Posted on 05/28/2006 5:33:55 PM PDT by madprof98
In 1964, just one congressman from the Deep South, Atlanta's Charles Weltner, voted for the Civil Rights Act. For all practical purposes, his righteous leadership on civil rights — he also supported the Voting Rights Act — cost him his congressional career.
In 1966, he resigned his seat rather than sign an act of loyalty to the segregationist Lester Maddox, as Georgia Democrats insisted. But some analysts believe he would have lost the race for re-election.
Doing the right thing is difficult because it often means losing. And the typical politician is willing to lose anything — honor, integrity, dignity — but an election.
That helps explain why, during this election season, so few politicians have stepped forward to denounce initiatives against gay marriage as the cynical and opportunistic tactics that they are. They know that playing on prejudice and fear can rally a certain constituency and provide the winning margin in tight races.
It certainly worked two years ago. Republican tacticians maneuvered to add amendments against gay marriage to the ballots in 11 states, including Georgia. The result was to lure religious conservatives to the polls in large numbers, probably giving President Bush the boost he needed in the battleground state of Ohio.
This year, conservative Republicans — struggling against voter discontent over Iraq, health care and high gas prices, among other things — are desperate to bring those religious conservatives back to the polls. So they've resurrected the same tired tactic. Next month, the Senate is expected to vote on an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex unions.
Senate leaders haven't made much of an effort to disguise the initiative as anything other than the base political ploy that it is. After a frenzy of gay-bashing during the 2004 campaign season — they thundered against gay marriage as a threat to just about every family tradition, from man-woman marriages to peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches — Republican leaders hadn't even mentioned the issue again. The threat disappeared for two years. Until now, when they're facing the prospect of losing control of Congress.
Given the stakes, prominent Republicans won't get in the way of a good wedge issue. Oh, first lady Laura Bush has pointed out the unfairness of a constitutional amendment. So has Mary Cheney, the vice president's gay daughter, who lives openly with her partner of 14 years, Heather Poe, and has recently published her memoirs. This month, Cheney told CNN that "writing discrimination into the Constitution of the United States is fundamentally wrong."
But it's unlikely you'll hear the vice president arguing against the amendment so pointedly on the campaign trial. While he has said in the past that he opposes it, he'd rather remind his right-wing supporters of his staunch support for the invasion of Iraq. President Bush, for his part, has spent his last pennies of political capital trying to pass a humane policy on immigration. He may not fight for an amendment banning gay marriage, but he's unlikely to get in the way of it, either.
In Georgia, meanwhile, even progressive politicians have been cowed by the state's overwhelming consensus against gay marriage. Though 76 percent of Georgia voters approved the ban two years ago, a Superior Court judge recently struck down the amendment on technical grounds. After the ruling, Gov. Sonny Perdue, a Republican, quickly announced plans for a special session of the Legislature to rewrite the ban and place it before voters again in November. His two Democratic opponents, Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor and Secretary of State Cathy Cox, rushed to support the move.
Cox's awkward leap onto the bandwagon was especially disappointing. While Taylor had supported the ban, Cox had pointed out two years ago that the amendment is "unnecessary." Georgia law, like federal law, already bans same-sex unions. But many analysts have noted that Cox is desperate to draw black voters away from Taylor in the Democratic primary for governor; black Georgians, like their white neighbors, gave their unabashed support to enshrining bigotry in the state Constitution.
Cox, like most other politicians, would rather pander to the prejudices of voters than stand by her principles. It's a perfectly human inclination — doing the safe thing, rather than the right thing.
There are never more than a handful like Weltner, who preferred losing a campaign to sacrificing his conscience. In his resignation speech, he declared, "I love the Congress, but I will give up my office before I give up my principles. ... I cannot compromise with hate."
His courage is as rare now as it was then.
You're missing the point I think. Roe was affirmed by a 7 to 2 majority of the Court and was more than likely unique. It's conclusions depended on a strained reading of the right to privacy inherent in the 9th Amendment, but failed to address the obviously important question of whether or not the fetus is a person with a soul. Most people, just as the Catholic Church did for 1200 years, believe that at least in the 2d and 3d trimester it likely is, barring scientific evidence to the contrary, I believe the court should have leaned toward the fetus' 4th and 5th Amendment rights as a "person".
