Posted on 06/05/2006 10:00:29 AM PDT by kellynla
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush and congressional Republicans are aiming the political spotlight this week on efforts to ban gay marriage, with events at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue - all for a constitutional amendment with scant chance of passage but wide appeal among social conservatives.
"Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all."
The president was to make further remarks Monday in favor of the amendment as the Senate opened three days of debate. Neither chamber, though, is likely to pass the amendment by the two-thirds majority required to send it to the states - three quarters of which would then have to approve it.
Many Republicans support the measure because they say traditional marriage strengthens society; others don't but concede the reality of election-year politics.
"Marriage between one man and one woman does a better job protecting children better than any other institution humankind has devised," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. "As such, marriage as an institution should be protected, not redefined."
But Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he will vote against it on the floor but allowed it to survive his panel in part to give the Republicans the debate party leaders believe will pay off on Election Day. Specter has chosen a different battle with the Bush administration this week - a hearing Tuesday on the ways the FBI spies on journalists who publish classified information.
(Excerpt) Read more at ap.washingtontimes.com ...
By this reasoning, the First Amendment is itself a kind of government interference:
The government should have nothing to say about free speech, since that is between me and with whom I am speaking.
In any case- by "any marriage", you mean "any straight marriage" - which is redundant. "Homosexual marriage" is an oxymoron; the term should never be used in English, as marriage by all historic, cultural, and (until recently) legal definitions, pertains only to heterosexuals.
Except that gay marriage is not about personal behavior. Gays can still have sex with each other without a gay marriage amendment. Gay marriage is about requiring the public to recognize gay unions to be just as legitimate as heterosexual unions.
Are we almost to the part where the discussion turns to hot lesbians?
I am a moderate only by average. I am extreme in my opposition of government control over our personal lives, and I am extreme in my support for individualism and liberty. About half the time I come down on what most wrongly consider the far right, about half the time on what most wrongly consider the far left.
(However, I consider all such distinctions artificial. Each action we take can either expand liberty or contract it. I know which one I prefer)
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
There are four divinely established institutions for believer and unbeliever alike: Volition, marriage, family, and national governance.
Government may legitimately enforce legislation to maintain those institutions so that encroachment upon their basis doesn't erode the rights and privledges of others, thereby defending our freedom within those institutions.
For example, we have social laws against fraud. One could also argue that any criminal might attempt to defraud his fellow man and the government has no right to interfere with the decisions of the victim, even when fraudulant intent is performed by the criminal. By enforcing the laws against fraudulant behavior, fraud might continue, but recourse may be available to those who have been victimized.
Likewise with the case of marriage. If one legalizes gay marriage, a number of unjust behaviors will no longer be controllable by legitimate authority. Where God has created a right man and a right woman for every soul life imputed by God, homosexual behavior merely victimizes the spouse of the homosexual.
In the case of family relationships, mature older generation family relationships never have the basis to form in homosexual relationships. The most prejudiced bigots in our society are homosexuals. They deny allowing the most basic understandings of the opposite sex in preference for lustful enfatuation with themselves and seeking to corrupt other people to lessen their implicit loneliness, but never persevering in fostering mature love for their fellow man.
Those who seek homosexual acceptance will also not be satiated in the legitimacy of their perversions. Most if not all homosexuals are stimulated in part by the illegitiamte nature of their lusts. As they mature in their degenerate behavior, they naturally reject anything righteous and just, and will further degenerate into attacking other institutions established by God. They will attack national governance, family, and even the free will of their fellow man.
There is nothing immoral in enforcing the illegitimate nature of sexual perversion and homosexuality. Conversely, legalizing and encouraging its promotion will result in loss of national, familial, marital and individual freedoms.
LOL.
"If you could NOT change, you would be in most pitiful shape....."
Thanks for the warning, and the bucket o' scripture, but I'm a straight woman. I could NEVER get away with that color pink. ;)
"as marriage by all historic, cultural, and (until recently) legal definitions, pertains only to heterosexuals."
Try searching for the word beardache in google, or hijra and if I pull out my anthropology books I'll find some more examples.
Face it, the only people having problems with gay people are christians, jews and muslims... at least it used to be like that untill some of the "hate" rubbed off on other cultures.
Oh... marriage is more or less universal in all cultures.
bucket o' scripture
LOL!
Well, when it agrees with what they want. :)
The purpose of the law is to recongize a FACT, a fact denied by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, that marriage IS the union of one man and one woman: NOT a
sexual liason between two or more persons. It is simply the reaffirmation of a long standing legal definition and prevents the dilution of the rights of those who are truly married. Would that Congress likewise reaffirm property rights which are under attack by greedy city officials.
"Where God has created a right man and a right woman for every soul life imputed by God,..."
Almost as if you copy-pasted it out of Plato's Symposium. Greek mithology at its best.
Of course a christian might have a hard time defending the statement above.
"As they mature in their degenerate behavior, they naturally reject anything righteous and just, and will further degenerate into attacking other institutions established by God."
This particular statements is wrong in so many ways... Imagine what people would do if the statement above was targeted at christians instead of gays.
"They will attack national governance, family, and even the free will of their fellow man."
Do you even know what the religious meaning of free will is? Free will is a permission of god for men to live their lives as they see fit (judgement is supposed to come later).
Not allowing gay marriage is an attack on free will :D want to go against the word of god?
"Conversely, legalizing and encouraging its promotion will result in loss of national, familial, marital and individual freedoms."
Still so sure of that? I'd say it's vice versa... limiting freedoms is like a snowball going down the hill, good if you want to build a big snowman that won't melt till the spring, but bad if you're living at the base of the hill when the landslide hits.
Wow..... 47 hits -- all of them gay bloggers.
Accepting their fantasies, why would Western culture wish to recognize and then mimic the traditions of mud-dwelling tribes?
As for "hijra", Wiki references "genetically male females" of India... and that's about all.
Nobody is debating the sexual rights of those with Klinefelter syndrome, Marfan, or any such afflicted individuals. Those are anomalies, genetic diseases... not a cultural practice.
You seem to be having a difficult time coming to grips with the fact that some people do not like gay guys/gals.
ok... my mistake; spelling is different in slovenian and english
Try berdache it'll give you out 62700 hits.
and... try this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(India)
Western culture was defined by greek philosophy and roman law, both cultures accepted homosexuality. It wasn't untill the third branch, the judeo-christian religion came into play that homosexuality started to be persecuted.
Besides... you were referring to everyone not accepting homosexual marriage; I'm just proving your statement wrong.
There was a time when libertarians were welcome in the party, ala Barry Goldwater.
Now, though, the modern Republican party seems to be increasingly a vehicle for big government.
I'm a librarian who wants to be a preservative...
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.