Posted on 07/13/2004 6:50:48 AM PDT by Area Freeper
"What's next?" Braves pitcher John Smoltz said, when asked his opinion about gay marriage. "Marrying an animal?"
It's fascinating how often that happens. Time and time again, when opponents of gay marriage and gay unions are asked to explain their position, their real underlying concern turns out to be a rather odd fear of bestiality.
That same obsession seems to have afflicted Timothy Dailey, a stern opponent of gay marriage and a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, a national conservative group. In an FRC brochure titled "The Slippery Slope of Same-Sex Marriage," Dailey brings up an obscure case that came to light five years ago about a deluded soul in Missouri named Mark. It seems that Mark fell in love with his pony, named Pixel, and in 1993 actually "married" her in a private ceremony.
"She's gorgeous. She's sweet. She's loving," Mark was quoted as saying in unbridled affection. "I'm very proud of her ... . Deep down, way down, I'd love to have children with her."
For Dailey, this was a call to arms. Like Smoltz, he worries that if gay marriage or gay unions are allowed, there would also be nothing in the law to stop couples such as Mark and Pixel from also getting hitched.
"Once marriage is no longer confined to a man and a woman," Dailey warned, "it is impossible to exclude virtually any relationship between two or more partners of either sex -- even nonhuman 'partners.' "
Imagine, if you will, the possible implications of such a thing. For example, it could mean that animals who enter this country illegally might be able to marry U.S. citizens and then demand the right to vote, for goodness' sake.
To avert such calamities, Dailey and others are pushing for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, thus removing any possibility that individual states could decide for themselves to sanction bestiality or gay unions. The proposed amendment is scheduled to be debated and voted on this week in the U.S. Senate, and it's expected to be a bitter and divisive fight.
So I have a proposal: If the real, underlying issue in this debate is the fear that human beings will someday be allowed to marry animals -- if Smoltz, Dailey and others are honestly and truly worried by that prospect -- then let's address that issue head on. Let's pass a Federal Animals, Relationships and Marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution that outlaws all interspecies marriages, period.
The FARM act would have two other important advantages over the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. First, this is a deeply divided nation, and the last thing we need is something to get us even angrier at one another.
What we need instead is something that will unite us, a cause that all of us can rally behind. And surely all Americans -- with the notable exception of one very lonely guy out in Missouri -- can get behind the FARM act and thus protect human-to-human marriage from this dire threat.
By championing the FARM act, President Bush could finally make good on his promise to be a uniter, not a divider. And John Kerry could use the amendment to demonstrate yet again that there are some issues too important to compromise on. As far as I know, he is now and has always been opposed to human-animal sex, even during the '60s.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Huh, is this where the Missouri mule came from?
Hold the presses; we've found someone who has been living on Mars for the past twenty-five years or so, and has never heard of Michael Jackson.
please see this...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1168167/posts
and this...
http://www.patriotpetitions.us/Kerry/
They are victims of their sexuality from birth, right?
If any of you have not listened to Michael Medved, you should do yourselves a favor and tune in.....he's the BEST!
I think Jay Bookman could be a "catcher".
As a public servant, doesn't he have the "right" to grope or rape whomever he chooses? [sarcasm off]
Thanks for that opinion.
I can't believe you think moveon.org is a communist/fascist site, and yet Freerepublic is somehow balanced. I am scared at where political discourse in this country is going.....people ONLY want media that espouses their own beliefs, media that doesn't challenge their beliefs. A clear majority of the news on FreeRepublic, a misnomer if I ever heard one, support only its views.
As for gays who claim to make a choice.......you clearly don't understand sexuality, and are eager to lap up only those answers that support the way you view things. Many so-called gay and lesbian people are really bisexual.....bisexuality is common in a majority of people...few people are either totally straight or totally gay, most people have, at one time or another, had feelings for the same sex. In this sense, I suppose it would be easy for someone to say they CHOOSE to be gay or straight, because they really do have a choice. There are MANY gay people though who are NOT attracted to the opposite sex at all, and for these people, there is no choice. You can't choose who you are attracted to.....I'm suprised that someone who seems as intelligent as you could actually believe this.
Jason
I agree. He's been very clear, convincing, and consistent in his argument against gay marriage. Any time a caller challenges him on the issue, he just drags out the same old proven arguments and lets us listen to them try to dodge, change the argument, name-call, etc. Anything to avoid answering the question. Beyond that, his show in general is the best out there, I think. I can't imagine Limbaugh, (though I like his show), having "disagreement day" where he only allows callers who disagree with him to call in and challenge him.
Most glad I don't live in your neighborhood.
I don't think the founding fathers would have taken such a thing so lightly. I think when they wrote it, they meant it.
10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3......
P.S. One shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition.
How old are you Jay?
End what with?
An addendum to my earlier message on the direction of political discourse in this country: I said earlier that people in this country seem to only desire media that says what they wants to hear, that supports their own beliefs and doesn't challenge them. The people I'm referring to are both liberal and conservative. There is no desire to really hear and understand both sides of an issue, there's just a desire to have someone else, a news media or web site, justify their position. This is sad. What's even sadder is that both liberals and conservatives will read this and say they've already heard the other side and they don't want any part of it, and this sort of degradation of political discussion will continue....continue into the 3rd-grade playground kind of name calling direction its been headed for several years. I, for one, don't want to watch a great nation such as ours decline in this manner.
Actually, the only time Medved takes a call that agrees with him, is when he has on a guest from the left. He makes mincemeat out of every caller. He's much tougher than Rush.
There's an additional, even more direct, harm as well. Last week, a county in Oregon stopped issuing ANY marriage licenses, including to heterosexual couples, because they were prevented from issuing them to homosexual couples. This could ultimately destroy the legal institution of marriage, which in turn has the potential of destroying our society!
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.