Posted on 07/13/2004 11:15:42 PM PDT by goldstategop
QUEERLY BELOVED Dobson: Senators 'cowed' by homosexual lobbyists Most prepared to vote against Federal Marriage Amendment
As the Senate debates the Federal Marriage Amendment, supporters of the measure charge a number of lawmakers are afraid to vote according to their inclinations because they fear the homosexual lobby.
"Many of them are bobbing and weaving from day to day," says James Dobson, whose new political lobby group, Focus Action, has taken on the proposed amendment as its first issue.
"A distressing number of U.S. senators and congressmen are being cowed by the homosexual lobby and are afraid to support the amendment," Dobson said in a letter to supporters of the lobby group yesterday. "Indeed, many of them who ran as conservatives are running instead for the tall grass."
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has scheduled a cloture vote for today to prevent Democrats from filibustering. But Minority Leader Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., says the amendment's supporters won't get the 60 votes they need to force a final up or down vote.
Gary Bauer, a former GOP presidential candidate lobbying for the amendment, says there is only one way to interpret the outcome of the procedural vote: "Senators who support traditional marriage will vote for cloture. Senators who support homosexual 'marriage' will vote against cloture."
Not all defenders of traditional marriage back the measure, however.
Dobson was a staunch supporter of former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's stand to maintain a Ten Commandments monument at the state's courthouse, but Moore has voiced his opposition to any amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
Moore contends if marriage is constitutionally defined as between a man and a woman, a judge could allow a man to marry his sister or daughter.
He asserts a better solution is for Congress to pass his Constitution Restoration Act, designed to stop courts from forbidding the acknowledgement of God as the basis of law. He argues marriage between a man and a woman would be established because it is what God intended.
President Bush supports the Federal Marriage Amendment, but Sen. John Kerry and his running mate Sen. John Edwards are opposed. The Democratic candidates say they are against same-sex marriage but want to leave the matter to the states. Kerry's spokesman said both would be present if a final vote came up but not for a procedural vote.
The proposed amendment reads: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than of a man and a woman."
To pass, the measure requires approval of two-thirds of the Senate – 67 votes – and two-thirds of the House, then three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures. But Dobson believes 64 senators are prepared to vote against it, which he calls an "outrage."
He said he is encouraged, however, by several senators "on the fence" who called his group's offices to communicate their support.
Bauer says "tens of thousands" of citizens have flooded the Capitol Hill switchboard and congressional offices with phone calls in favor of the amendment, virtually shutting down many senators' communications systems.
But Dobson says some lawmakers have given "ridiculous excuses" for not backing the measure.
"Some of them claim they are unwilling to 'tamper' with the U.S. Constitution, as though it is somehow evil to change it," he says. "Meanwhile, many of these same so-called 'purists' welcome — and even encourage — the tactics of activist judges who regularly amend the Constitution not by democratic means, but by independent judicial decree!"
He cites some examples:
"Marriage should be reserved to relationships between a man and a woman. Only these pairings can produce children. But I do not believe an amendment to the Constitution of the United States is the appropriate answer at this time." – Sen. Kent Conrad, D, N.D.
"Changing the Constitution of the United States of America is a very serious business and should only be used as a last resort." – Sen. Max Baucus, D, Mont.
"I have a deep reverence for our Constitution, and believe it should be amended only when absolutely necessary." – Sen. John Edwards, D, N.C.
"Our Constitution has traditionally been used to expand rights, not to restrict rights, and I do not support amending it." – Senator Carl Levin, D, Mich.
"I believe that 'marriage' should be reserved to a woman and a man, based on the long tradition and religious context of the institution. But I see no need for a constitutional amendment." – Sen. Bob Graham, D, Fla.
Marriage between a man and a woman is an honored social and sacred institution that dates back thousands of years in civilization. It is for this reason that I am opposed to same sex marriages. However, I do not support amending the U.S. Constitution to ban same sex marriage at this time." – Sen. Chuck Hagel, R, Neb.
"Though I oppose gay marriage, I believe a constitutional amendment is neither appropriate nor necessary." – Harry Reid, D, Nev. Dobson says another "phony excuse" is that marriage is a state issue.
"Every legislator must surely know, however, that it would create chaos to have 50 different definitions of marriage in the United States," Dobson wrote in his letter.
"Imagine the implications of having a couple married in Texas that learns after moving to Connecticut that they are not married in that state," he continued. "Is this what our timorous representatives want? When you push them for an answer to that question, they change the subject."
I live close to the a big gay community, a high percentage of these people are mentally unstable, very few of them can deal with their mental illness. The ones who do the best are the ones who don't shove their gayness in your face. You can see the illness in thier faces,it is not something you want to wish on anyone in my opinion.
