destroy the meaning of marriage, family, and morality.

[breakem]

We have propagandists on this site saying that they need to defend marriage from homosexuals. Adultery and divorce have been wearing away at marriage for a long time, but no call for an amednment outlawing these pernicious acts.

We have people saying that homosexuals want to be married to destroy marriage. The illogic of this illustrates what passes for intelligent discourse here. All homosexuals are considered as a monolith and no regard for individual rights and responsibilities.

Today the president said that marriage is a SACRED institution. If that is true what business does the state have in the issue at all?

[DuncanWaring]

... "anybody" can marry,

But "anybody" can't marry.

I'm a heterosexual male.

I can't marry my Mom, my sister or my daughter (Woody Allen notwithstanding).

I can't marry any woman who doesn't want to marry me.

I can't marry any woman who's already married to someone else.

I can't marry any woman if either of us have a "social disease"

And, once I've married one woman, I can't marry another while I'm still married to the first one.

We have already established that society can place lots of restrictions on who may marry.

[DuncanWaring]

Here's an alternative approach:

Turn this issue into a "poison pill" for Massachussets.

Tell them we will honor their "Gay marriage" law under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution if they will in turn honor "Vermont Carry" under said same Full Faith and Credit clause.

[longtermmemmory]

no reason we can not do both. When a dam breaks you need to clean the spill and fix the dam.

Nothing will happen until you get to the judicial colleges and law school.

Judicial colleges are essentially regular seminars where new and old judges train and update on the law. It is where they art taught the Judicial branch is SUPOPSED to be anti-democratic.

Sadly there no alternative in the marriage issue. FMA is the only way to fight back against the activist judges on this issue.

[Zack Nguyen]

We have already established that society can place lots of restrictions on who may marry.

I agree completely.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

BUMP.