But I think I stated earlier, neither I nor anyone agrees with all USSC decisions. I am convinced that today, if Roe is revisited, it would either be curtailed or struck down completely by a 5 to 4 majority. Nonetheless, it belongs in the states. It is not a right in any sense of the 9th Amendment.
Not so. If not barred by an amendment, homosexual marriage will be a major concern for me and for every American in the future whose moral compass isn't as screwed up as that of the small minority of Americans who either want sodomite partners given the same status as marriage between opposite sexes, or those like you who apparently don't care either way.
Let's keep me out of the discussion. I am nobody. But I have stated on numerous occasions, that I would vote against it in my state. It is not a national issue except for the DOMA. And I continue to maintain that 10 or 20 years of liberal Democrat leadership will change the face of this Country in so many ways, infringing on the rights of free Americans, reducing the powers of the state, and redefining our capitalistic system such that as I said, gay marriage will be the least of our concerns.
That may not concern you, but it does those of us who care about the moral fiber of the environment in which our children and their children are raised and nurtured.
Many things concern me, not just gay marriage. But I must be true to my belief in a republican form of government, that assumes states will not all act in unison in almost any area, moral, economic, criminal, licensing, etc. I don't like gay marriage in Massachusetts, but I also just as firmly believe that the people of Massachusetts can make that decision. It is none of mine...or yours.
This is an area where so-called conservatives who profess a belief in the misnamed "states' rights", turn completely around and demand that all states must agree with their definition of morality. They are misguided and wrong.
When I voted in favor of Amendment 2 in Colorado, I, like others, bought into the idea that homosexuals needed no new protections, and had all the protections from discrimination the rest of us had. Only later did I learn that the small group of fundamentalists who were fully committed to their anti-gay philosophy, and who pushed through the amendment, had a different agenda. They were attempting to ensure that no law was ever enacted that recognized homosexuality as having any rights. The USSC saw through that far quicker than any of us who voted for it did.
Those here who constantly decry the sex acts of homosexuals seem to conveniently ignore the fact that most heterosexuals engage in similar acts. Why is that alright, but the former isn't, if as they state, the reason for sex is procreation? Surely they must have the same disdain for all birth controls? They call homosexual sex simply recreational sex, but ignore the fact that almost all heterosexual sex is recreational.
They condemn homosexuals as aids producers, but condemn even more every attempt by a homosexual couple to stay monogamous. Go figure.
They tell you that there is no cause of homosexuality, that it is nothing but a choice, while refusing to give any consideration of medical studies to the contrary. Why? It is simply because if it does turn out to be genetic, then it is something created by God, and since God cannot do wrong, homosexuals have to be "natural". This is why they perpetuate their "choice" theory with absolute gusto.
Their reasons for wanting an amendment to "protect marriage" is no more than an attempt to dictate to states what they may do. It has nothing to do with DOMA. Their tactics are as ruthless as any leftist ever dreamed of. There can be no discussion, no debate. They quickly run off anyone who who remotely questions their facts, or their motives. I have been threatened many times, and called every name in the book from perverse, to gay lover, to leftist, to Marxist, and just a couple of days ago...terrorist. And all from good Christians...and so-called conservatives. Amen and take care.
I really appreciate your sage elucidation. What you write is the truth, and any opposition is obfuscation to cover bias.
Personally, I think it's over. Unless there's some kind of radical change, divine intervention, major catastrophe, etc. The black robed princes (aka "Nazgul") have ruined our country, and indeed, their insane power grabs are happening in other countries as well. Note a recent article about a judge or two in Ireland decreeing that age of consent laws are invalid.
I have some problems with your reference to a 9th Amendment right to privacy, but I'll let it go as it's not germane to the present discussion about Romer and gay "marriage".
However, your discussion of homosexuality itself, particularly whether or not its genetic, contains some theological errors regarding Christianity.
From a Christian standpoint, it doesn't make a bit of difference if homosexuality is genetic. If it is genetic, then it's an error. Ditto if it's hormonal.
Theologically, the fall of Adam & Eve led to error entering the world, and that would include genetic error. We all have sinful desires of some sort. We just don't all have the same ones. And those desires may be genetic. But it's our responsibility as Christians to resist those desires.
If John has a desire to steal, he should resist it. If Joan has a desire to lie, she should resist it. If Jim has a desire to be heterosexually promiscuous, he should resist it. If Jamie has a tendency to become an addict, she should resist it. And if Joe has a desire to engage in sex with another man, he should resist it.
