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.
To be more precise, society at large accepts that homosexuality exists. Society also accepts that in a pluralist country folks can do what they like behind closed doors. Society does not accept changing the meaning of the word marriage and for good reason.
Forget the polls, states have been passing bans on changing the word marriage by margins so large that the polls without fail underestimate the support for traditional marraige by 10-15 points.
That's like saying that inasmuch as a body is already suffering from a high fever and is covered head to foot with boils and open weeping wounds, it won't make the slightest difference if it is injected with a megadose of live plague bacillus too.
It's hard to believe that any regular FReeper could be so dense as to suggest this isn't a bad thing. Open your eyes and consider what is happening in the European nations that have embraced gay marriage, for crying out loud. Those nations will be dead within three generations.
Really? I don't see any evidence of that except in Massachusetts where it wasn't just marriage but homosexuals in general. With or without the amendment this issue will remain in Massachusetts. That is an issue for them, and them alone to work out. It is essentially none of my business.
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.
As I said, the FMA is not going to have anything to do with it. As for recourse, every parent has the ability to deal with these issues through school boards, which is usually far more effective than going to jail to prove a point. But the main thing parents can do is to provide effective moral guidance to their children and not depend on the child receiving the proper moral guidance in school.
And that's how homosexual marriage affects traditional marriage.
None of that will have the slightest impact on any viable heterosexual marriage. Nor will it have any impact on any child who is not a homosexual. What it may do, depending on the parents, is to let the children know that homosexuals are human beings also, and live here among them, and that there is no reason to fear them.
So please keep the left wing talking points on the left wing websites.
You started off by challenging my factual statement as a lie. Yet you did not refute one single fact, and decide that they are left wing talking points. Most leftists shun facts like cats shun water. But I find that a few right wing extremists do the same thing. Abject hatred can be found everywhere.
"Well, by golly. You sure shot down all of my arguments."
You had no arguments, you just diverted the issue. Your comments needs no further response to show that you are clueless. Have you been paying attention to the arguments being made in support of a marriage amendment, because you are not acknowedging any of them.
I've seen quite a few silly straw man examples today, but you're the grand prize winner! How about this one: A body is suffering from a high fever and is covered head to foot with boils and open weeping wounds. So the doctor, wanting to save the body, trims the overgrown toenails since that is the only thing the doctor recognizes as a problem.
It's hard to believe that any regular FReeper could be so dense as to suggest this isn't a bad thing.
You may have me confused with someone else. I am against same sex marriages in my state. But I know that my state will never have to recognize one from another state. I also believe that any other state has the power to handle all family law issues including marriage. I further know that the same sex marriages in Massachusetts poses no problem to any viable heterosexual marriage. Nor will it somehow cause normal heterosexuals to want to marry a same sex partner. Given that, please explain exactly what the threat is to heterosexual marriages that comes even close to the statistics I showed.
Open your eyes and consider what is happening in the European nations that have embraced gay marriage, for crying out loud. Those nations will be dead within three generations.
Other than emotional rhetoric, do you have anything that can back that up? I am willing to consider the proposition that gay marriage is a danger to our Republic, but no amount of emotion or simple rhetoric will suffice.
I responded directly to Mitt's concern that traditional marriage is endangered. I simply wanted to know how 6000 same sex marriages would endanger heterosexual marriage when apparently 1 million divorces a year and 10 million couples living together out of wedlock don't seem to harm it any. So far, no one can explain that.
Have you been paying attention to the arguments being made in support of a marriage amendment, because you are not acknowedging any of them.
Indeed I have, and I have addressed every one on other threads. This one was centered on the threat to traditional marriage. I'd be happy to address any argument you would like to put forth though.
I knew that 35 years ago...........sheeeesh
I won't get down there with you. I have no reason to believe you are anything but sincere and believe deeply in this issue. I too have my beliefs and values. We may not agree, and I respect your position.
You repeat the big lie often enough you start to believe it. And your lie is the big lie.
Which of my statistics was incorrect? Please refer me to your statistics showing any that I have misrepresented. I would appreciate that.
What's more you're not bright enough to understand that a large proportion of Americans do not agree that homosexuality is a moral choice.
I'm not arguing about that at all. As I indicated, I wouldn't vote to approve it in my state. But since this is a constitutional republic and not a theocracy or other such government, I am content to let the good people of Massachusetts decide for themselves what is moral and what is not.
You are also not bright enough to understand that the state putting it's imprimatur on homosexual marriage immediately invokes equal protection and representation for same in their public schools.
Again, that is an issue for the people of that state to deal with. Why is it any of your business?
Parents have no recourse because the state has decided to trump parental rights. In fact the Ninth Circuit held just that last year.
You may be pleased to know then that the same 9th Circuit ruled that a state had a compelling and legitimate interest in maintaining traditional marriage as between one man and one woman. Imagine, the 9th Circuit. So I would say that DOMA is safe, as is traditional marriage.