If they wanted to ban Jesus Christ, they could have said that too. They wanted to neither legislate nor ban him. He's been banned by the courts.
Perhaps Orrin Hatch is afraid he will be "outed".
Is it possible (at least in theory) for Congress to pass a law that would specifically state that the full faith and credit clause is not applicable to issues involving gay marriage? Would seem that this is only possible via a constitutional amendment, but it would allow the 'leave it to each state to decide' solution that so many seem to be suddenly declaring as their preference(which I suspect is a bogus figleaf for many Dems and Hagel.)
| Guest Commentary A Pharmacist's View on Gay Marriage By J.R. Schoenle, Pharm.D. (AgapePress) - Having worked with AIDS patients and investigational drug studies for HIV at Johns Hopkins Hospital, I feel a lot of compassion for homosexual persons. But as a professional health care provider, I am compelled to educate people with medical facts regarding same-sex marriage. This is not a "privacy" issue. Gay activists have brought the gay lifestyle into the public square with their demands for "marriage" or "civil union." (The public has not gone into anyone's bedroom; rather, they have brought their bedroom issues out in public.) "Gay marriage" or "civil unions" will give legal protection and government benefits to the gay lifestyle. YOU, the taxpayer, will be paying those government benefits out of YOUR pocket, so you deserve to have an opinion on the subject and you deserve to be informed about facts relating to these same-sex unions. If marriage between man and woman has been with humanity since the beginning of time and has been the cornerstone of every culture and religion, then why is there this "new idea" of what marriage can mean? The idea of "gay marriage" or "civil union" would have been ridiculous 3,000 years ago, 1,000 years ago, 500 years ago, 50 years ago, even 10 years ago. What has changed? The cultural "perception" of homosexuality and the gay lifestyle has changed. Two common myths have been instrumental in this change: (1) 10 percent of the population is homosexual, and (2) people are born with their homosexual orientation. Although the secular media, Hollywood celebrities, and groups such as PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians & Gays) still might make these claims, the medical community has rejected them. Research has shown that the incidence of a homosexual orientation is closer to 2 to 3 percent of the population. More importantly, several research projects failed to find the "gay gene." [1] As a matter of fact, had they discovered the gay gene, then gay marriage would become a civil right, since it would be scientifically proved that a person has this orientation as an "inborn" trait, something that cannot be changed. [2] The gay gene would be the most important piece of scientific evidence to convince you, the taxpayer, to pay government benefits for the gay lifestyle. Had they found the gay gene, you would have read about it in newspapers and magazines and seen it on TV; you would probably still be seeing it every single day. There would be a "test" for the gay gene, just as there are tests for other genetic traits. So if there is no gay gene, then what causes a homosexual orientation? Most scientists agree that a combination of factors influence it. [3] Interestingly, many people have changed from a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation with and without therapy. [4] No matter what our orientation, we do choose our lifestyle (which is tremendously influenced by what is permissible and encouraged in our culture.) With all of this research, why is there so much confusion? Prior to 1973, "homosexual orientation" was listed as a diagnosable mental disorder in the DSM-III-R, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association. In 1973, psychiatrists who were members of The American Psychiatric Association took a poll and voted on whether or not to remove "homosexual orientation" from this book of diagnoses. The vote was taken, and by a very slim margin, the vote sided on removing this diagnosis. There was no new information regarding the orientation (i.e., there hadn't been any research to warrant the justification of this action); they simply took a vote. This event initiated the cultural perception that homosexual orientation and behavior is a natural phenomenon and therefore should not be "treated" but should be accepted and even encouraged -- e.g., "out of the closet." But should the gay lifestyle be encouraged? Health care professionals are familiar with the medical challenges of homosexual men living the gay lifestyle. For you, the taxpayer, to be willing to pay government benefits for gay marriage or civil unions, you should consider what lifestyle your tax dollars will be supporting. Remember, homosexual activity began "coming out of the closet" in 1973. Just eight short years later, in 1981, we have the first reported cases of an "unknown" disease killing gay men. AIDS has arrived. Why do so many diseases target gay men? The body is not built for sodomy. "The anus opens into the rectum which is not as well suited for penile penetration as the female vagina is. Both the anus and rectum have rich blood supplies, and their walls, thinner than the walls of the vagina, are easily damaged. When penetration occurs, it's easier to tear blood vessels, which in turn increases the risk of acquiring or receiving an infection as penile skin and/or semen comes in contact with the partner's blood or semen." [5] Another risk is caused by bacteria and other organisms present in feces; Entamoeba and Giardia can cause chronic diarrhea. Many will suffer from "gay bowel syndrome." Anal intercourse is "high risk behavior" because so many diseases can be spread from this misuse of the body, including HIV, Hepatitis A, B, and C, and a wide range of other sexually transmitted diseases. What About Condoms and 'Safe Sex'? For males who use a condom 100 percent correctly, studies have shown that latex condoms have a:
