Posted on 06/06/2006 3:41:48 PM PDT by RWR8189
Note: Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney sent the following letter to United States senators on Friday in anticipation of this week's Senate vote on a Federal Marriage Amendment.)
Dear Senator,
Next week, you will vote on a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution protecting the institution of marriage. As Governor of the state most directly affected by this amendment, I hope my perspectives will encourage you to vote "yes."
Americans are tolerant, generous, and kind people. We all oppose bigotry and disparagement, and we all wish to avoid hurtful disregard of the feelings of others. But the debate over same-sex marriage is not a debate over tolerance. It is a debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage.
Attaching the word marriage to the association of same-sex individuals mistakenly presumes that marriage is principally a matter of adult benefits and adult rights. In fact, marriage is principally about the nurturing and development of children. And the successful development of children is critical to the preservation and success of our nation.
Our society, like all known civilizations in recorded history, has favored the union of a man and a woman with the special designation and benefits of marriage. In this respect, it has elevated the relationship of a legally bound man and woman over other relationships. This recognizes that the ideal setting for nurturing and developing children is a home where there is a mother and a father.
In order to protect the institution of marriage, we must prevent it from being redefined by judges like those here in Massachusetts who think that marriage is an "evolving paradigm," and that the traditional definition is "rooted in persistent prejudices" and amounts to "invidious discrimination."
Although the full impact of same-sex marriage may not be measured for decades or generations, we are beginning to see the effects of the new legal logic in Massachusetts just two years into our state's social experiment. For instance, our birth certificate is being challenged: same-sex couples want the terms "Mother" and "Father" replaced with "Parent A" and "Parent B."
In our schools, children are being instructed that there is no difference between same-sex marriage and traditional marriage. Recently, parents of a second grader in one public school complained when they were not notified that their son's teacher would read a fairy tale about same-sex marriage to the class. In the story, a prince chooses to marry another prince, instead of a princess. The parents asked for the opportunity to opt their child out of hearing such stories. In response, the school superintendent insisted on "teaching children about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same sex marriage is legal." Once a society establishes that it is legally indifferent between traditional marriage and same-sex marriage, how can one preserve any practice which favors the union of a man and a woman?
Some argue that our principles of federalism and local control require us to leave the issue of same sex marriage to the states--which means, as a practical matter, to state courts. Such an argument denies the realities of modern life and would create a chaotic patchwork of inconsistent laws throughout the country. Marriage is not just an activity or practice which is confined to the border of any one state. It is a status that is carried from state to state. Because of this, and because Americans conduct their financial and legal lives in a united country bound by interstate institutions, a national definition of marriage is necessary.
Your vote on this amendment should not be guided by a concern for adult rights. This matter goes to the development and well-being of children. I hope that you will make your vote heard on their behalf.
Best regards,
Mitt Romney
big GIANT bump
Nice to have this posted again. It looks like you're a Allen supporter . . . at least that's what your photos seem to indicate. What's your opinion of Romney?
Glad you want to protect the sanctity of marriage. There are 10 million couples living outside of marriage, 1 million divorces a year, and 6000 same sex marriages in a two year period that do not impact heterosexual marriage in the slightest. So exactly which of those problems is the greatest danger to marriage?
One or the other Mitt. Either you accept that, as time may change the requirement and definition of federalism, that it may also change the definition of marriage. Or you accept that neither changes. You don't get to pick and choose.
I email-ed my Senator (Harry Reid) and got some bullcrap form letter response about the Constitution not being changed. Well, scratch the Bill of Rights, bring back slavery, and deny women the vote if ammendments are bad.
Might want to ping this to the libertarian list, re: Federalism.
With two exceptions I can think of, when the Constitution has been amended it has been to further restrict government or to expand on the enumerated rights. The two exceptions were Prohibition, which was repealed, and Income Tax, which was probably the worst Amendment ever made to the Constitution.
It's question whether homosexual marriage is an individual right, but to amend the Constitution in that manner is a road to disaster.
If we don't amend the Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman our traditional institution of marriage will be on the endangered list.
You mean if gays start marrying, then men and women will stop marrying each other? Mighty influential these homosexuals.
Something to consider: Society is moving more and more towards accepting homosexuals. If this amendment goes through and society continues on its present course, it will soon be repealed. Only when it gets repealed, it won't be a simple repeal. It will constitutionally guarantee a right to homosexual marriage.
For me, the real issue is reigning in activist judges and mayors. They are making the ammendment necessary.
I'm sorry that you never knew your dad, and did not have an intact family to grow up in. Sad.
Clueless.
You are apparently responding to the wrong poster. I'm not sure what you are referring to.
This is why we are losing. This debate has NOTHING to do with the purpose of marriage.
It has to do with the meaning of words, and who can change them.
Every human, every where, and at all times, has understood what the word "marriage" means. Marriage is antecedent to society, and to government.
Government cannot change the meaning of the noun, not by a million laws or a million court decisions.
Forcing people to speak lies (and it is a lie to say that two men are "married") is tyranny. THAT's what this issue is about.
Well, by golly. You sure shot down all of my arguments.
Mitt sounds no different than you when it comes to having the government step in and override the institutions of private property and individual choice and personal responsibility.
No matter how many times this line is repeated, it remains the big lie.
When government puts it's imprimatur on homosexual marriage, it becomes incumbent on government to teach that homosexual marriage equals heterosexual marriage. They prefer to do that in the public schools where stealth and inncoent minds are the coin of the realm.
Will parents have recourse? Of course not because nothing constrains the public schools from preaching "equality" of marriage once the state has stamped it's approval.
And that's how homosexual marriage affects traditional marriage.
So please keep the left wing talking points on the left wing websites.
Nonsense, equality now means preferences for some.
Please don't try and hijack this thread. If you want a constitutional amendment to recognize the autonomy of cigarette smokers, fine, but on the other thread please. If you want to discuss the FMA, this thread works fine.
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.