Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) Opposed to Marriage Protection Amendment

TVC ^ | 06.01.06 | Rev. Louis P. Sheldon

[Coleus]

Send Feed Back to the TVC  mail@traditionalvalues.org

 

Re: Opposition to S. J. Res. 1 the Marriage Protection Amendment Because of the Second Sentence

Dear Senator:

Traditional Values Coalition has always taken a strong position in supporting traditional marriage and opposing any statutory imitations of marriage designed to appease the homosexual lobby.   While Traditional Values Coalition supports the need for a federal constitutional amendment, because it is the only way to ensure that marriage between one man and one woman is protected, we strongly oppose S. J. Res. 1, the Marriage Protection Amendment, because of the second sentence.

The situation at this moment could be called a triumph of anti-federalism.  Not only do states not have an individual voice in this debate – one state, Massachusetts, has imposed homosexual marriage through the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution on the other 49 states.  Coverage of the marriage battle being fought across America often overlooks the corrupt nature of what happened in Massachusetts.  The citizens of Massachusetts had conducted a signature drive to put the marriage issue on the ballot for a commonwealth-wide referendum there.  Extra parliamentary and illegal maneuvers by the Massachusetts House Speaker Thomas Birmingham kept the legislature from conducting a vote to put the measure on the ballot.  Experts believe the legislature would have approved the measure had it ever been put to a vote, and the resulting public referendum would have resoundingly supported traditional marriage.

The refusal of one House leader to allow the vote in the legislature deprived the public of its voice in the debate in Massachusetts.   Furthermore, the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts took advantage of the delay to issue a decision which thwarted the will of the people and substituted, in its place, the will of a handful of liberal judges.

Homosexual activists had been advocating so-called civil unions because (a) they assumed marriage was years away from being a politically attainable goal and (b) because they felt civil unions would be the transitional step to the ultimate goal of homosexual marriage.  All of this brings us to two important points about the current version of the Marriage Protection Amendment now before the Senate.

First, the wording of the second sentence would allow for civil unions, domestic partnerships and any other innovative synonym for marriage. Matt Daniels, the Chairman of the Alliance for Marriage told Time Magazine in February, 2004, the amendment was written to preserve the right of states to enact civil unions.

“The amendment would limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, but it would not out-law civil unions, which Daniels believes should be available to all states,” the TIME article reported.

We understand the faulty argument that this is a political sop which must be thrown to some in order to win their vote.  But we also understand that this negates the impact of the first sentence.    Second, the homosexual leaders are right.   Civil unions are the stepping stone to full recognition of homosexual marriage.  Any reasonable person and even some federal judges would recognize that there is only a nominal difference between civil unions and marriage. 

We believe proponents of the amendment have settled for a rhetorical and superficial “victory” of form which will ultimately amount to a defeat in the important substance so necessary to defending traditional marriage.   Proponents have led the American people to believe that the MPA “fixes the problem” and “stops homosexual marriage” and its counterfeits.   Many have artfully avoided the discussion, which Mr. Daniels, to his credit honestly admits is about an amendment which is both pro-marriage and pro-civil unions. No polling question has ever been formulated to give Americans the choice which proponents of this amendment attempt to make for them.  If asked, to choose between traditional marriage and homosexual civil unions, most Americans would recognize this “distinction without a difference” gimmickry and reply neither.  We believe an amendment which is simple and clear about the uniqueness of marriage is what most Americans want and we encourage you to use your voice and your vote to bring forth an amendment which delivers marriage from those who would destroy it.

We believe a one sentence amendment, “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife,” which is simple and clear about the uniqueness of marriage, is what most Americans want, and we encourage you to use your voice and your vote to bring forth an amendment which delivers marriage from those who would destroy it. In theological circles, there is a saying that “on the far side of complexity lies simplicity.”  This is truly a case in which simplicity and directness are required.  Political maneuvering with a wink to our opponents or some attempt to finesse our differences with the homosexual lobby will reduce this debate to a confused state in which the truth becomes merely another opinion.

Please support a simple and clear amendment that fully protects marriage and withhold your support from the current amendment and anything else which is less.

