Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kerry says Bush using gay vows as wedge
Boston.com ^ | 3/11/04 | Patrick Healy

Posted on 03/11/2004 8:41:26 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection

Edited on 04/13/2004 2:11:48 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

John F. Kerry is keeping a low profile in the gay marriage debate back in Massachusetts, but he has been far from silent about the issue on the presidential campaign trail, talking about it as a way of denouncing President Bush as a divisive leader.


(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2004; civilunion; gays; homosexual; homosexualagenda; kerry; marriage; prisoners; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 last
To: Cboldt
I agree with you for the most part. I do not interpret Bush's remarks as supporting CVs in any way. He was using the same concept being promoted in the Musgrave version of the FMA. It is a concept that recognizes two competing principles. One, that marriage is the foundational structure of culture and gov't and it must be protect. Two, that our republican form of government must be preserved. Maybe I should have put the second one first.

By the comment, "will it make a difference" I was referring to our form of government. The entire theory of our Constitution turns on the principle of consent of the governed. That's why our first president understood that religion and morality were the pillars of government, because they were essential to the self-government principle.

As John Adams said, our constitution was written only for a moral and religious people. He said it was wholly inadequate for any other type of people. Winthrop said that men will be controlled by a power within them or by a power without them. That's what I meant by "will it make a difference." If the people of a state (a majority) who value morality and immorality equally are to also retain a republican form of government, then their laws will necessarily reflect those values. At the point a majority wants to be ruled as though pleasure is the greatest human value, you either introduce authoritarian government or you let them degrade themselves as they wish -- in which case the resulting chaos will eventually lead to the need for authoritarian gov't.

So back to marriage....the federal gov't has an interest in its definition because it affects benefits and taxes. We can demand a uniform definition on that basis.

Since the Supreme Court began mandating secularism as the state religion, we have been heading for a collapse of this nature. Few see the threat from within -- human nature itself. Our Founders understood that freedom must be self-ordered by morality steming from religious conviction. That's why religion got a double protection in the Bill of Rights. Too bad it's been redefined.

They handed us a republic if we could keep it. I'm not too optimistic at this point. But keeping it a republic is the most vital principle. Second, we need to re-establish a respect for morality in the hearts of the people themselves.

41 posted on 03/11/2004 11:51:24 AM PST by King Black Robe (With freedom of religion and speech now abridged, it is time to go after the press.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
CV = CU = civil union

oops!

42 posted on 03/11/2004 11:53:48 AM PST by King Black Robe (With freedom of religion and speech now abridged, it is time to go after the press.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
By not supporting a Constitutional amendment, Skerry Kerry IS supporting homosexual marriage (whatever that is) and unlawful judicial activism.
43 posted on 03/11/2004 11:55:58 AM PST by PeoplesRepublicOfWashington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: King Black Robe
I do not interpret Bush's remarks as supporting CVs [CUs] in any way.

I looked up his words, which were: "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage."

President Calls for Constitutional Amendment Protecting Marriage

I suppose the nit I am picking is "how" and the degree to which the institution of marriage is protected. Bush's statement certainly admits states to make legal arrangements other than marriage, and in my mind, that, on its own, results in something less than "fully protecting marriage." But that's just me.

Our Founders understood that freedom must be self-ordered by morality steming from religious conviction.

You and I see rather eye-to-eye on that. Law, on its own, will not sustain a society. Law is an important pillar, but reliance on law alone (be it Constitution, statute, regulation or common law), to provide social stability, will not endure. Blackstone's writings express this pretty well, but the point is lost on many (if not most) citizens.

Tucker's Blackstone <-- Link (check Section II for his general premise)

So back to marriage....the federal gov't has an interest in its definition because it affects benefits and taxes. We can demand a uniform definition on that basis.

Yes, the Federal government has an interest, and yes, we can define marriage for the purposes of federal benefits and federal taxes. But society includes the next generation, and normalizing homosexuality will impact "our" children, and theirs.