For 20 years, condoms have been distributed extensively; now the study results on latex condom effectiveness and the CDC statistics on sexually transmitted diseases reflect how relatively ineffective they are. The NIH, CDC, and medical professionals still promote the use of latex condoms as "safer sex," especially for HIV prevention. Unfortunately, most people simply don't know the real risks that are involved when they rely on a condom. Disease spread in gay/bisexual men is especially problematic because this lifestyle almost always includes multiple sexual partners. More partners means more disease. (Remember, condoms offer little or no protection against the spread of many diseases.) In addition, homosexual men living the gay lifestyle have a higher rate of depression, pornography use, alcoholism, drug abuse and suicide. [11,12] We all need to be compassionate toward those men trapped in this unhealthy lifestyle. But legitimizing homosexual marriage or civil unions will undoubtedly encourage experimentation in this lifestyle. From a medical and ethical perspective, this will have tragic consequences for individuals as well as society. What About AIDS? In the past 17 years, medications to combat HIV have been developed, which has decreased the numbers of persons with HIV progressing to an AIDS disease. A person diagnosed with HIV will be put on a complicated drug regimen (three or four drugs). The patient will be on these drugs, which have very unpleasant side effects, for life. However, one catastrophic problem combating HIV is that a person who is HIV-positive and receiving medication is still able to infect other people. The number of people in the U.S. that are HIV-positive has continued to grow. There are approximately 42,000 Americans infected with HIV each year (74 percent men, 26 percent women). The CDC estimates that 25 percent of persons who are HIV-positive are unaware they are infected, and 50 percent of all new diagnoses occur in persons younger than 25 years. Persons who have other sexually transmitted diseases (with sores) have a two-to-three times greater risk for becoming infected with HIV. It is now estimated that there are between 900,000 and 1,000,000 persons in the U.S. who are HIV-positive (included in that estimate are 400,000 to 450,000 gay/bisexual men). The medical community anticipates that there will soon be a large increase in AIDS; in the first three months of this year, there have already been 8,910 new cases diagnosed. In addition to the physical, psychological, and emotional devastation of HIV/AIDS is the high cost of treatment. The wholesale cost for the combination drug therapies treating HIV is about $14,000 annually per patient. (Medication costs can be much higher depending on the drugs included in the regimen.) A study completed in 2002 estimated that costs treating patients who had progressed to an AIDS disease were around $34,000 annually per patient. [14] Variations in this approximation include medications, hospitalization, diagnostic costs and clinic costs. The health care costs of AIDS diseases and drugs for treating HIV have impacted your health insurance premiums tremendously. The direct costs of HIV/AIDS are similar to other very serious illnesses; however, the indirect costs are higher since HIV affects predominantly working-age persons. [15] In recent years, the media has influenced public opinion about the gay lifestyle with emotion, but not with facts. When was the last time you read about the negative consequences of the gay lifestyle, including current epidemiological information about HIV or AIDS in the U.S.? Homosexual women do have different issues from homosexual men. This letter limits the discussion to men because the obvious public health threat from the lifestyle of gay men provides legitimate reasons for taxpayers to form an educated opinion against gay marriage and civil unions. Some states allow gay couples to adopt children even though there are many studies which confirm that children do not "thrive" as well in households parented by a single gender. Government programs such as Big Brothers Big Sisters were developed because we know that children need gender identification. Today some people claim that the children of gay couples do just as well as the children being raised by a father/mother. Sociologists Stacey and Biblarz reviewed the research studies currently available on same-sex couples raising children. Their review article in the American Sociological Review 2001 found that children of lesbian couples were "more likely to engage in homosexual behavior and less likely to conform to traditional gender norms." An additional significant finding was that daughters of lesbian couples were "more sexually adventurous and less chaste." The review also determined that lesbian "co-parenting relationships" have a higher incidence of breaking up than heterosexual ones. (We know that family structure has profound effects on children. For years people proclaimed that children weren't hurt by divorce, and now a multitude of studies, books, and testimonials prove that hypothesis was false.) What can we learn from countries where gay marriage is legal? On May 3, 2004, a study was released from Sweden, which compared married gay couples to married