Could that angry reporter be on the left, picking her nose?
Posted on 06/10/2006 10:43:07 AM PDT by wagglebee
Are we going nuts?
Is the whole nation suffering from mad cow disease or becoming senile at the ripe young age of 230?
Was Chicken Little right? Is the sky falling?
Were Copernicus and all former mathematicians wrong? Is 2 and 2 actually relative, anything we want it to be?
Have we arrived at some stage in our "evolution" that empowers us to change the very DNA of society, of culture, the structural makeup of the human race?
Or are we just too numb – or dumb – to protest the incessant, dogged determination of some lobbying groups to corrupt and change, perhaps until we collapse and disintegrate, the very fabric of humankind? I feel I'm watching a "reality" version of "Gulliver's Travels," in which a sleeping giant is gradually staked to the ground by little people and rendered helpless while he slumbers.
Or worse, I do feel we're suffering, as a nation, a moral trichinosis – that little talked-about malady that occurs when worms, gaining entry through poorly cooked pork, infiltrate a person's muscles, gradually sapping strength and weakening the body beyond recovery. The victim doesn't realize it's happening until it's too late; all he knows is that he's losing energy and muscle tone, and he's becoming strangely and completely weak, and finally helpless.
There are many evidences and symptoms: Some similar affliction seems to be steadily and relentlessly draining us of resolve. Most adults are aware that our Founding Fathers were devout believers in God; aware that the Bible, itself, was a standard textbook in our early colleges; aware that Thomas Jefferson in his Declaration of Independence averred our national conviction that our very liberties are conferred by our Creator; aware that even as recently as the 1950s our Supreme Court acknowledged that America is a Christian nation, founded on biblical principles. Still, we have watched, apparently dumbstruck and powerless, as our kids were denied the right to pray, voluntarily, in school; and now the Ninth Circuit Court has declared the phrase "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional!
The ACLU and other left-leaning lobby groups are relentlessly suing to remove any little cross or Christian emblem from public view, and demanding any mention of Scripture or God Himself be sanded or chiseled off any and every public building! This supposedly to avoid any "offense" to a very few who don't subscribe to Christian or biblical belief, although most of these few have never complained, and many keep saying they're not offended by the religious traditions of others. There is an obvious and pernicious agenda here – and we're just letting it happen, as if we have nothing to say about it!
And now, this week again, our elected representatives in the Senate have bowed to the pressure groups and "voting blocs" and refused to cast their votes in defense of marriage itself! The very spectacle of a proposed "marriage amendment," the apparent necessity to codify in the Constitution that the institution of marriage is to be confined and defined as a contract between one man and one woman is, to millions of stunned Americans, a very ominous "sign of the times," if not of "the last days" described in the first chapter of Romans in the New Testament.
Anybody who hasn't read that graphic depiction of an "end time" society and still cares what the Bible says should turn there immediately and fasten his seatbelt. It reads like a Gallup poll description of life in America today.
Some lawmakers correctly state that such a complicated, difficult and sobering task as an amendment to our Constitution shouldn't be necessary. After all, they point out, 45 of the 50 states have already acted to define traditional marriage in ways that would ban same-sex unions being recognized as "marriage," with 19 of those states having their own constitutional amendments and 26 having strict statutes on their books prohibiting the perversion of the institution.
And realistically, there probably won't be such an amendment to our national Constitution enacted. But – President Bush and the saner, more responsible members of both houses of Congress want the votes and attempts to take place, so voters can find out which of our "public servants" really want to do the will of the majority of their constituents and which seem to merely want to stay in office by courting every little voting bloc, hoping the majority won't hold them accountable.
It's very useful, very instructive, when senators like Ted Kennedy go on record with statements like this latest, this week: "The Republican leadership is asking us to spend time writing bigotry into the Constitution. A vote for it (the "marriage amendment") is a vote against civil unions (it isn't) against domestic partnership (ridiculous), against all other efforts for states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law."
My friend Sen. Orrin Hatch fumed, "Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?"
Yes, he does. The Republican majority – and two Democrats, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Robert Byrd of West Virginia.
Sen. Kennedy and his allies want to paint opponents of same-sex "marriage" as bigots – not defenders of thousands of years of moral, biological and societal reality. The positions and arrogant statements of the muddleheaded liberals will be taken into account at election time by voters who, like their more responsible "servants," don't like being called bigots because they want to defend the very basic recipe for the survival of humanity.
I went back to Washington, with only three or four other fellow entertainers who were brave enough to speak out, the last time this issue came up for a vote in the Senate, with the same outcome then as now.
And though each of us had pertinent things to say, I think, the most memorable and irrefutable statement was made by a prominent black minister. He and an increasing majority of black people in this country strongly resent homosexual claims that their sexual proclivities are the same as being born with black skin and therefore a legitimate claim to deprived minority classification. In front of a surprisingly hostile press group, he said, "Water is comprised of two elements, two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. You can't change that; it's just that way. If you want to combine two parts oxygen with one part hydrogen, you can – but now you have hydrogen peroxide, not water! If you want to join two people of the same sex in some kind of union, you can – but it's not marriage; it's something else. Call it what you want."
At that, an angry reporter intruded, "All you people are religious – you're quoting the Bible and God. What about those of us who don't believe any of that – is there any other argument against same-sex marriage?"
He thought he would stump the preacher, but he was wrong.
"Why, sure, son," responded the minister. "Look in any dictionary in the world. You'll see the definition of marriage as a contract, a union, between a man and a woman. Nothin' else there. If you don't believe God, at least believe Webster's Dictionary!"
God bless that man – and God help us to wake up and stir ourselves, before the "little people" have us completely powerless.
He thought he would stump the preacher, but he was wrong.
