Posted on 08/01/2012 9:07:09 AM PDT by Kaslin
When the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed in Congress in 1996, the vote was bi-partisan and overwhelming. In the House, the tally was 342-67. Only the farthest left of Democrats and a handful of Republicans voted against it. A majority of Democrats supported marriage. In the Senate, the vote was even more lopsided and bi-partisan, 85-14. Again, most Democrats backed marriage. In both houses of Congress, the DOMA passed with such strong margins that President Clinton could clearly see the measure had better than "veto strength." That is, if he had vetoed the Defense of Marriage Act, Congress could have passed it over his veto. That would have required 67 votes in the Senate and 292 votes in the House. Bowing to the inevitable, Clinton signed the bill.
Now, President Obama has refused "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed" if he disagrees with them.
He announced early in his administration that he would not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. He has done everything he can in the last three and a half years to dismantle the law. It is a process not unlike termites eating away at the foundations of a house. Until just a few weeks ago, he apparently hoped that the law would collapse as he systematically undermined its foundations. It didn't. So President Obama, prompted no doubt by Vice President Biden's blurted out support for counterfeiting marriage, has "evolved."
Even the most committed advocates of evolutionary biology would deny that you can see evolution proceeding in just sixteen years. Nonetheless, Mr. Obama's position on marriage has changed. Or, more accurately, we might say his true position has come out. In 2008, he told Pastor Rick Warren that he believed "marriage is between a man and a woman. And God is in the mix." Which one moved?
Democrats have announced they will put same sex marriage in their platform when they meet in convention in Charlotte, North Carolina. This, in a state that voted last May to sustain true marriage. North Carolina voters joined 31 other states in backing true marriage. The vote was a stunning 61%-39%. That was up from the last reputable public opinion poll which had showed 55% supporting marriage to 39% opposed.
North Carolina's marriage referendum was part of a nationwide pattern. True marriage typically does better at the ballot box than in public opinion surveys. Ohio, Wisconsin, and Florida are battleground states this year. In Ohio in 2004, 62% of voters backed true marriage. That helped to carry the Buckeye State and the election for George W. Bush. In Wisconsin in 2006, 59% of voters backed marriage. Every county in the Badger State except ultra-liberal Dane County (Madison) voted for marriage. And that was in the same year when Nancy Pelosi's liberal cohorts swept into office. Florida saw marriage voters break the 60% threshold to lock marriage into the state constitution.
If the Democrats' platform embraces this radical proposal, they will be voting to end marriage, not change it.
If you say a man may marry a man, and a woman may marry a woman, then on what principled basis can you say three men may not marry? George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley advocated polygamy at the Newseum in 2008--and was wildly cheered by the mostly liberal audience. As a professor of constitutional law, Turley knows that same-sex couplings will lead to polygamy--
"and I'm for that," he says.
In every statewide referendum on this issue, black and Hispanic voters provided an indispensable source of support for true marriage. These voters reject the idea that same sex marriage is a civil rights issue. The mantle of civil rights must not be seized by those who would deny Americans their civil right of marriage. In order for this to remain a civil right, there must be true marriage left in society.
Mae West once said: "Marriage is a great institution, but I'm just not ready for an institution." It's too bad Mae West is not sitting on the Democratic Platform Committee.
She had a keener understanding of true marriage than many of today's evolved politicians.
He will deal with you in due time.......
If you want to share benefits or an estate, swear out legally binding contract that addresses those issues.
Then I guess it’s already ended.
Why 1973?
” The people have spoken. The silent majority is making it clear that they are there.
Today the Homosexuals have realized the consequences of pursuing their own “Bridge Too Far.”
The sleeping giant has awakened. This will have political ramifications far beyond Chick-Fil-A, et al.
This just may be the end of the forward march of the homosexual agenda for the foreseeable future.”
Homos are indoctrinating our kids through their good pals...the public schools, and the MSM. They don’t back down, and they believe they are winning the war on heterosexual America. I wish I could be as optimistic as you are, but I am not. We have to fight them every way we can, because they will not relent.
I’m not optimistic for the long run. Heck, when GWB was elected in 2000 I said all we did was put off the inevitable for another four years. Same thing here.
In the end, the Bible says it will get worse before it gets better. In fact, it says it will be the worst time in the entire history of mankind. When I first read that I imagined some horrible, but distant, future. I don’t see it as all that distant now. And I learned from how fast it took the German Jews to go from prosperity to gas chambers.
