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 ...
The fact that the gay marriage thing isn't getting much traction (except among those whom it really seems to bother) is fascinating.
My prediction for the upcoming elections: All the issues will be bread and butter issues. Those things that directly impact the lives of the voters.
I guess you've not heard of probate taxes. Are they not on your talking points?
Agreed. This is really a battle over legal rights and priveleges - gay couples already exist and already are "married" according to their own definitions. Erase the legal benefits and most of the impetus for government-sanctioned "gay marriage" will evaporate. Of course, there are those that will continue to think a governmental slip of paper somehow morally legitimizes what they do in the eyes of society, but they're already hopeless statists IMO.
Why, then, do you suppose that NAMBLA is throwing whatever weight and cash it has behind the gay lobby?
At least they're consistent in their sell-out of traditional American values.
What a beautiful way to sum this up!
But that's just the problem. The government IS getting involved in marriage by leftist judges demanding that state legislatures legalize gay marriage (Massachusetts). This is just an attempt to prevent the judges from dictating the laws instead of the will of the people.
The ones that cease when you divorce surely do... IF you wish to fund homosexual marriages then do so on your own dime...
“Can someone please explain to me why it's the 'conservative' position to support the government's definition and endorsement of the sacred bond between me and my wife?”
Sure, I’ll give it a try.
When we’re dead and gone, the country, our children and the government will still be here.
Therefore, responsible people have an interest in ensuring that the government establishes and promotes good public policy to ensure the long-term health of the nation.
Marriage between one man and one woman has proven to be the most effective way to ensure the health, safety and upbringing of the children a marriage creates.
When marriage is damaged, children are damaged, and sodomiage, a.k.a. “same sex” marriage or “gay” marriage, certainly damages marriage.
Need proof? Ever since the Dutch passed registered partnerships in 1997, followed by formal sodomiage in 2000, they have had a continuous nine-year spike in out-of-wedlock birthrates.
“If a couple of queers get married,” your marriage, today, will not be damaged. But the institution of marriage, in the long-term, will be damaged, and children will be hurt.
It may be difficult to grasp at first, but sodomiage significantly changes the way people look at marriage, and people tend to marry less – significantly less – because of it.
The result is that fewer and fewer children grow up in stable home environment, and the children suffer.
If you doubt that, ask any elementary school teacher the following question: “Which school child is more prepared to learn: one from a stable, two-parent home, or one from some other family situation?”
We risk so very, very much, just to give a few the “right” to sodomiage. It’s an extremely bad trade.
What’s more, only a small percentage of the already small percentage of homosexuals actually do get sodomiaged (as evidenced in Massachusetts).
Why? Because same-sex perversion, for the most part, is not about fidelity and children, it is about multiple partners – and I mean hundreds – and hedonism.
If a few devoted lesbians are an exception to the rule and want to live their lives together, go for it – hire a lawyer, draw up a legal contract and live happily ever after. But legalizing sodomiage for those few simply risks too much.
Note that the same logic and “reasons” that argue for sodomiage also argue well for polygamy and consenting incestual relationships. Notice these relationships don’t affect your marriage either.
In summary, given all the hard data and risks, I think all conservatives have a duty to support the Federal Marriage Amendment, and Senators who do not support the amendment, e.g. Johnny McCain, should be voted out of office.
Your new tact is a train wreck in the making -choo, choo...
5. The preamble of the Constitution notes that one role of our government is to "...insure domestic Tranquility...". Some of those on this thread would like to ignore the role of the family unit in promoting domestic tranquility. Please note that this role of the government comes before "provide for the common defence"
And if someone wants to marry an 8 year old, or a dog?
I would note that "gay marriages" are regularly performed by ordained clergy. I've been to several, though no longer attend (actually I don't attend marriages of any kind anymore).
####The fact that the gay marriage thing isn't getting much traction (except among those whom it really seems to bother) is fascinating.####
You must have missed the clean sweep gay "marriage" opponents have been making in state referenda on this issue, a sweep that will continue this November in Wisconsin, Alabama, and other states.
And wait'll you see the reaction when the Supreme Court orders nationwide gay "marriage" in a few years. Of course, it'll be too late to do anything about it then, so the frustration will be similar to that which followed Roe vs. Wade. Acute, but by barred by judicial fiat from having a legal outlet.
The federal supremacists will win again, and the RINOs will be happy.
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.