"Why, sure, son," responded the minister. "Look in any dictionary in the world. You'll see the definition of marriage as a contract, a union, between a man and a woman. Nothin' else there. If you don't believe God, at least believe Webster's Dictionary!"
Perfect!
DISCUSSION ABOUT:
Pat Boone: Please, leave marriage alone
This is a wonderful commentary!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be included in or removed from the MORAL ABSOLUTES PINGLIST, please FReepMail wagglebee.
To be included in or removed from the HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA PINGLIST, please FReepMail either DBeers or DirtyHarryY2K.
Enjoyed that so much. An excellent commentary. God help us ,I worry about the kind of country my grandchildren and great grandchildren will grow up in.
Oh, and by the way, you may also want to learn to distinguish liberties from rights.
Wow! What a great analogy! Brilliant. Perfect.
"Note to Pat: Please leave our Constitution alone!"
Note to gay liberals and activist judges: Please leave our Constitution intact and stop overthrowing the will/vote of the people.
Note to "historians". The BOR and the 14th Amendment are also part of the Constitution. So far, neither gay liberals nor activist judges have overthrown it.
Are you implying that no one is allowed the change the Constitution? That it must remain intact just as it was written 200+ years ago?
Why did the Founders give us the option of Constitutional Amendment?
Regardless, this law does not CHANGE the Constitution, it merely defines marriage for legal purposes.
What's your agenda?
Could that angry reporter be on the left, picking her nose?
Absolutely not. In fact it was Republicans who engineered and passed the 13th ,14th and 15th Amendments, all recognizing rights that much of the country seemed to ignore.
Why did the Founders give us the option of Constitutional Amendment?
The founders didn't give us anything. We the people created this Republic. And yes, we can amend the Constitution. Except for the prohibition fiasco, our Constitutional amendment process served two purposes. First to recognize the rights of all citizens. Second to improve the workings of the federal government and the election processes. Before we try to corrupt our federalism structure, we should think long and hard about it.
Regardless, this law does not CHANGE the Constitution, it merely defines marriage for legal purposes.
And that is fine for your state and for mine. But unless you can demonstrate some danger to the institution of marriage even worse than the 1 million divorces annually, I suggest you leave family law to the states.
What's your agenda?
Well, I'm going out jogging about 4. Then check back with FR around 5:30. After that, might go out to dinner. Yours?
No doubt the "please" will do it ;)
You mean the state courts, right? Otherwise you would be outraged at what the high court of Massachusetts did.
So you think the United States was wrong when it forced Utah to ban polygamy as a requirement for joining the union?
Does the definition of family affect federal law, taxes, and policies? If it does, then the federal government has an interest in the definition.
Actually no, I am not outraged. The good people of Massachusetts established three branches of government. If they are unhappy with a decision of the state supreme court, they have the power to cure it. That cure happens to be sitting in the legislature, not the courts. No where can I find anything in the definition of a republic that says if you don't like something a state does, the other 49 should step in and rectify it. Nor is there a need to. This issue will eventually be resolved by the voters of the state.
So you think the United States was wrong when it forced Utah to ban polygamy as a requirement for joining the union?
Actually polygamy was officially banned by the Church in Utah 6 years before statehood. But to answer your question, no. Territories were not states and while territorial governments existed, they did so completely under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Today, polygamy is still debated within the state and a recent federal court decision upheld the state supreme court rejecting claims of polygamists to "rights" under the 14th Amendment.
Does the definition of family affect federal law, taxes, and policies? If it does, then the federal government has an interest in the definition.
There's a substantial difference between the federal government's interest and in its ability to deny a state it's powers under the 10th Amendment. In any case, the federal government has no obligation to recognize any same sex marriage because of the Defense of Marriage Act. So it does not have to "provide" benefits under the tax laws or any other federal laws to same sex marriage partners.
A self-centered, sex-obsessed world and getting worse!
First, the people won. Second, there is no such thing as states' rights. Never has been, never will. Only persons have rights, and those rights all trump the powers of the state. So I'm not sure how the states lost. They lost the "right" to keep slaves. They lost the "right" to deny the most basic of rights to their citizens. They lost the "right" to prevent their citizens from voting. Were those the "states' rights" you were referring to?
Deep down inside, I do feel that was wrong but that game has been decided by the Civil War, a long time ago.
Just to make sure I'm reading you correctly, you would take us back to 1859? Women could not own property or vote, or in many places go out without their husbands. Blacks were slaves, and those who weren't had no voting rights. For almost a hundred years after the war blacks and whites could not marry. Blacks had to use their own drinking fountains and restrooms. Are these the "states' rights" you are sorry to see lost?
If you want to return to the days o the States being dominant again, you eould need the former USSR or Red China along with us in response to nuke the world back several hundred years through the use of atomic weapons.
Not at all. There is still a Tenth Amendment, and as long as states do not violate the rights of its citizens, it is free to legislate how it will. If it wants to take federal funds then of course it will come under laws it may not like. No one, especially me likes every law, or every court decision. In Colorado, you couldn't buy beer or wine in a market and could not buy a car on Sunday. That is within the powers of that state. If the people want to change such laws, they may.
Enough history aside, we really cannot have a hodge-podge of states out there to redefine marriage and others who do not.
Why not? Marriage will always be predominatly between a man and a woman. So Massachusetts legalizes same sex marriages. Doesn't harm my marriage in the least, nor anyone else's to my knowledge. Pat Boone wants to keep it the way it has always been. That is no reason everyone has to do that. Before considering a constitutional amendment, I'd think long and hard about what you are protecting.
Helen Thomas.
Ditto the odious Eleanor Clift right next to her.
Who are the two on the right?
Personal relationships don't belong in the Constitution. That is up to the states.
Bingo! A few conservatives left around here.
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.