Skip to comments.Defining marriage: Who decides? Rebecca Hagelin warns battle at critical junction
Posted on 07/12/2004 11:14:49 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
This week, the United States Senate will take the first step in deciding who gets to define marriage for the entire nation: activist judges or the American people.
Although not the final vote on marriage by any means, the vote your senator casts this week gives a clear signal on how much he trusts you and your fellow citizens to determine the defining issue of our generation. A vote against the amendment means your senator is willing to allow activist judges to make the decision for you.
A little background on how we got to his point is helpful. In 1996, a liberal state court in Hawaii threw out that state's laws against same-sex marriage. Lawmakers around the nation knew that if a few judges in Hawaii could destroy the traditional definition of marriage, judges anywhere could and would do it. Within months, a law that defines marriage for the federal government as the union of one man and one woman, and prevents states from being forced to recognize contrary definitions which lawmakers thought would solve the problem passed both houses of Congress by veto-proof majorities and was signed by President Clinton.
It was called the Defense Of Marriage Act, and it caught on like wildfire. Within eight years, 38 states had adopted their own DOMAs, and five other states had inserted DOMA language into other laws.
Many thought the issue was settled once and for all, but, again, activist judges this time in Massachusetts took power away from the people of that state and declared same-sex marriage legal. Other activist officials started thwarting the will of the people and breaking the laws in their states and began issuing same-sex licenses. Homosexual couples from many states traveled to Massachusetts to be "married" mayhem resulted.
Exclusive: Today, Americans are rising up to make their voice of reason heard citizens in Michigan, Montana, Arkansas and Oregon have gathered enough signatures to put state constitutional amendments protecting marriage on the fall ballots, and North Dakota and Ohio are close. Michigan organizers expect the measure to pass by a 2-to-1 margin or more, with 80 percent of Republicans and more than half the Democrats in the state planning to support it.
In seven other states Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma and Utah legislators voted to put pro-marriage amendments on ballots this fall. To find out where your state stands and to get a full state-by-state accounting, simply log on to heritage.org.
American citizens seem to instinctively understand what's at stake here. Marriage has meant one man and one woman in every successful nation on Earth since the beginning of mankind. Marriage is about propagating not just the human race, but also the values of a society, the difference between right and wrong.
By promoting social order, it creates a safety zone for the man and woman involved as well as for their children. A raft of social science research shows that children who grow up in households where the mother and father are married have the best chance at a good life. They earn more, learn more, get in trouble less and have fewer problems with drugs, alcohol or abuse.
Unfortunately, many of the senators ready to debate the amendment this week do not understand its importance. Thanks to the efforts of Sens. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., Sam Brownback, R-Kan., and Zell Miller, D-Ga., and their co-sponsors, senators at least will get the facts, and will be forced to take a stand on whether or not they believe the issue is even worth debating.
Many senators say they oppose same-sex marriage, but don't see the purpose in an amendment. Perhaps these senators are just afraid to take a stand. But when a few activists judges around the nation are determined to redefine this most basic of human institutions through court decisions which thwart the will of the people, our elected officials must take a stand on whether or not they believe voters should determine this issue for themselves. Unfortunately, we've now reached the time where the only way I repeat the only way to protect marriage and civil society as we know it is to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Redefining marriage the most basic of human institutions is akin to reprogramming the DNA of a nation. This week is a crucial one in who will determine our future contact your senators today and urge them to let your voice be heard.
Stopping gay marriage is going to make kids MORE attracted to being homosexuals and lesbians?And this opinion of yours,is based on what,specifically?
And the HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA is NOT for equality.It's about shutting up HETEROSEXUALS.
Amen. No one is rooting around in their bedrooms. But somehow that is not enough for them. They need OUR approval. They'll never get it, so it has to be coerced, which makes it meaningless.
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The purpose includes procreation.
Am I against homosexuals? Hell no. I wouldn't get that close to them.
Homosexuality had been "forbidden" for millenia and it's forbiddenness did NOT make kids rush off to become screaming queens/over the top dykes.
I could keep on going,but you just aren't worth it.You really should rethink why you joined FR.You're either going to get unremittingly squashed,due to your abject lack of knowledge,or banned.At the rate you're going,the later seems the most probable.
Is the newbie a troll,or just someone who doesn't know anything? What's your opinion?
If one is to be banned from FR for espousing morality and decency, then FR is not what I have come to believe it to be. This nation was not built on principles of perversion but quite the opposit.
It's long past time for us to make the noise and just keep on saying a loud,resounding NO! to homosexual marriage.
The newbie is espousing homosexual marriage.Go reread the post.
My state and federal representitives should be about sick of hearing from me on the matter,fortunately it comes under the heading of singing to the choir in my case. Not so many others.
We must not go quietly on this one.
No, they are only part of the problem. You need to study what has happened in the European Countrys that have legalized homosexual marriage, then study the history of countrys throughout history where homosexuality was allowed to run rampant.
Heterosexual divorce rates are NOT 2/3...it's 1/2.Still far too high,but far less than your spurious claim.
Still and all,I'm NOT about to shut up and quietly go away. LOL
Something we agree on. PTL!
Did you honestly think that I would be "for" homosexual marriage?
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.