44 posted on 03/11/2004 12:08:35 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Kerry says Bush using gay vows as wedge wedgie... ooooOOOooooohh....
45 posted on 03/11/2004 12:15:22 PM PST by Godfollow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
suppose the nit I am picking is "how" and the degree to which the institution of marriage is protected. Bush's statement certainly admits states to make legal arrangements other than marriage, and in my mind, that, on its own, results in something less than "fully protecting marriage." But that's just me.

It's not just you. It's me too. But it only leaves us vulnerable. We can still win this fight as long as it is kept in the legislature. We can't battle the courts. The plantiffs have the advantage because they only need one win. We must win EVERY TIME or we lose the entire war.

Yes, the Federal government has an interest, and yes, we can define marriage for the purposes of federal benefits and federal taxes. But society includes the next generation, and normalizing homosexuality will impact "our" children, and theirs.

I agree 100% with the above statement. But we also must protect representative gov't for our children. Don't get me wrong, we MUST win this fight. But part of the battle will be ongoing, in the legislatures of each state. And we must take back the schools, end the liberal reign in the media and academia, etc.... Unless we change hearts we are only delaying the inevitable.

46 posted on 03/11/2004 12:25:17 PM PST by King Black Robe (With freedom of religion and speech now abridged, it is time to go after the press.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Some clarification: If I thought we could get an amendment that also banned all the benefits of marriage I would support it in a minute. I do think the issue is that vital. But the whole consent of the government thing also comes into play in the Amendment process. I am aiming for what I think we can win. We will just have to continue the fight in each and every state.

The left tries to say that an Amendment is somehow anti-democratic. That's so untrue. It must pass Congress by 2/3 and be ratified by 3/4 of the states. If we win, the people will have spoken. Again, if I thought we could win on that grand of a scale banning civil unions and all benefits associated with marriage, I would support it in a minute. No conflict with representative gov't in that for me. I just don't think we can sell it to the extreme majority necessary to pass it without leaving the benefit portion to the states.

Maybe that explains my position better. We can't go for everything and lose the vital thing -- getting the courts out of the equation.

47 posted on 03/11/2004 12:37:14 PM PST by King Black Robe (With freedom of religion and speech now abridged, it is time to go after the press.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: King Black Robe
We can't go for everything and lose the vital thing -- getting the courts out of the equation.

Oh, the courts have got to get out of the activism jag. I advocate getting defective officials out of their positions of influence. That sends a message too. Unfortunately, our legislators are not promptly responsive to public pressure (legislators having the power to impeach judges), and are by nature averse to controversy (legislators are -- always trying to pass the buck and have it both ways), and the people tolerate it.

An amendment might get the judges out of the marriage business (I think not, because creating civil unions does not fully protect marriage), but defective judges can bring society down in other avenues. Are we going to keep chasing them around with Constitutional amendments? Or kick them the hell off the bench?

In a way, I see advocating the amendment as a way to dilute energy that would be better spent toward a more durable solution. But again, that's just me. Not that I'm against a FMA, just that settling for a FMA seems to accept defective judges in principle, as long as they don't attach "one-man-one-woman" to the label "marriage."

48 posted on 03/11/2004 12:48:27 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Obviously, that last statement was not what I meant! Let's try again ...

... just that settling for a FMA seems to accept defective judges in principle, as long as they don't attach anything but "one-man-one-woman" to the label "marriage."

The point being, the people are letting their legal system create a new institution, inimical to marriage, whereby same-sex partners can enter into civil unions, adopt and raise children, and ...

49 posted on 03/11/2004 12:55:17 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
There are too many activist judges to impeach. Then we would have no guarantee that their replacements would be any better. There is no perfect solution so long as some choose to not play by the rules. I think the FMA is the best first move. I also like the proposed amendment mentioned by the Federalist people. But I think it is over the head of too many people when we need sweeping majorities.

Winning this battle will be an ongoing process no matter where we start.

