Northern Assault Threatens Marriage (MUST READ)

The Oklahoman ^ | June 30, 2003 | Oklahoman Editorial

[PhiKapMom]

Northern Assault Threatens Marriage

2003-06-30
Oklahoman Editorial

We thought the institution of marriage was fairly secure in the United States -- notwithstanding legislation recognizing civil unions in the republic of Vermont. If not public opinion polls showing overwhelming support for traditional marriage, then surely the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed a few years ago in Congress made it clear the one man-one woman model was to be protected in America.

Looks like we thought wrong.

The legalization of homosexual marriage in Canada and legal challenges to DOMA in this country signal new threats to traditional marriage are at hand.

In Canada, an appeals court in Ontario ruled earlier this month that the country's ban on homosexual marriage is unconstitutional. As a result, Prime Minister Jean Chretien says a law to legalize same-sex marriage is coming soon.

The effect is fairly obvious. Homosexuals married north of the border will return to the United States expecting their unions to be recognized, with all of the same rights and standing as traditional marriages.

Democrat Howard Dean, a candidate for president (and the former governor of the republic of Vermont) recently declared on NBC's "Meet the Press" that if elected he would "insist that every state find a way to recognized the same legal rights for gay couples as they do for everybody else."

Dean went on: "If a couple goes to Canada and gets married, when they come back, they should have exactly the same legal rights as every other American."

This would be even more frightening if Dean was electable. But the basic point is scary enough: Developments in Canada will put tremendous pressure on the United States to do as Dean says, to begin recognizing those unions as legal and meriting the same benefits as traditional marriages.

In this country, homosexual groups are mounting challenges to DOMA, which has been adopted in some form by 37 states, including Oklahoma. The Massachusetts Supreme Court is considering a case right now, and similar challenges will appear in other states as well.

As we say, the ground upon which traditional marriage rests again is under assault. Those in Congress who've defended marriage in the past need to gird for the next battle, which is just around the bend.

[solomangrundy]

I hope you don't view my opinions as "attacks". I assure you I do not intend my views to be seen as attacks upon anyone personally.

Unlike Catholic churches, many "Baptist" churches have no "governing body", most are not affiliated with Southern Baptists or any other group but are independant.

[Mo1]

Have you ever been to rural areas?

Yes I have .. and I have a brother that lives in a rural area down south, I also understand there are not many catholics which is why he drives 30 minutes to attend mass at the nearest small catholic church

I also noticed that you never answered my question .. was your friend up front with the preacher of this Baptist Church about her religion?

[MeekOneGOP]

The effect is fairly obvious. Homosexuals married north of the border will return to the United States expecting their unions to be recognized, with all of the same rights and standing as traditional marriages.

Democrat Howard Dean, a candidate for president (and the former governor of the republic of Vermont) recently declared on NBC's "Meet the Press" that if elected he would "insist that every state find a way to recognized the same legal rights for gay couples as they do for everybody else."

Dean went on: "If a couple goes to Canada and gets married, when they come back, they should have exactly the same legal rights as every other American."

Well it looks like Howard Dean has just locked in ~1% of the voting population, and locked OUT a WHOPPING majority. What a fool !

MICHAEL STUPARYK/TORONTO STAR

Michael Stark, left, and Michael Lashner pop champagne
and kiss after their wedding ceremony yesterday.
Leshner called the ruling, "Day One for millions of gays
and lesbians around the world."

Gay couple married after ruling
(Toronto, Canada)

[MeekOneGOP]

whoops! forgot my 'barf alert!' there.

[PhiKapMom]

Believe he is going to be faced with choosing sides. If he does have to choose sides he will, and my money is on the side for the preservation of Traditional Marriage and you can take that to be bank.

Faced with alienating the gay community or those of us who are conservative -- we win hands down. Those members of the Religious Right that stayed home for a host of reasons in 2000 including in Texas and OK where they already knew that Pres Bush would get our States electorial votes, will be out in force in 2004. They will drawf any votes we might have gained from the Gay community! The tilt of the Supreme Court hinges on this election and we cannot lose!

[PhiKapMom]

Then sue or threaten to sue. No one would take $2000 of my money and expect me to walk away and do nothing!

[PhiKapMom]

BARF ALERT I am sure covers it!

[Common Tator]

Everything hinges on the senate elections in 2004.

If the Republicans do well, the Chief Justice, and Sandra Day O'Connor will be replaced by very conservative Justices. That should make a solid 5 to 4 majority on nearly every issue of importance to us.

It is also likely that one or more of the Democrat Justices will then retire becuase they will see no way to get a left majority on the court in their lifetime. That means Bush can make it a 6 to 3 conservative majority for at least 10 to 15 years.

But Republicans have to increase the margin in the Senate so Republicans have 56 or 57 votes.

Then and only then can they play hardball. A majority leader can tell a Democratic Senator to vote for cloture or that huge military base in his state will close. If that fails he can offer to move it to another senators state if he votes for cloture. They both can be reminded that the Democrats will not filibuster his lack of pork hen the cost is lose their pork too. There are many ways to lean on 3 or 4 senators. But when our side needs nine senators there are not 9 DINO's to get. But when Republicans only have to peal off 3 or 4 DINO's ... that can be done.

