Posted on 05/26/2006 4:56:50 PM PDT by wagglebee
Hillary Clinton wants to lead the fight against protecting marriage in the upcoming debate on the matter in the United States Senate. Oh sure, when my New York listeners call her office her spokespeople say that she supports marriage – she just doesn't want to see the federal government overreach.
Right ... Ms. Universal Health Care wants government not to intrude!
This last week, however, a little clue was uncovered that indicates Hillary is not neutral on the issue at all. Instead, she is strategizing on how to promote the message of the radical homosexual activists while debating the Marriage Protection Amendment on the Senate floor next week. This tidbit came to light in the New York Blade newspaper – a mouthpiece for the radical homosexual lobby.
The article references a recent brainstorming session that was called by New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who is openly homosexual and militant in her political approach. The purpose of the recent session was to gather New York politicos to figure out how not only to defeat the Marriage Protection Amendment – but to seize upon the opportunity to hijack the debate on the bill to put forward a pro-homosexual message and advance the special-rights status of people who chose to be sexually active with their same gender.
In an aside, it is Quinn who revealed that this recent session was actually an extension of a closed-door session Hillary Clinton had called in March:
Quinn said the gathering was an extension of a meeting of LGBT leaders held by Sen. Clinton in March. "In that meeting, herself and Senator [Harry] Reid and others asked for help from the community in messaging on how they could best – when they vote against the amendment – send a positive message about LGBT families during the vote," Quinn said.
So what is this innocent "we just don't want federal law to overstep its limits of power" routine she has been pulling with my listeners and those who called her office in recent weeks? Sad to say, it's nothing new. Clinton is a candidate whose conviction on this matter is truly troubling.
In one breath to callers from her state she assures them of her support for the institution of traditional marriage and how the states should have every right to protect it. In the next she is hosting backdoor conferences and making propositions in smoke-filled rooms to advance the radical homosexual activist cause – yet she must go to the activists to learn how to make their case.
It is one thing for a person to be a sworn enemy; you understand where he or she is coming from. It is entirely another issue to be so hostile to the welfare of the institution of marriage that you purposefully commit to destroying it – but you can't articulate why.
Hillary hosted the discussion in March with the radical homosexual activists because she knows two fundamental truths:
It is disturbing that someone who seeks to be elected senator this year and president two years from now has neither the brains nor the ability to think for herself, but must violate even her own conscience and use the activists' talking points to make the case.
You would expect more from someone who is supposedly as brilliant as Hillary Rodham Clinton.
It is important to understand that when the Marriage Protection Amendment comes forward this time around, it will not be a polite debate on the issue of states' rights to determine their own laws on the matter. Judges in Nebraska and Georgia have already seen to it that the will of the voters can and will be summarily overturned if a federal judge feels so compelled. This leaves the voters of these and possibly the voters of nine other states vulnerable to judges' whims. And it was that very fear that caused the voters in states from Mississippi to Oregon to turn out in huge numbers in 2004 to approve state constitutional amendments to protect marriage.
Judges are out of control overturning the will of the people. The activists are seeking to turn the debate over protecting marriage into a campaign to legitimize and promote publicly their behavior that none of the nation is interested in nor should be subjected to.
And all the while Ms. Hillary plots and schemes, lying to her own voters, making alliances with activists and asking for the talking points to drag our nation even further from its necessary moral roots.
At least now we know.
ping
And come election time, the RNC's propping an image of some of Hildabeast's cabinet members parading round' the Oval Office in crotchless leather chaps wouldn't hurt either.
bookmark
I remember 1992 and every homosexual in the Dept. of Transportation was having home parties for Hillary, oops, I mean Bill.
The homosexual community actively supports Hillary's ambitions for the White House. And they don't care what she has to say to get there.
They are committed, they have an agenda, they have money and they know Hillary is their best bet for the normalization of homosexuality.
Thanks for the way you distill the core issues into view, DB. But on this point, I'm afraid, with the spineless political leadership we have, any forward motion conservatives make will inevitably come with concessions. This is what scares me about the debate on homosexuality: that we are even talking about the viability of such a culture when 40 years ago such a proposition would have been properly dismissed as untenable, and that whenever progress by a leftist ideology is denied by the democratic process, a consolation prize is almost always awarded. This is the insidious strategy of incrementalism. Thus we have a president who is against anything but tradition MARRIAGE, but might consider some type of CIVIL UNIONS as valid. Or as in the abortion debate, where the issue slowly progressed from the eminent life of the mother, to impact to life, to "health" of the mother, (etc. etc.)
It is true, as you posted, that you can't be "a little pregnant", but even with the passage of something as momentous as a federal Marriage Protection Amendment, something will have to give, even if it means bending reality as has been the norm these last 30 or so years.
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.