Everyone has a desire to sin in some way or another. Where do those desires come from? Are they sociological, genetic, spiritual, or a combination of the three? We may never fully know, but wherever they come from, we are to do our best to resist them. We aren't to say, hey, this sin might be genetic, so let's enshrine it as a right and shut down any opposition to this sin.
All sins might have a genetic component.
You wrote that many people comdemn homosexuals for spreading AIDS but condemn even more homosexuals who try to stay monogamous. Sorry, but that's the rhetoric of a gay "marriage" activist. It's also untrue. I've heard Christians object to ALL homosexual sex, as they should, but I've never heard of one who opposes homosexual monogamy more than homosexual promiscuity. The allegation that they do is a phony argument put forward by gay "marriage" proponents.
It goes like this: You Christians scream about how promiscuous gays are, but then you oppose gay "marriage", which would allow them to be monogamous!
The problem with that lame argument is that gays can be monogamous without being married. Period. Are you arguing that gays are wildly promiscuous and engage in wanton, anonymous sex in bath houses only because we lack gay "marriage" in America?
Gays will always be promiscuous, but their promiscuity was at least restrained somewhat back when homosexuality was in the closet. Once it was unleashed, that's when AIDS spread like wildfire. Those people such as yourself who are "tolerant" of the gay lifestyle killed thousands of times more homosexuals than so-called "gay bashers" ever did, through your misguided sympathies for their perversion.
Yep! The President has made some good appointments in Roberts & Alito, I hope. But the courts are still out of control, and much permanent damage was done during the heyday of the Warren and Burger courts.
I should also have mentioned this earlier, but Cindy's hero Charles Weltner actually voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it first passed the House early in the year. Weltner represented a district in the heart of Atlanta, which had a black majority. But most of those blacks were denied the vote by the Democrat Party bosses of the state.
When the CRA came up for House passage early in 1964, Weltner voted "no". The bill then went to the Senate where it led to one of the most prolonged filibusters in history. It passed months later, but only after a prolonged debate.
As is the case with many bills, the Senate passed CRA was slightly different than the one passed earlier in the House. So a conference committee ironed out the differences and the bill was sent back to both houses for approval.
During the many months it took the bill to get through the Senate and the conference committee, large numbers of blacks in Weltner's district managed to get registered to vote due to the activities of civil rights activists and attorneys. Weltner, who had voted against the CRA when it originally passed, switched his vote to "yes" when the final version came up for approval.
History has forgotten that Weltner voted "no" originally. Did he later vote "yes" because of moral principle, or because the blacks in his district could now vote? I guess there's no way of ever knowing. But it is interesting that everyone forgets that Weltner voted against the Civil Rights Act when only his white constituents were registered to vote. Just as they forget that Albert Gore Sr. voted against it in the U.S. Senate.
From a Christian standpoint, it doesn't make a bit of difference if homosexuality is genetic. If it is genetic, then it's an error. Ditto if it's hormonal.
You're correct. My reference was to fundamentalists, not Christianity as a whole. Christians don't have to agree with homosexuality to understand that it's obviously more than a simple choice. But that enlightenment does not exist on this thread nor on any of those posted by the "Ping List". That reference I gave you was given to me by a fundamentalist here on FR. He is not alone. Explain why the "choice" theory is the only one pushed so heavily here, almost as a fundamental truth, and any one who recommends studies showing other causes is immediately cause for the "abuse button". I would never have thought of it before.
Theologically, the fall of Adam & Eve led to error entering the world, and that would include genetic error. We all have sinful desires of some sort. We just don't all have the same ones. And those desires may be genetic. But it's our responsibility as Christians to resist those desires.
I don't argue with that at all, but one difference you had better not explain as genetic here on these threads is homosexuality. As long as its only a choice, God cannot be a party; If it's more than a choice, then issues of acceptance, normality and comparisons with physically handicapped come into play. Don't be misled.
If John has a desire to steal, he should resist it. If Joan has a desire to lie, she should resist it. If Jim has a desire to be heterosexually promiscuous, he should resist it. If Jamie has a tendency to become an addict, she should resist it. And if Joe has a desire to engage in sex with another man, he should resist it.
And if Joe has a desire to engage in sex with Jane, not his wife? Or with Ethyl, a prostitute?, or sex other than intercourse with his wife? How do those fit in?