heterosexual couples. Results showed that gay male couples were 50 percent more likely to divorce and lesbian couples were 167 percent more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples On May 27, 2004, Australian Prime Minister John Howard announced plans for Australia to ban gay marriage and to prohibit gay couples from adopting children from foreign countries. Based on the scientific data available from the past 30 years, this logical and practical decision is confirmed by human nature, natural law and common sense. This is not a "privacy" issue. Without prompt action, YOU, the American taxpayer, will be paying for government benefits for gay marriage or civil unions out of YOUR pocket. Exercise your voice on this issue facing our country right now. Gay activists have used emotion and intimidation to distract us from the facts, and they are depending on taxpayer ignorance or apathy toward this situation to accomplish their goal. We will all live with the consequences of what happens with this issue. Speak now ... or forever hold your peace! Support the Federal Marriage Amendment. Contact your state senators who will be debating and voting on this issue during the week of July 12. You can sign a petition and send an e-mail to your senators via the website NoGayMarriage.com. References [1] McGuire, T. (1995) Is homosexuality genetic? A critical review and some suggestions. Journal of Homosexuality. 28,1/2:115-145 [2] Green, R. (1988) The immutability of (homo) sexual orientation: Behavioral science implications for a constitutional analysis. Journal of Psychiatry and Law. 16,4:537-575 [3] Bradley, S., Zucker, K. (1997) Gender identity disorder: A review of the past 10 Years. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 34,7:872-880 [4] Throckmorton, W. (1996) Efforts to modify sexual orientation: A review of outcome literature and ethical issues. Journal of Mental Health and Counseling. 20, 4:283-305 [5] Meeker, Meg M.D. Epidemic: How Teen Sex is Killing Our Kids. Washington, DC. Lifeline Press, 2002. p. 152 [6] Ibid pp.106-110 [7] National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institute of Health, Department of Health and Human Services. Workshop Summary: Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention, July 20, 2001 [8] Citing "Failed Efforts" to Inform Public of Condom "Ineffectiveness," Physician Groups, Politicians Ask CDC Head to Resign. July 25, 2001. Daily HIV/AIDS Report, The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (Kaisernetwork.org). Internet on-line. http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?hint=1&DR_ID=5980 [9] Federal Panel on Condoms Offers Crucial Warnings to Sexually Active Americans, Says The Medical Institute for Sexual Health. NIH Condom Report Press Release. Media Advisories, Austin, Texas: The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, July 19, 2001 [10] A. Wald, A.G.M. Langenberg, K. Link, et. al., Effect of Condoms on Reducing the Transmission of Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 from Men to Women. Journal of the American Medical Association 285 (2001):3100-3106 [11] Mulry, G., Kalichman, S.,Kelly,J. (1994) Substance use and unsafe sex among gay men: Global versus situational use of substances. Journal of Sex Educators and Therapy. 20,3:175-184 [12] Fergusson, D., Horwood, L., Beautrais, A. (1999) Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Archives of General Psychiatry. 56, 10:876-888 [13] Goldberg, Bernard. BIAS: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News. Washington, DC. Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2002 Chapter 6: (AIDS) Epidemic of Fear. [14] XIV International AIDS Conference;UAB's Unique Research Contributions. Internet on-line http://www.health.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=53217 [15] Glied, Sherry. "Economics, from the Encyclopedia of Aids." Internet on-line. http://www.thebody.com/encyclo/economics.html Scripture texts supporting marriage or warning against homosexual behavior: © 2004 AgapePress all rights reserved. |
God and the Americans
Paul Johnson
Commentary Magazine,
The American Jewish Committee
January 1995
p.31-33 Paul Johnson, the eminent British author, has already produced A History of Christianity and A History of the Jews, and is currently at work on A History of the American People. Among his many other books are Modern Times and The Birth of the Modern; and The Quotable Paul Johnson, edited by George J. Marlin, Richard P. Rabatin, and Heather Richardson Higgins, has just been published by Farrar, Straus & Giroux. The present essay is based on a series of three lectures he delivered this past October at the Pierpont Morgan Library in New York, inaugurating the Gilder Lehrman Institute Lectures in American History.
So American freedom and independence were brought about essentially by a religious coalition, which provided the rank and file of a movement led by a more narrowly based elite of Enlightenment men. John Adams, who had lost his original religious faith, nonetheless recognized the essential role played by religion in unifying the majority of the people behind the independence movement and giving them common beliefs and aims:
One great advantage of the Christian religion is that it brings the great principle of the law of nature and nations, love your neighbor as yourself, and do to others as you would have that others should do to you—to the knowledge, belief, and veneration of the whole people. Children, servants, women, and men are all professors in the science of public as well as private morality…The duties and rights of the man and the citizen are thus taught from early infancy.