But if the Senate stays a dead heat the Supreme Court will be a real battle. Bush will have little choice except to fold at least some. We will have abortion and gay marriages. What we will need is some Souters in reverse. Bush needs a couple or four Supreme Court Justice candidates that everyone thinks are quite liberal, but turn very conservative once on the court.

What I expect to happen on this issue only if the Democratic candidate has no chance to win will this become an issue in the presidential race. First of all it is a majority Republican issue. If Bush tries to use the issue, an electable Democrat will agree with Bush. There is little value in Bush using it if there is no disagreement. Only a Democrat that knows he has no chance will take up the issue.

It will be like the abortion issue. Even as late as 1992 Clinton was trying to soft pedal his pro abortion stance during the campaign... What was that Cllinton line that ended with the word rare?

In the first years after abortion was made legal by the supreme court, neither the Democrats or Republicans supported abortion on demand.The democrats would not go public with their support. It was a wedge issue they wanted to avoid.

The Democrats will not get out front on this in the general election....unless the Democrat has no chance to win and wants to become a leftist cult figure.

Many of the Democratic Senate candidates will beg the Democratic candidate not to campaign on this issue. Pro homosexual marriage is a real loser with the male part of the Democratic base. Democrats now know that anti gun costs them much of their working class male base. They will soon know that homosexual marriage will cost them nearly all of their male working class base.

I think Democratic Senate and House candidates will run from this issue just as far as they can.

I seems to me that men like Dean, and Kerry are not very bright. Who ever they have for consultants is either not very good, or they refuse to listen to them.

Could it be that Kerry, Dean, and Kucinich all went to California to attended the Bill Simon School of How to Get Elected.

[DBrow]

I do not think that homosexuals are looking for "marriage" per se. Those that I know would not enter a union where, if they break up in a few years, the other guy has legal, court-protected rights to 50% of the other guy's property.

I expect a big push for gay marriage, but the real goal will be for a union where all the benefits are guaranteed but none of the responsibilities (like divorce, alimony, child support)or duties (like fidelity, and faithfulness) will apply.

[solomangrundy]

My cousin wasn't asked her religion when she scheduled her wedding at the church. She didn't think it mattered. If it was so material to the preacher, shouldn't he have asked?

You've completely missed the point of my anecdote, however, and I see no point in continuing to entertain your questions. My point was that a church is currently NOT obligated to perform a wedding they don't want, and there is nobody asking that such be changed.

[beachn4fun]

Ah ha... I think I see why so many of President Bush's nominees have been rejected. If they are stalled long enough the liberal judges will rule in favor of so many homosexual issues that have been trying to make their way into society for so long!

[Mo1]

And you have missed mine

I have seen the left shove their agenda down our throats because they are not completely up front and truthful and then blame it on the other person ..

[solomangrundy]

Such a statement can be said, and truthfully so, by people on either side of anything. It doesn't make it absolute, however. I distrust and disbelieve anyone who tries to state that ALL liberals or ALL conservatives or ALL (any group) are such and such.

[Sabertooth]

From this editorial we had better be prepared for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be challenged in the courts and eventually ending up at the SCOTUS

Lawrence will provide more than sufficient basis to nullify the DOMA.

A Constitutional Amendment restraining the Supreme Court from redefining marriage by proclamation, and enabling Congress to codify marriage under Article IV, Section 1, is essential to preventing the legalization of same-sex marriage, not to mention polygamy and a host of other insanities.

[MEGoody]

"I hear a lot of empty rhetoric about "destruction of the family", etc. but no one has EVER defined just how "gay marriage" can have any effect, negative or otherwise, on anyone else's marriage."

I see a few problems with not defining marriage and family (in everyone's mind, legally, and in any other way) as between one man and one woman with their associated children.

Impact on children. No matter how 'modern' we'd all like to be, kids need a mom and a dad to thrive in the best possible way. Study after study has shown this.

Impact on insurance coverage. If anyone can say they are marriage to anyone, then insurance companies will be forced to ensure all kinds of people. For example, my elderly mother lived with us for many years before she died. My husband could have claimed he was 'married' to her just to get her covered by his health insurance.

Impact on IRS rules. Who knows what the tax laws could end up being if there's no real definition of marriage. They are convoluted enough at it is.

Impact on society. History has shown that, when a society has strong male/female marriages for the most part, the society is strong. When the society starts accepting any and every perversion, the society is weakened and can eventually fall.

[MeekOneGOP]

[Lion Den Dan]

I wonder if we would have the same wonderful support if, say the sheppherd wanted to mary a sheep?

[PhiKapMom]

"?"

[Antoninus]

From this editorial we had better be prepared for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be challenged in the courts and eventually ending up at the SCOTUS.

Right. That's why we need to change the "A" in DOMA from "Act" to "Amendment."

Federal Marriage Amendment NOW!

[Antoninus]

I didn't realize until reading this that the DOMA was in trouble with lawsuits. Now that we know how the SCOTUS is ruling, we need a coordinated effort by all the groups. Do either of you know if Focus on the Family has become involved?

I don't know. But I reckon we'll find out before the week is out. Every pro-family group in the Nation needs to get behind this effort lock, stock, and barrel. If they don't, what good are they?