We aren't to say, hey, this sin might be genetic, so let's enshrine it as a right and shut down any opposition to this sin.
No, but clearly all sins depending on your faith, have no business being codified one way or the other simply because they are sins. We are a nation of Christians, but we are not a Christian nation. We are a republic. The Bible is not the supreme law of the land, the Constitution is. The freedoms and rights we have which are contained within the Constitution and its amendments apply to everyone. Singling out any demographic group to deny some of those rights clearly requires a compelling state interest in doing so. The 11th Circuit decision demonstrates that this can be done. But it must not be abused.
You wrote that many people comdemn homosexuals for spreading AIDS but condemn even more homosexuals who try to stay monogamous. Sorry, but that's the rhetoric of a gay "marriage" activist. It's also untrue.
Go back about 5 years of homosexual issues on this forum. Heck, just go back to the Mary Cheney threads. These folks fear the growing number of monogamous homosexual relationships far more than they do the San Francisco bathhouses.
It goes like this: You Christians scream about how promiscuous gays are, but then you oppose gay "marriage", which would allow them to be monogamous!
Are you arguing that gays are wildly promiscuous and engage in wanton, anonymous sex in bath houses only because we lack gay "marriage" in America?
Gay marriage is not the issue. The issue is simple monogamous relationships. I oppose gay marriage in my state. But I would much rather see 2 gays or lesbians settling down together, than running around spreading aids or other STDs, just as heterosexuals do.
Gays will always be promiscuous, but their promiscuity was at least restrained somewhat back when homosexuality was in the closet. Once it was unleashed, that's when AIDS spread like wildfire
I won't bother trying to tell you that 75 percent of new infections in women are heterosexually transmitted, or that 54 percent of new infections are in the Black communities. Even though most AIDS cases are heterosexually transmitted, to read the posts on this topic here, one would think homosexuals are the only cause of AIDS. It is simply disingenuous to either deny or ignore the major cause of it. AIDS is the most preventable serious disease on the face of the earth today. I would certainly think that those who are so concerned would want to start with the major demographic cases first, and would embrace all preventive measures.
Those people such as yourself who are "tolerant" of the gay lifestyle killed thousands of times more homosexuals than so-called "gay bashers" ever did, through your misguided sympathies for their perversion.
Those who have worked with homosexuals in attempting to curb the AIDs epidemic have helped tremendously in reducing it among homosexuals. I don't have to like the gay lifestyle, or even pretend to understand it. But I do know that homosexuality exists, has always existed, exists in most species of the animal kingdom, and is not going to be eliminated by religious fundamentalists. Homosexuals have the same rights as you or I as far as the US Constitution is concerned. That does not mean that states must give them legal privileges such as adoption or marriage. Nor does it mean that a state can't. We have gone a long way from the subject of this thread. I am only interested in ensuring that this amendment does not further erode the just powers of the various states.
Take care.
What an excellent post!
Your goal of enlightening the masses on FR has thus far failed miserably. As long as you continue to attempt conflating the homosexual disorder cause unknown with actual homosexual activity (always a choice) your falsely premised arguments will be as illegitimate as the illegitimate you attempt to legitimize...
Unless you stop conflating the disposition with the activity you in essence imply that human beings suffering the homosexual disorder are but lust and instinct driven animals without control...
Of course, many understand WHY conflating the two disorder with the activity is a leftist meme -it is the potential way of illegitimately obtaining special rights for those that CHOOSE to engage in homosexual activity...
You parrot the fundamentalist leftist homosexual talking points on FR and call these talking points conservative republican viewpoints? -- My donkey!
I can not help myself from laughing hysterically each and every time I encounter the Penguin Paradox, a "classic" homosexual activist fatally flawed argument...
Unfortunately I don't have time to really debate on this thread or many others lately. But I have to point out a few assertions you make as though they are fact, when they are not.
You claim that everyone opposed to the homosexual agenda (you mention the ping list) claims that homosexuality is a choice. This is a lie, you know it, and if you insist on this lie, please find some quotes from those who post regularly about the topic of homosexuality. I for one have never said that, nor has Scripter, DBeers, nor many others. To engage in any sex act (or any action) is a choice, but to feel attraction for the same sex is not, for most homosexuals, a choice - although some admit it was, indeed, a choice.
