Tammy Bruce: Respecting Marriage and Equal Rights

FrontPage Magazine.com ^ | February 25, 2004 | Tammy Bruce

[EveningStar]

Whoever thought that there would be actual voiced concerns about men in America wanting to marry their goats? Is there something going on in our great Heartland that I’ve missed? Instead of “The L Word” does Showtime have a special series just for the Midwest called "The G Word"?

Of course not.

But the debate over the idea of gay marriage has brought out concerns by one extremist end that it will lead to people marrying their livestock to Gay Gestapo charges of homophobic bigotry against those opposed to same-sex nuptials.

Neither accusation is valid, so as an independent gay woman, I think it’s time to make a few things clear. First of all, despite what you hear from the Gay Elite, there is not a consensus in the gay community about this issue. We do not all operate in the cultural or political equivalent of a Vulcan mind-meld.

[HarleyD]

"...there is not a consensus in the gay community about this issue"

In other words, some of them want it.

[HarleyD]

"...marrying their livestock" that is...

[jackbill]

Clearly, the Constitution should be amended as a last resort.

] I agree, Tammy. However, because of a few activist judges and government officials, it now looks like amending the Constitution is the only resort.

[Columbine]

All the arguments about a "rush to amend" the Constitution are nothing more than a smokescreen.

The process takes years.

First both houses of Congress have to pass it by a 2/3 majority.

Then 3/4, 38 of 50, states have to ratify it.

This process is hardly a rush and personally, while I want to protect traditional marriage, I don't think this amendment will happen.

[Lizavetta]

How seriously can any of us take the president’s vow to “protect the sanctity of marriage” when Britney Spears indulges in it for 5 minutes in Vegas?

Britney's stunt devalued only Britney, not marriage. If we are to use that argument then it's time to condemn alcohol because of Ted Kennedy.

[EdReform]

Ping

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

The Stamp of Normality

[EdReform]

Other Tammy Bruce articles:

SUNDAY Q & A: A lesbian takes on the 'thought police'

Tammy Bruce: Protect New York's Children from the Gay Elite

Tammy Bruce: No Sympathy for the Devil

Here's an excellent interview with lots of good information:

Concerned Women for America Radio: Sandy Rios interviews Tammy Bruce ( Click here to listen ).

[EdReform]

Ping

[Peach]

Thanks for the Bruce ping.

Considering her book dealt so well with the radical gay agenda and their grab for our children, I'm disappointed she didn't address that issue in this column.

Certainly marriage will give a legitimacy to the radical gays who want to adopt children and I think that's dangerous.

[EdReform]

Agreed

[little jeremiah]

Tammy Bruce, pro and con - Homosexual Agenda ping.

Too bad she doesn't go into reparative therapy. She'd become a stronger, happier person.

If anyone wants on/off this ping list, ping me.

[AFPhys]

I don't have time to research it, but my recollection is that most Amendments successfully attached to the Constitution didn't take a huge amount of time from passage in Congress to approval by the states.

[Columbine]

Here's a link to a summary of the process for each of the amendments.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constamnotes.html

A few took less than a year, some took 1-2 years and some took even longer. That time added to the process of being passed by a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress doesn't add up to a "rush" to me.

The process is daunting. If 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states are willing in any situation then an amendment is in order.

[onedoug]

There oughtta be a rule....

[Warren_Piece]

the only thing that will make gay people whole is personal acceptance of ourselves by ourselves Jesus Christ as their personal savior

[jimt]

Part of the fight for gay marriage is based in Sullivan’s lament—that it is only governmental recognition of who are that will make us whole. Let’s get real—the only thing that will make gay people whole is personal acceptance of ourselves by ourselves. Instead, we are still looking to Mommy or Daddy, now in the form of Society, to tell us we’re “okay” – to sanctify, if you will, our lives and relationships.

The lady seems to have analyzed it correctly. I think this is the major part - forced acceptance and "celebration" by unwilling others.

[MEGoody]

"Neither accusation is valid"

I'm sure when people said the same thing about homosexual marriage at one point too.

[EdReform]

Ping

[lentulusgracchus]

First of all, despite what you hear from the Gay Elite, there is not a consensus in the gay community about this issue. We do not all operate in the cultural or political equivalent of a Vulcan mind-meld.

So far, the only evidence that that is true is the existence of the Log Cabins, who want Perrier and chocolate mints with their comfort-boys, Tammy Bruce, Andrew Sullivan (for a while, anyway), and Camille Paglia.

The rest of the homosexual NGO's appear to constitute a Hive Mind.

[lentulusgracchus]

[Quoting the article] Before amending the Constitution, perhaps the Feds should make divorce a little harder to get. It’s divorce that is ruining children’s lives at the moment, not a couple of lesbians who want to get married (no matter how scary some of those pictures were out of San Francisco).

The problem for Bush and the DOMA enthusiasts is that it was the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution that made state divorce laws a joke. Couples falling out in the 50's needed only catch a plane to Vegas or Reno.

The same thing will be true of "gay marriage", if the State of Massachusetts starts handing out official Massachusetts marriage licenses to homosexual dyads in two months.

Which is exactly what the Massachusetts judges intended to make happen. I think there is a case there for impeachment, on grounds that the justices clearly went ex parte in handing down their deadline. Positivism supposedly can wash a lot of things with after-the-fact rationalization, but if the judges just go whole hog for one party for political reasons, that would seem to be grounds for impeachment.

Meanwhile, they have created a bind for defenders of marriage that can only be handled constitutionally by an act of amendment.

[Qwinn]

"I'm sure when people said the same thing about homosexual marriage at one point too."

Yeah. All of one whole year ago. When Rick Santorum talked about how the Texas decision would lead to gay marriage, he was thundered down as a homophobe and of COURSE such a thing would -never- happen...

Qwinn