Sincerely,

Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman

[Tim Long]

I tend to agree. I think it would be a waste to adopt an amendment that still allows civil unions. Not to mention that this is an insulting attempt to appease conservatives. Most of us are not worried about gays marrying while criminals pour over our border.

[SteveMcKing]

"Devil's in the details".... I think they may be right.

[MACVSOG68]

This is actually hilarious. The president is in political trouble and falls for this ludicrous attempt to impose federal control over an historical state responsibility. There is absolutely no threat to marriage in those states that limit it to a man and a woman; there is no threat to the Defense of Marriage Act which permits an exception to Article IV, but because some states may legalize marriage for nontraditional couples, we better stop that right now.

So now the radicals are weeping because the amendment doesn't completely outlaw homosexuality like most of them want.

Hilarious.

[driftdiver]

"So now the radicals are weeping because the amendment doesn't completely outlaw homosexuality like most of them want. "

Radicals?

Weeping?

The norm in society for marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. If you propose changing that then you are the radical.

Marriage does a lot more than gain 1 person the health benefits of the other. It provides a basis on which the rest of our culture rests. Destroy marriage and you destroy the culture. But then I'm guessing you alrady knew that.

The one thing you radicals have in common is that its all about you. My rights, my wants, my desires....theres never any thought to what is good for our country.

Which is ironic as the liberals use "the good of the many" as a guideline to further so many other agendas.

[MACVSOG68]

The norm in society for marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. If you propose changing that then you are the radical.

I don't propose changing it in my state. If it comes up I will vote to keep traditional marriage. But I don't care what Massachusetts does. And unless you live there, neither should you. To want the central government to cover our religious beliefs for us and make everyone believe is against our federalist government and is quite radical.

The one thing you radicals have in common is that its all about you. My rights, my wants, my desires....theres never any thought to what is good for our country.

Uh, I'm simply trying to let sleeping dogs lie. I don't want to get rid of our Constitutional Republic. I don't want to reduce a state's just powers to have to do something because of my personal beliefs. And you call me the radical? You tell me its all about me?

Which is ironic as the liberals use "the good of the many" as a guideline to further so many other agendas.

Which is exactly what you are trying to do with this ridiculous amendment...the good of the many.

[driftdiver]

"But I don't care what Massachusetts does. And unless you live there, neither should you. To want the central government to cover our religious beliefs for us and make everyone believe is against our federalist government and is quite radical."

nice turn around. The federal government is extremely abusive in its use of power. It should not be involved with marriage. Unfortunately the radicals have found loopholes in the constitution and are using one of those to try and force legalized marriage nationwide.

And yes you are radical although you pretend otherwise.

[madprof98]

Your profile indicates that you signed up in 2001, but you must have kept quiet for a good while. Lately, you're all over every topic dear to the heart of social conservatives, and in each case, you spout the standard liberal line: anti-God, pro-death, and, above all, pro-"sexual freedom." You have their talking points and their snotty tone down perfectly. What exactly are you trying to prove?

[MACVSOG68]

The federal government is extremely abusive in its use of power. It should not be involved with marriage.

I agree completely with the exception of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Unfortunately the radicals have found loopholes in the constitution and are using one of those to try and force legalized marriage nationwide.

Don't believe that. They have completely failed in every attempt. Every federal court that has looked at it concludes that states have compelling interests in maintaining traditional marriage between a man and a woman to promote procreation. The Ninth Circuit has ruled similarly. There is no chance that any circuit court will change that, and even less than no chance the USSC would concur. Lots of people want gay marriage, and if they want to do that in their state, fine.

And yes you are radical although you pretend otherwise.

Given the history of the Radical Republicans in the 1860s, I'll take that as a complement.

[TNLawyer]

BRAVO! I agree with you.. getting rid of gay marriage should be the first step, then we can go after outlawing divorce (except in cases of adultery and abuse) and criminalizing adultery. Once you divorce (for any reason), you can't get remarried. If we live like God wants us to, our country can do even greater things!

"i think the defense of marriage ammendment doesn't go far enough. i, like many, am deeply religious and believe we should protect the institute of marriage as a whole, not just against the gay agenda.