You also assert that those who object to the homosexualization of the US are "fundamentalist Christians". This is also not true. People of every faith and none realize the dangers of the normalization and promotion of homosexuality. Personally, I am a lifelong student of the Vedas. Every religion in the world has the same moral principles regarding sexual restraint and behavior.
Another asserion you made is that 75% of all new HIV infections are in heterosexual women. Could you cite some references on that?
Typical distortion.
Good post -I would venture to say that the necessity for a Zotting grows ever imminent...
Wow, Dashwood sounds like Crowley.
Hello Little. Been a while since we last chatted on the David Parker debacle. Anyway, my normal method of responding to folks is to put their exact statement in the post and respond. Many here like to create the straw man. They "restate" what I said so that it becomes an absurdity just as this statement is. All of those opposed to homosexuality are not all, by any stretch, on the ping list. However, if you or anyone on it wishes to deny the "choice" diagnosis that has so often been repeated here, I will accept that.
I for one have never said that, nor has Scripter, DBeers, nor many others.
I won't call anyone a liar. I can debate without such ad hominem attacks. But that statement is simply incorrect. I was threatened with expulsion for suggesting there was evidence available supporting that far more than choice was the cause.
To engage in any sex act (or any action) is a choice, but to feel attraction for the same sex is not, for most homosexuals, a choice - although some admit it was, indeed, a choice.
So exactly what are you saying? Is it a choice, or is there some genetic or other natural physiological explanation? Conduct is always a choice, but condition is not.
You also assert that those who object to the homosexualization of the US are "fundamentalist Christians".
Again, you are restating my comments such that their meanings are changed. You seem to omit the fact that I said that most Americans are anti gay marriage. You forgot that I agreed with the 11th Circuit opinion. Did you not recollect that I said that many states have outlawed gay marriage? Let's try and trade tit for tat with at least the correct wording. That is a ploy that some here frequently use. Paraphrase in such a way as to completely change the meaning of what someone says, thereby putting them on the defensive. Works well most of the time.
I was once challenged by a Freeper for arguing for profiling in the war on terror. My response was that not all Arabs are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Arab. Profiling made sense to me then, and now. Certainly not all Christian fundamentalists are homophobic or consider gays and lesbians the greatest threat to civilization ever. But almost everyone who does is a fundamentalist. That's not a slam against religion. It is a fact.
People of every faith and none realize the dangers of the normalization and promotion of homosexuality.
Yes, to varying degrees as I have previously mentioned. I myself am against gay marriage in my state, and would vote against it if it ever comes up as a ballot issue. But most do not devote their lives to a crusade filled with half truths and misinformation, refusing to accept anything that does not fit their little view of the typical homosexual. Most have a variety of interests especially and including the war on terror, immigration, spending, crime, etc. For quite a few on the ping list, the former not the latter is true.
Personally, I am a lifelong student of the Vedas.
Interesting. Never ran into one of you folks before. Would love to discuss some time.
Every religion in the world has the same moral principles regarding sexual restraint and behavior.
Yet most are far more balanced in their views than many on this ping list.
Another asserion you made is that 75% of all new HIV infections are in heterosexual women. Could you cite some references on that?
I'd be happy to if you seriously want to see the information and are willing to discuss it.
Take care.
It occurs to me that the governments manipulation of churches through the tax codes and the governments manipulation of marriage through the tax codes and other fiscal laws are fairly similar. Maybe I've been on the wrong side of this issue.
Certainly different.
Please pray tell -show me ANYWHERE you were threatened with expulsion for ANYTHING other than posting leftist talking points that you continue to post e.g. animals engage in homosexual activity and these animals somehow offer something important to the debate regarding humanity AND the nature of homosexuality (A debate not even given platform on FR) - Further, your continued conflating of the homosexual disorder with homosexual activity -implying engaging in homosexual activity is not ALWAYS a choice...
I find divorce should also be outlawed completely. I have been married for over ten years which sadly is longer than most marriages in America. If we could get rid of the gay marriage AND divorce than marriage would finally be protected. Too bad conservatives were not really conservative on this issue. Care to wager that I get blasted by many saying "Oh no way. I need divorce so I can marry younger later on or I need divorce because it is too hard to be married, etc...." This is one issue that I am serious about. I really wish they would pass a real marriage protection amendment. Do we have the courage?
Some people need to get out of a bad marriage to save their lives or the lives of their children.
How about end to E-Z no fault divorce?
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.