Throwing the hate crap around is a sure sign of a loser Mac.
I didn't realize you took that personally. You would not deny that there is plenty to go around, now would you?
My suggestion, learn to accept the fact that people may have different opinions and moral grounding than you.
After your cretin comment, you give me that recommendation? After telling me that I am stupid because I disagree with you, you give me that recommendation?
And shove the hate crap somewhere where it doesn't put the big Scarlet L smack in the middle of your forehead.
As I said at the start. I will not climb down there to meet you on your terms. I'd have to shower for a week afterward. Take care.
Do you have a relevant point here?
But it will come as quite a shock to many here.
I believe my point is rather obvious.......in fact I stated it rather clearly.
Not to anyone here that has been talking to me for the past 6 or 7 years.
But fifty years ago, society at large did not generally accept that folks could do what they like behind closed doors. Now it does. Continue that trend and it may mean that society at large does not yet accept changing the meaning of marriage.
Use the Constitution to define marriage now and ten, twenty, fifty years from now, it may well be used to redefine it.
It has always seemed to me that Congress could act to preserve marriage and respect federalism by enacting legislation under Article III Section 2 that would strip federal courts of the ability to interfere with state marriage laws.
If some states truly wish to have gay marriage and that is the will of the people in that state, let them. But don't let unelected thugs in black robes make those decisions for us.
This was your point?
My point was that you are no different than the ones you are criticizing. The difference between you and me is that I do not applaud government interference in private issues, whether it is property or lifestyle........in fact notonly do I not applaud it, I fight it every chance I can.
Now if you can please explain how trying to personalize this applies to the issue, I'm sure many would benefit from your viewpoint. The issue here is whether the people of Massachusetts are in control of their state or not. Frequently such questions come up on other states too, like Arkansas for instance. People everywhere in every state are in charge ultimately. If they choose not to take control at the voting booth, they have no one to complain to but themselves...on a variety of issues. Now would you like to comment on the FMA, or on me personally?
Good grief, you are dense..............my point is the GOVERNMENT SHOULD MIND IT'S OWN BUSINESS as should busybodies seeking government assistance in minding other people's business. Whether it be FMA or other issues.
Apparently my initial reaction was spot on.
What? That Romney is wrong seeking help from the feds for something that should ultimately be left to individuals? I agree.
I don't care if someone wants to marry their canary.......as long as I don't have to pay for it, it's none of my business.
It wouldn't have made any difference in Massachusetts. The ruling there was by a state judge, not a federal one.
According to Bill O'Reilly's TV show a couple of nights ago, yes that is exactly what is happening in Scandinavian countries right now.
Perhaps you could ask Newt Gingrich... er, perhaps Ronald Reagan left some notes on the subject, ah... can I get back to you on that?
LOL. Anyone trying to match wits with you is in deep trouble....
Mitt, sounds like don't have much control over your state. "We better ask the federal government to step in and override the institutions of government so you'll feel better.
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?"
You're confusing two different issues. Easy divorce has had terrible consequences for children, adults and society. I would certainly support stricter divorce laws. We would only compound the error of easy divorce by legalizing same-sex marriage.
Why is that? I can only see an issue if a person is experiencing confusion over whether to go for a same sex marriage or a traditional marriage. Since that is never going to happen, I honestly don't see any danger to traditional marriage. But you may see it another way.
Sound familiar?
It's always the same ole same ole with folks like you and the author. Unless one agrees with you totally, the word hate is sure to appear somewhere in the final paragraph. It means your argument is lacking so what does one do when their argument is lacking?
They play the hate card.
Get the blinders off for once and take a look at the insults that have been heaped on me today on these threads. Also take a look at what prompted that little "keeper" of yours. I will never insult or demean anyone who does not do it to me. I would always prefer a good discussion, but none here, so far. You and your cohorts can call me every name in the book, but if I suggest some here may have a tad of hate in their comments, Lord, I've just committed a sin. If that bothered you after what you said to me, then next time maintain some respect. Then you can expect it in return. Take care.
That is an interesting statement. Just why does making something legal, become co-extensive with some government mandate to "teach?"
The point keeps getting made that legal homosexual marriage will undermine heterosexual marriage, but we have had that discussion before. Where was the evidence asked I? You said Norway. I suggested that the statistics might have other explanations, and did not demonstrate a causal relation.
In any event, I don't quite see how one leads to the other, in any rational sense. Marriage is about rights and duties. The duties are substantial. There has been no rush to gay marriage where it is legal. That I suspect that is because of the duty thingie.
Having said that, your best point is about the fiscal impact, and marriage fraud. But is marriage fraud really that substantial when it comes to heterosexuals trying to get benefits? Yes, I know it is, regarding immigration, but is it to get SS survivorship benefits? It may be, but I have not come across any such assertion.
Sorry to butt in on your tete a tete with your "pal." Cheers.
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.