Divorce should be outlawed and anyone caught as an adulterer should face jail time, then and only then can i take the president or senate serious on this issue otherwise they are just playing politics."

[MACVSOG68]

Your profile indicates that you signed up in 2001, but you must have kept quiet for a good while.

No at all. I tend to post fairly regularly. I'm sure since you've spent so much time looking at my posting history, you have seen my interest in the immigration debate, the John Kerry lies, Terrorism, the War in Iraq, Politics in general, and a host of other issues.

I assume the three topics that have you in such a dither are the FMA, which I vehemently oppose, the Da Vinci code, which I enjoyed reading and therefore didn't realize that I could not so post, and one thread on the death of the Terri doctor, whom all the fundamentalists condemned to Hell. Were there any others that bothered you?

Lately, you're all over every topic dear to the heart of social conservatives, and in each case, you spout the standard liberal line: anti-God, pro-death, and, above all, pro-"sexual freedom."

So have the forum rules changed so that only those who are God fearing Christian "conservatives" can post? Are social conservatives infallible? If someone misstates something, but it fits in with the extremist views of some here, the misstatement cannot be addressed? Please tell me where I made any nonfactual statement. Please tell me where I made any pro-homosexual statement. Please tell me where I made any anti-God statement. Finally, please point me to any pro-death statements I made. I will correct any misstatements I have made.

You have their talking points and their snotty tone down perfectly.

Thank you, but given your post, and a few others, its clear I have no corner on the snotty market.

What exactly are you trying to prove?

That there is still a place on this forum for reasoned conservative debate...and intellectual discourse. You know. You make a statement, I challenge it with facts. I make a statement, you do the same. At the end, we agree to disagree, but have both provided food for thought for the thousands who lurk but do not post.

At the risk of offending you may I make a suggestion? If none of you ever respond to my posts, I won't get to spew all this leftist hatred you believe I have.

You take care.

[SuziQ]

There is absolutely no threat to marriage in those states that limit it to a man and a woman;

You don't think so? There are states in which Judges are nullifying the votes to limit marriage to one man and one woman. It WILL be taken to the Supremes. Anyone wanna risk that?

[MACVSOG68]

You don't think so? There are states in which Judges are nullifying the votes to limit marriage to one man and one woman. It WILL be taken to the Supremes. Anyone wanna risk that?

That is incorrect. No federal court case has invalidated a state law limiting marriage to heterosexuals. The law struck down in Nebraska which included marriage, was struck down for the remainder of the law prohibiting unspecified associations and as such violated the 1st and 14th Amendments of the Constitution. Every federal judge has recognized that a state has a compelling interests in promoting procreation, and therefore may discriminate in the area of "marriage".

[SuziQ]

Every federal judge has recognized that a state has a compelling interests in promoting procreation, and therefore may discriminate in the area of "marriage".

So far, perhaps, but frankly I don't like the possibility of this landing in the realm of some liberal judicial loose cannon.

[MACVSOG68]

So far, perhaps, but frankly I don't like the possibility of this landing in the realm of some liberal judicial loose cannon.

This concern could extend to a host of issues, not just marriage. But if marriage is ever endangered I would then assume that a constitutional amendment would be passed by Congress in less than a week, and ratified before sunset.

[blaquebyrd]

"Divorce should be outlawed and anyone caught as an adulterer should face jail time, then and only then can i take the president or senate serious on this issue otherwise they are just playing politics."

Whoa, slow down just a bit -- divorce should be outlawed? Jail time for adultery? We're killing fanatics in Afghanistan who share similar views. What's next Burqhas? I'm sorry but this is America and we don't need religious police telling us how we should live our personal lives. If that's the way you choose to live I support you 100% but the stay the hell out of my bedroom and I promise to stay out of yours. This is still the "Land of the Free".

[linda_22003]

"Once you divorce (for any reason), you can't get remarried. If we live like God wants us to, our country can do even greater things!"

Except for that pesky little constitutional detail about not making laws that ascribe to any one religion. Too bad about that.

[RogerFGay]

An Alternative to the Federal Marriage Amendment