Bottom line: The homosexual lobby jumped the gun, but they are not done. Fortunately, this is one of their “two steps back” moment, as the arrival of AIDS on the international stage was.
yesSir, theres apt to be a lull in the war after this CFA era battle...but the queer zombies will always be back...
i continue to be labeled a 'hater' and 'intolerant' and a 'bigot' because i simply refuse to compromise on my God-Given principles to myself and, more importantly, for the guidance of my children...
baby girl starts school next week...out here in podunkville, i dont anticipate any queer agenda, but God will have to save the individuals that might attempt to push it in her direction...
individual queers, kill yerselves if ya like, but leave me and mine out of it, drop the agenda or expect payback in spades...
Undefining, and undermining, marriage as an institution is the goal all along.
And, along the way, if you can get Christian beliefs criminalized, all the better.
” i continue to be labeled a ‘hater’ and ‘intolerant’ and a ‘bigot’ because i simply refuse to compromise on my God-Given principles to myself and, more importantly, for the guidance of my children...”
Count me in as a hater too...I hate leftist homosexual indoctriation of children, and young adults.
” baby girl starts school next week...out here in podunkville, i dont anticipate any queer agenda, but God will have to save the individuals that might attempt to push it in her direction...”
Better keep an eye on the curriculum. I don’t care how far out in podunkville you are. 90% of the books are leftist, and many of them are pro-homo.
The goal of homos are to destroy the institution of marriage, and the past 10 years, they are winning.
If they get near your kids (curriculum) smash theirs!
The state lets you have children with your intolerant views? I am surprised that the public schools head doctors have not interrogated your kids and used the results to have them carted away to some tolerant adult couple, preferably two men :)
LOL!
Gilbo should be able to see his own kids, supervised of course.
I know a fellow whose wife accused him of child abuse for spanking the kids (they had ADD which makes it a family court crime) and so she got full custody and he got ordered to make child support payments and alimony to her and but he got supervised visits, 5 states away from where they lived. His life is ruined.
Destruction of traditional marriage and family has always been a part of the Marxist worldview.The traditional family is bourgeois and deprives the worker of revolutionary consciousness.
Secular humanists want the boundaries of marriage to be expanded to create more potential for human growth and self actualization.
Between 1967 and 1973, all states instituted unilateral divorce without damages (basically annulling all existing marriage contracts). There is no other form of contract that is construed to be terminable at will by one party with no recourse to the other party.
In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled (in the same term that gave us Roe v. Wade) that marriage did not impose any obligations on a man not also borne by single men with regard to fatherhood, thus rendering a man's marriage promise to support all children born to his wife during their marriage and not otherwise nugatory.
Laws against adultery were already in decline by the 1960s, and by 1973 there was essentially no enforcement anywhere in the United States.
Thus, the legal pillars of "traditional marriage" (permanence, fidelity, unique obligations to children) were all destroyed by 1973.
Since 1973, heterosexuals have enjoyed a novel and unique form of "marriage", which confers certain tax and property benefits but is not otherwise like traditional marriage in any respect.
No wonder homosexuals want in on it.
Well put.
ok
Butt Pirates will be lined up six times around the building and a mile down the street when these go on sale.
“Barney Frank has got to be one of the most unattractive and unpleasant spokesmen.....”
Isn’t that the truth! Every time I’m unpleasant someone calls me on it, how come that old fool skates? And I’m a lot more attractive....but that wouldn’t take much, would it?
I’m sorry about the man you mention, but he is collateral damage in the mind of America’s liberal majority. And I say majority, because look at the Senate, the presidency, and the courts.
I Should mention that they had lots of problems that caused the marriage deterioration that were not all her fault, or his either. Like having three kids in a row they really couldnt afford and having trouble paying the bills and the kids were always sick or getting into trouble as the marriage fell apart.
Ironically they were both evangelical outreach Christians, obviously they didnt convince anyone as their marriage fell apart.
But the endgame was she plotted to destroy him by kidnapping the kids to another state and going to a family court there and accusing him of child abuse and the other states family court helped her destroy his life.
As I have said many times. family courts are like Islamic justice where the females (typically) have all the rights and there is no due process, no judicial review, the process is held in secret and the courts can simply throw the parent in jail for anything. The family court takes away/suspends the fathers's drivers licence then throw him in jail for not showing up at a family court hearing, or if he does show up they throw him in jail for a driving there with a suspended licence.
” the queer zombies will always be back..”
Zombies....LOL....an apt description if there ever was one.
” Undefining, and undermining, marriage as an institution is the goal all along.
And, along the way, if you can get Christian beliefs criminalized, all the better.”
The Homo Lobby is intent on completing the following:
1) Co-opt the public schools....they have in a big way.
2) Co-opt the print and video media....they have.
3) Destroy Christianity in the U.S.....they have thus far failed here, but with the left, the MSM, and the public school curriculum in their pocket, it is a daily battle.
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.