What in effect John Adams was implying, albeit he was a secularist and a nonchurchman, was that the form of Christianity which had developed in America was a kind of ecumenical and unofficial state religion, a religion suited by its nature, not by any legal claims, to be given recognition by the republic because it was itself the civil and moral creed of republicanism.
Hence, though the Constitution and the Bill of Rights made no provision for a state church—quite the contrary—there was an implied and unchallenged understanding that America was a religious country, that the republic was religious not necessarily in its forms but in its bones, that it was inconceivable that it could have come into existence, or could continue and flourish, without an overriding religious sentiment pervading every nook and cranny of its society. This religious sentiment was based on the Scriptures and the Decalogue, was embodied in the moral consensus of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and manifested itself in countless forms of mainly Christian worship.
Since American religion was a collection of [p.32] faiths, coexisting in mutual tolerance, there was no alternative but to create a secular state entirely separated from any church. But there was an unspoken understanding that, in an emotional sense, the republic was not secular. It was still the City upon a Hill, watched over and safeguarded by divine providence, and constituting a beacon of enlightenment and an exemplar of conduct for the rest of the world.
This is what President Washington clearly intended to convey in the key passage of his farewell address of 1796. Though he was careful to observe the constitutional and secularist forms, the underlying emotion was plainly religious in inspiration. He implied, indeed, that the voice of the American people was a providential one, and that in sustaining him both as their general and their first President, and enabling the republic to be born and to survive and flourish, it had been giving expression to a providential plan:
Profoundly penetrated by this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest token of its beneficence—that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual—that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained—that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue—that in fine the happiness of the people of these states, under the auspices of liberty, [may be preserved] by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing, as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation, which is yet a stranger to it.
In Washington's world view, then, the city was still upon a hill, the new nation was still elect, its creation and mission were providential, or as he put it, "sacredly maintained," under heaven, the recipient of a unique "blessing" in the historical plan of the deity for humanity. That is not so far from Governor Winthrop's view, though so much had happened in the meantime; and it would continue to be the view of the American majority for the next century and a half.
Which does not even appear in the Constitution they are supposed to be interpreting.
Either that or they think it's a bit reactionary and overkill.
So, according to Gary Bauer, Roy Moore is walking arm in arm with the gay lobby and supporting homosexual marriage. Things are just that simple in Gary Bauer's world.
"Changing the Constitution of the United States of America is a very serious business and should only be used as a last resort." – Sen. Max Baucus, D, Mont.
"I have a deep reverence for our Constitution, and believe it should be amended only when absolutely necessary." – Sen. John Edwards, D, N.C.
"Our Constitution has traditionally been used to expand rights, not to restrict rights, and I do not support amending it." – Senator Carl Levin, D, Mich. "
Levin's words tell the story of what liberals think of themselves, they are "gods". Now the Constitution states that "RIGHTS given by the Creator no man/government can take".
Not a good idea to pervert what was established in the beginning.
Did I miss something? What are the Senators doing that mandate children to be gay?
Its possible, FF&C is not an absolute and there are SCOTUS cases describing that but FF&C would not be the vehicle used by SCOTUS to spread the "evovling paradigm" of marriage, equal protection would be that vehicle.
It is also my HO that marriage does not lend itself to being a states right issue for several reasons. The first of those is the undeniable fact that marriage is inextricably wound up in the federal government. Being married makes federal benefits accessible, SS survivors benefits, medicare etc. If a couple "marries" in Mass and then moves to Alabama the SCOTUS will never find that they are no longer married for the purpose of those federal benefits based on EP under the law and I would have to agree with them. If homosexual marraige is a right, then geography is not determinative of rights and homosexual without a doubt enjoy the right to liberty and travel in the US. Treating those couples differently would certainly violate equal protection.
The second is that although many states have different laws regarding age requirements for marriage, once married those couples have always been recognised as so once they move to a different state.
So, bearing in mind that I'm just a blue collar guy who absolutely opposes any "evolving paradigm" of marriage I see the the FMA as the only vehicle for assuring that marriage does not fall victim to newspeak.
Regards.
Rush has always said 'follow the money'. THIS is the reason for gay marriage. I will never forget the interview of a gay couple - one wanted to be able to stay home and be the 'wife'.
It is their business - unless they want money out of my pocket.
'separation of church and state' is, obviously, not in the Constitution. The so-called 'establishment' clause does not ban aknowledgments of God, it bans government recognizing an OFFICIAL church.
It most definitely is not in the Constitution. It is a made up phrase which is used to attack religion. Kind of like the word "homophobic" which is used to attack anyone who says that homosexuality is an unnatural and perverse lifestyle.
Good points, thanks for the reply.
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.