| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 02/20/2004 8:22:01 AM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
duplicate. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1081903/posts |
Posted on 02/20/2004 8:11:16 AM PST by Phantom Lord
COME ON FOLKS .... LET'S REMEMBER WHAT'S IMPORTANT THIS YEAR
The Washington Times reports today that evangelical Christians are mightily upset with George Bush and could very well sit on their hands on November 2nd --- meaning they will just sit home and hold their breath and not vote. Well, isn't that special.
The source of their discontent is the absence of action and blue-steam rhetoric from George Bush over this gay marriage controversy in California. The evangelicals want Bush to do something .. and now, not later.
So many different comments .... so let's go.
First: I realize that most people do not understand the concept of federalism, nor do they understand just how our local and federal governments were originally supposed to interact with one another. OK .. here's a quick lesson. These are State marriage licenses. They're not federal marriage licenses. Arnold Schwartzenegger is the governor of California .. not George Bush. It's state law that's being flouted in California, not federal law. President Bush has enough on his plate without getting involved in local and state matters.
Second: Most of us would be far better off if we would concentrate on our own relationships and marriages and spend less time worrying about what others are doing. There is no imaginable way that the issuance of a marriage license to a gay or lesbian couple in California is going to affect your marriage, or your relationship with your spouse or children. You are just as married now as you were before the mayor of San Francisco went over the edge. All of us would be well advised to worry more about how we are living our lives and less about how others are living theirs.
Third: I seem to remember a bit of controversy over rampant promiscuity in the gay community. Weren't public health officials telling us just a few years ago that homosexual promiscuity was contributing to the advancement of AIDS? I seem to remember ordinances closing down bath houses in San Francisco and other measures being taken to slow down the spread of this deadly disease. So ... now gay couples are participating in ceremonies in which they pledge loyalty and exclusivity and dedication to one another ... and this is a bad thing?
Fourth: Gay marriage could not possibly do as much damage to the institution as has been done by Hollywood and the entertainment industry. That little 48-hour marriage stunt that Britney Spears pulled off last month in Las Vegas is a good example. Across this country teenaged girls saw marriage as something akin to a weekend lark. One New York radio station ran a contest in which a couple would rush off to Vegas, get married at a chapel, spend the night drinking and God knows what else, and then get a quick annulment ... just like Britney and Jason! Hardly a week goes by that you don't hear that Hollywood actress so-and-so is pregnant by her boyfriend du jour ... and no, they don't know if they're going to get married. If they do the union would be lucky to last 24 months. Then the makers of Barbie make a big deal of a breakup between Barbie and Ken! Wow! Even dolls are ending relationships ... so it must be a good thing! (Now never mind that Barbie and Ken were originally marketed as brother and sister.) So many of the very same people who say that they are not going to vote for Bush because he isn't doing something about this gay marriage situation will spend endless hours every week reading their entertainment magazines and fawning over these very same libertine Hollywood celebrities.
I have not one ounce of doubt in my soul that there are Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists in place in this country right now .. .just waiting for more Islamic terrorist colleagues to arrive with more equipment so that they can unleash another bloody attack on innocent Americans.
The choices we face at the ballot box this year are clear; clearer than they have ever been. On the one hand we're going to have a Democratic candidate who has voted against virtually every new weapons program the United States military has developed over the last 20 years. We have a Democrat who voted against shoving Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. We have a Democratic candidate who voted against continued funding for our troops and efforts in Iraq. That vote was a vote for Saddam's return to power. We have a Democratic candidate who is rated as being more liberal ... if you can believe that ... than Ted Kennedy! And ... possibly most important of all ... we have a Democratic candidate who wants to treat Islamic terrorism as a law enforcement problem. Now war on terror ... just stepped-up law enforcement. That was the approach Bill Clinton used after the first attack on the World Trade Towers in 1993. We all know where that got us.
On the other hand we have a Republican incumbent who has declared war on Islamic terrorism, and who has taken the fight to the terrorist base overseas instead of waiting to send the FBI after them on our own soil. We have a president who told the United Nations that the United States did not need its permission to act in its own self defense.
Am I for gay marriage? No ... not really. I think that marriage is an institution recognized by both the church and the state in order to create a specific and protected environment in which a man and a woman can raise children. Do I think that the law ought to recognize a committed relationship between two adults of the same gender? Sure! Why not .. what's it going to hurt?
And you're going to sit on your hands because of gay marriage?
Yeah ... makes perfect sense to me.
OR DO I NEED TO ELABORATE
Sorry I won't dignify the POSTS.
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.