50 posted on 03/11/2004 12:57:09 PM PST by King Black Robe (With freedom of religion and speech now abridged, it is time to go after the press.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: King Black Robe
I think the FMA is the best first move.

So do many other people.

I've (pretty clearly, I hope) expressed my various misgivings, and the reasons I hold them, so I won't rehash why I think that approach sets expectations low, and in a sense, does not confront the roots of the present social and legal decay. But that's just my opinion, which has been overlooked or dismissed by the majority. Which is fine by me =;-)

Massachusetts legislature is meeting right now on the hot potato dropped in their lap by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Dollars to donuts, gay marriage in Massachusetts before summer is over.

51 posted on 03/11/2004 1:08:51 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Considering that we must get super majority agreement, how much higher can we aim right now? I wish MA would just impeach those four judges and send them a message, but I do not think that will happen. Besides, there is another court in another state ready to do the same thing. Let's see: Hawaii, Alaska, Vermont already tried with some success. Some states are still in the process of working it through their court systems. Those who seek to impose this amorality have made their strategy clear: they will win it through the courts. The media will not allow a fair and open debate.

We agree on all the fundamental stuff; we just disagree on process. What worries me is that those of us who disagree on process will lose solely because we can't agree on a strategy.

52 posted on 03/11/2004 1:26:40 PM PST by King Black Robe (With freedom of religion and speech now abridged, it is time to go after the press.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
"I'm a Christian, I've read the Bible, and I know you can find the clauses that go both ways. I'm not here to argue that with you," Kerry said.

LOL, this guy is stupider and possessed of more hubris than Al Gore.

Who'd a thunk that was possible?

53 posted on 03/11/2004 1:28:38 PM PST by jwalsh07 (We're bringing it on John but you can't handle the truth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Yes, it IS a wedge issue. It separates the sheep from the goats, and the the Sodomites and Sodomite suck-ups from normal decent God-fearing people who are repelled by this perverted public spectacle.

Go ahead, Kerry, defend the Sodomites to the American people - MAKE BUSH'S DAY.
54 posted on 03/11/2004 1:31:30 PM PST by ZULU (God Bless Senator Joe McCarthy!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: King Black Robe
We agree on all the fundamental stuff; we just disagree on process. What worries me is that those of us who disagree on process will lose solely because we can't agree on a strategy.

Oh my, for this issue, it's a difference without distinction. I'm all for the FMA, so "we" won't lose the FMA on account of my opinion or vote.

My concern is that some people see the FMA as enough to solve the problem. I contend it's not.

55 posted on 03/11/2004 1:37:40 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Marathoner
"that go both ways."

Kerry: the bi-sexual/political a hole.

56 posted on 03/11/2004 1:44:40 PM PST by truthandjustice1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
actually I see a expand the states that allow homosexual adoptions.

As it stands now, a homosexual adopts a child and the sex partner is then granted rights derivative from the first homosexual. They get a guardianship right.

Homosexuals adopt same as single parents. It is part of the move by the ABA to separate children from marriage. This way they can socialist engineer the family unit.

The language of the FMA is pretty clear:
For those who have not seen it:
H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26
Amendment Text:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law,
shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred
upon unmarried couples or groups
.



57 posted on 03/11/2004 3:14:15 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
I'm just sitting here watching my clock....just waiting for Kerry to implode.
58 posted on 03/11/2004 3:16:36 PM PST by Blue Scourge (Off I go into the Wild Blue Yonder...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marathoner
Man, this guy makes Clinton look honest.

Remember, it was Kerry who said of Clinton in 1992, "[He] is an extraordinarily good liar." They didn't call him Slick Willie for nothing. Kerry, on the other hand, is a terrible liar.

59 posted on 03/11/2004 3:22:54 PM PST by L.N. Smithee (Just because I don't think like you doesn't mean I don't think for myself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Kerry is about as familiar with the Bible as I am. Note that I don't invoke the bible in making my arguments. :)
60 posted on 03/11/2004 7:11:03 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson