Posted on 04/01/2003 7:16:19 AM PST by Remedy
With gay "marriage" just one bad court decision away, a diverse coalition amis to protect traditional matrimony by taking its case to a higher authority - the U.S. Constitution.
Ask Bishop George McKinney about the destruction of the American family, and he points to his own family tree — which marks the moment two centuries ago his great-great-grandfather was sold to an Arkansas slaveholder and separated forever from his wife and children in Georgia.
"He never saw his family again," McKinney told Citizen. "That’s what devastation was."
As a leader of one of the nation’s largest African-American denominations (Church of God in Christ), he doesn’t often share something so personal — how it feels to know that your family, not too many generations ago, was permanently fractured by a government-sanctioned system.
But he’s sharing it now because he believes all American families, not just those of African-American descent, are facing a more subtle but equally devastating attack.
This time, it’s coming from the nation’s courts, which are about to enforce a radical agenda — legalization of gay "marriage." That not only will sanction sexual deviancy nationwide for the first time, but also will be used as a legal tool to censor those who believe traditional marriage — one man, one woman — is the building block of the family.
By knocking male-female marriage off its time-honored legal and historical pedestal, this judicial revolution threatens "our children and our children’s children who would have no understanding of God’s purpose for marriage," warned McKinney.
The stakes are so high, added former federal judge Robert Bork, that the battle ahead is nothing less than "the Gettysburg between the culture of the average American and the culture of the intellectual elite."
"Overwhelmingly, the public would vote against [gay] marriage, but the courts are going to thrust it on us, jam it down our throats," Bork told Citizen. "This is a major cultural battle, and if we lose it, the culture is headed in a different direction from where we’d like to see it go."
That’s why Bork and McKinney have joined a national, multicultural coalition of religious and academic leaders committed to permanently enshrining the traditional definition of marriage in the U.S. Constitution. A Fight Worth Fighting
The reasons it’s worth fighting to preserve male-female marriage’s unique legal status are plentiful (see "Talking Points" on page 20), but chief among them is because society not only benefits from it — society is built upon it.
"Marriage is the classroom where children, in interaction with their male and female parents, learn the most important lessons for civil society," explained Walter Fauntroy of the National Black Leadership Round Table, which represents more than 200 African-American organizations nationwide. "When you lose that glue, the fabric of your society begins to unravel."
Even the radical activists pushing to destroy marriage as the union of male and female know that’s true, explained Matt Daniels, who put together the national coalition that is promoting a constitutional amendment on marriage.
"Right now, we are entering into a historic debate over the future of marriage and the family in America," said Daniels, president of the Virginia-based Alliance for Marriage. "It is unprecedented, because we are on the verge of seeing the legal status of marriage destroyed. When [gay activists] go into that public debate, they only talk about legal benefits because they know the destruction of marriage is unpopular.
"But when we go into public debate, we talk about marriage: It’s good for kids. It’s a blessing to children and society, and we need to pass it on to future generations."
The fight to do just that is taking place on two battlefronts. The first is in state courts, where homosexuals have filed several lawsuits demanding a constitutional "right" to marry. Chances are good that at least one court will grant that right by spring. And once that happens, gay marriage eventually will be exported nationwide — because homosexuals could then force one state to recognize a gay "marriage" performed in another under the U.S. Constitution’s "full faith and credit" clause. (The clause requires states to recognize each other’s public contracts.)
The second battlefront is the U.S. Supreme Court, which is expected to determine the constitutionality of a Texas law prohibiting homosexual conduct as early as June. Since courts traditionally review such sodomy laws to strike them down, pro-family groups fear the worst: Justices will invent a "right" to homosexual conduct — the same way they created a right to abortion 30 years ago.
A pro-homosexuality verdict on either front would be the cultural equivalent of another Roe v. Wade, warn legal experts. A court-imposed "right" to homosexual conduct or "marriage" would eventually overturn every state law protecting the sanctity of male-female marriage (including the popular Defense of Marriage Acts prohibiting legislatures from changing the legal uniqueness of traditional marriage) — the same way Roe obliterated every state and federal restriction on abortion.
The result of a court-constructed "right" to gay "marriage" also would cheapen marriage into a legal free-for-all, because there would no longer be any rational, legal basis for limiting it to two people. Marriage would be based entirely on human whim and desire rather than God-created biological purpose and design.
"Once we have abandoned the concept of marriage as a union of a man and a woman, [we] will have no principled basis for rejecting polygamy … or any form of sexual involvement," explained Robert George, a Princeton law professor. "It’s a time when the church, Christians in general, have no option about being politically active."
In fact, added Daniels, failure to seize the moment and battle gay activists on this issue could ultimately end in Christian activism on this issue being outlawed.
"Far from wanting to embrace marriage and participate in it, the [homosexual] activists want to batter us with the force of law," he said. "They want to position us as the equivalent of Southern racists, and ultimately persecute us for teaching that marriage is uniquely and essentially the union of a man and a woman.
"Faith-based charities, schools, home schools and churches will come under legal attack. And many legal experts predict that Christian pastors will eventually be prohibited from performing legally valid marriages if they discriminate on the basis of heterosexuality." The Trump Card
As gloomy as those predictions might sound, they are hardly a foregone conclusion. According to constitutional experts like George, pro-family advocates still have a powerful trump card to play: an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would permanently neutralize legal assaults on marriage through the courts.
To that end, the Alliance for Marriage is backing the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). The amendment would add text to the Constitution that: 1) restricts the definition of marriage to a union between one man and one woman; and 2) prohibits state or federal courts from forcing legislatures to award the benefits of marriage to unmarried or homosexual couples.
The second provision is especially important, considering that schemes to strip marriage of all legal significance have never been approved by voters; they only have been enforced through courts. In Vermont, for instance, what amounted to de facto gay "marriage" — "civil unions" — was instituted only because the state Supreme Court commanded legislators to give marriage benefits to homosexuals.
The aftermath of what happened in Vermont provides some ominous foreshadowing: Of the 5,000 homosexual couples who obtained civil unions in the last three years, nearly 85 percent were from out of state. The only thing that’s kept those "civil unions" from spreading is the reluctance of courts to rule them legally transportable.
But there is no legal roadblock in place to stop something called "gay marriage" from proliferating.
That’s where the FMA comes in: By preventing judges from forcing the social and political agenda of radical groups upon our entire nation, it shields marriage from court sabotage and puts it back where it belongs — in the hands of the people.
"You have to understand that many judges … don’t think the American public is to be trusted with civil liberties," explained Bork, who, as a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, helped draft the FMA.
Bork, Daniels and Princeton’s George aren’t the only ones who see the battle over gay marriage as a watershed moment in our nation’s culture war, either. Gay activists understand it, too.
"The next five years will be pivotal in this struggle, with key battles underway in at least four crucial and promising states," announced the Freedom to Marry Collaborative, a gay-rights group headed by Evan Wolfson, a prominent homosexual lawyer.
"This won’t just be a change in the law either; it will be a change in society," bragged Wolfson in a guest column for The Advocate, a homosexual publication.
So far, they’re making good on their word: In Massachusetts, seven homosexual couples have filed a lawsuit (Goodridge v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health) demanding marriage benefits and licenses. The lawsuit was supported by some of the country’s top law faculty, including professors at Harvard University and Yale Law School, in addition to radical groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and National Organization for Women (NOW).
The case underscores the urgency of the FMA, since a verdict in favor of gay "marriage" is expected from the left-leaning Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court by this spring — possibly by the time this article is published. And just in case the Massachusetts lawsuit fails, gay activists have loaded their bases with backup cases in New Jersey and Indiana. One of those cases, their logic goes, should produce the desired slingshot effect of toppling state marriage-protection laws nationwide.
So one way or the other, the Constitution will be changed — either through court interpretations or a grassroots- supported amendment, explained Daniels:
"The only question is whether it will be changed by judges against the will of the people to enact a socially destructive agenda, or whether it will be done legitimately through the democratic process by our side to save marriage."
If pro-family activists can get the FMA passed before the gay-marriage lobby has a chance to aim its slingshot at the U.S. Supreme Court, the amendment would place marriage under the permanent protection of the nation’s highest legal authority, the Constitution.
But to pass, it must clear some formidable hurdles: First it needs a two-thirds vote from both chambers of Congress, and then it must be ratified by three-quarters of the state legislatures. ‘Don’t Hijack Civil Rights’
Much is at stake, because both sides in the cultural war know the same thing: That in addition to changing laws, court verdicts change the public conscience. Just as Roe normalized abortion in society and had profound social and moral ripple effects, said Bork, "the same thing will happen if you get a Supreme Court decision about homosexual ‘marriage.’
"[Traditional marriage] will be fought on the grounds that ‘a bunch of know-nothings’ are trying to take away our constitutional rights. So I think it’s important to get this amendment adopted before the Supreme Court gets its hands on it."
So in many ways, the fight is a race to get to the Constitution first. Even though it will take several years for gay "marriage" to spread nationwide, court verdicts guaranteeing a right to government-endorsed homosexuality will be used by the media to incrementally sway mass opinion. That means, the experts say, Christians really have about a one-to-two-year time window to capitalize on public outrage.
At least 36 states have passed some form of protection for traditional marriage, which bodes well for the FMA since it needs ratification by 38.
But the most difficult battle remains to be fought inside the Beltway — where FMA-backers must persuade the House and Senate. So pro-family advocates should act now — before suffering decisive defeat in court — to pressure congressmen to begin the ratification process.
Driven by that sense of urgency, Daniels and other marriage supporters have spent the last few years bolstering the FMA with a multicultural coalition of religious and academic leaders. The 60-plus-member group includes leaders from the nation’s two largest African-American denominations, the biggest association of Hispanic churches in the United States and North America’s two largest orthodox Jewish groups.
"The majority of Hispanics in this country would without a doubt give support to an amendment like this," said Pastor Danny DeLeon of Templo Calvario in California, one of the nation’s largest bilingual churches. "We have always frowned on … the protection and elevation of what in our own culture is shameful."
At least 20 Democratic and Republican congressmen also have agreed to co-sponsor the amendment, known formally on Capitol Hill as H.J.R. 93.
"To have a broad-based, multiethnic [coalition] leading the charge is very important, [because] this can’t be painted as just the religious right or some other stereotype by the opponents," said one of those sponsors, Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa. "It crosses religious grounds; it crosses ethnic grounds. These are the kinds of constituents we all have in our districts."
That breadth of support also exposes one of the gay lobby’s weak spots: the claim that traditional marriage denies homosexuals’ civil rights.
A NOW news release labeled the FMA "a cold-hearted attempt to make the U.S. Constitution explicitly anti-lesbian and gay rights," while a lawyer for The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation charged that not allowing gay "marriage" reinforces a "separate but equal" philosophy.
But those arguments have only strengthened the FMA by angering prominent African-American leaders and prompting them to sign on to Daniels’ coalition.
"Don’t hijack marriage and don’t hijack the civil-rights movement," said Bishop McKinney. "It’s an awful deception to pretend that homosexuals are in the same category as other minorities who have been segregated. The situation is not analogous. I didn’t choose to be black. My great-great-grandfather didn’t choose to be a slave."
Despite receiving angry phone calls and threats for doing so, Walter Fauntroy, who organized Martin Luther King’s 1963 March on Washington, has steadfastly supported the FMA. Black families care about saving traditional marriage, he told Citizen, because they’ve seen the devastation wrought by fractured families, first through slavery and then through a welfare system that exalted single parenting.
In addition to the coalition, grassroots mobilization will be key to overcoming overzealous courts.
"It’s going to take concerned citizens engaging in the process (writing to their congressmen, calling them, asking them to be a co-sponsor) and urging quick passage of the FMA," said Pitts. A Call to Action
If the decision on homosexual "marriage"- were left to the American voters, there would be no cause for alarm. According to national Gallup and Wirthlin polls, about 70 percent of Americans oppose gay "marriage." And every time gay "marriage" has been brought before state voters, it’s been soundly defeated with at least 60 percent of the vote. The majority of voters in Alaska and California, for instance, supported initiatives upholding the traditional definition of marriage. And last November, Nevadans voted for the second time in two years for a state constitutional amendment restricting marriage to one male and one female.
Nevada’s experience is a model of how Christian activists can approach the battle in their own states. Pro-family activists in the Silver State succeeded because they offered arguments that resonated with the public, said Richard Ziser, chairman of the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage in Nevada.
"State control" was one of the most effective points, he said, because "people didn’t want someone outside Nevada forcing us to change our laws."
The reality that legalized gay "marriage" opens the door to homosexuality being taught in public schools also stirred voters into action. "We’re known here as probably more libertarian, kind of a live-and-let-live attitude," said Ziser. "But when it came down to people’s kids being taught something they disagreed with … then they said, ‘No, we don’t want that.’ "
To bring home the reality of that danger, they used current examples from states like California — where teachers have been forced to attend homosexuality-promotion workshops.
"This is a national referendum on the family and the future of child-rearing in America," explained Daniels. "Public schools will be required to teach children that their own parents are on par with racists and bigots for teaching that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman."
Perhaps the most encouraging success story thus far has been Hawaii — the nation’s first testing ground for gay "marriage." Hawaii’s highest court ruled in 1993 that traditional marriage violated homosexuals’ constitutional rights.
"Our courts essentially ruled marriage unconstitutional," said Kelly Rosati, president of the Hawaii Family Forum, a state affiliate of Focus on the Family. Most Christians ignored initial alarms about impending danger to marriage, said Rosati — until the surprise verdict awoke them into joining with other faiths to fund a $2 million media campaign.
While gay activists spent their time making emotional arguments about being denied hospital visits and bereavement leave, traditional-marriage supporters talked about protecting the sanctity of marriage for the sake of children. As a result, voters amended their state constitution in favor of traditional marriage — again by about 70 percent.
"The people are overwhelmingly on our side, whether they’re people of faith or not," Rosati said. "They instinctively know that marriage is between one man and one woman."
Hawaii is a microcosm of what can happen — even if the church awakens at the 11th hour — said Daniels:
"If victory can happen in the state that gays chose as their venue for the first experiment in the courts, it can also happen nationally."
But Christians have limited time to respond to that wakeup call before they lose the historic opportunity for funneling public outrage onto Capitol Hill. Even families that send their kids to private schools or who homeschool should speak out, because they too will be affected by laws attempting to control what they teach their children about marriage.
"The wolf is at the door," warned Michael Farris, chairman and general counsel for the Home School Legal Defense Association, which is sending alerts to a quarter million home schooling families, asking them to encourage congressmen to co-sponsor the amendment.
"This has been such a theoretical, long-range kind of thing to most people that they don’t realize the Roe v. Wade of this issue is about to happen. Once we are in that position, it takes a lifetime to turn around.
"We’ve got to rectify the problem now."
WHO TO CONTACT: Call or e-mail your congressman and two U.S. senators and ask them to co-sponsor the Federal Marriage Amendment. To find contact information, visit the Legislative Action Center at www.citizenlink.org.
Ask your state legislators and governor to issue resolutions supporting the FMA. That helps demonstrate to Capitol Hill that a groundswell of local support exists.
The Federal Marriage Amendment
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. Talking Points: The Federal Marriage Amendment
WHY SHOULD CHRISTIANS SUPPORT THE FMA?
• Because our religious freedoms are at stake: A court-enforced "right" to gay "marriage" can be used as a tool to censor Christians and others who advocate the benefits of traditional marriage. Faith-based charities, Christian schools, home schools and churches all will be vulnerable to attack.
• Because if the high court mandates homosexual "marriage," it will be the first time sexual deviancy has been officially sanctioned nationwide. Since marriage is a God-created, biblical institution, we cannot silently stand by while the state mixes sin with sacrament.
• Because we need to prevent marriage from being cheapened into a legal free-for-all. If gay "marriage" is enforced, there would be no rational, legal basis for limiting it to two people.
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIM THAT THE FMA TAKES AWAY HOMOSEXUALS’ CIVIL RIGHTS?
• Homosexuals—and for that matter any unmarried couple —already have the right to pursue individual legal benefits, but they don’t have a right to redefine marriage for society.
• Marriage is not a gay-rights issue. It’s a universally accepted principle—and one that is backed overwhelmingly by social-science research—that male-female marriage provides the healthiest and most stable environment for children. Marriage was created to support healthy societies, not to be mean to gays.
• The FMA is supported by a diverse coalition of leaders including clergy from the nation’s two largest African-American denominations, the biggest association of Hispanic churches in the United States and North America’s two largest orthodox Jewish organizations. There is no group opposing traditional marriage that can boast equally diverse representation.
WHY IS AMENDING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION NECESSARY?
It’s just a matter of time before the courts re-interpret the Constitution by inventing a "right" to gay "marriage." Just as Roe v. Wade overturned all state abortion bans, so will a gay-"marriage" ruling overturn all state marriage-protection laws. So it’s up to us to change the Constitution first—in a way that protects marriage, not destroys it.
DON’T STATE AND FEDERAL DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACTS (DOMAS) ALREADY PREVENT HOMOSEXUAL "MARRIAGE"?
Homosexuals already are making false "constitutional" arguments that legal experts say could overcome all democratically enacted state and federal DOMA laws.
SHOULDN’T WE ENCOURAGE CONGRESS TO PASS A SECOND, MORE EXPANSIVE DOMA?
Legal experts say Congress will not be able to trump the constitutional arguments of homosexual activist groups with mere legislation. Only a constitutional amendment will thwart the homosexual community’s plans.
BUT DOESN’T THE FMA ALLOW STATES TO ESTABLISH SAME-SEX CIVIL UNIONS?
To allege that the FMA allows state legislatures to create civil unions or to give away the benefits of marriage makes no more sense than to say that the amendment allows state legislatures to enact no-fault divorce. Our Constitution allows state legislatures to parcel out the benefits of marriage, regulate divorce, and so on.
HOW DOES THE FMA PROTECT STATE RIGHTS?
It leaves the regulation of marriage benefits to local governments. That’s a win-win solution for pro-family advocates because every time the issue is left to voters, traditional marriage wins by large percentages. Polls conducted over the years repeatedly show that about 70 percent of Americans oppose homosexual unions. Also, three-quarters of the states have passed law protecting traditional marriage.
BURGER, C.J., Concurring Opinion Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards. Homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law…. During the English Reformation, when powers of the ecclesiastical courts were transferred to the King's Courts, the first English statute criminalizing sodomy was passed…. Blackstone described "the infamous crime against nature" as an offense of "deeper malignity" than rape, a heinous act "the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature," and "a crime not fit to be named." W. Blackstone, Commentaries . The common law of England, including its prohibition of sodomy, became the received law of Georgia and the other Colonies. In 1816, the Georgia Legislature passed the statute at issue here, and that statute has been continuously in force in one form or another since that time. To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.
Thomas Jefferson on Sodomy Sect. XIV. Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy* with a man or woman, shall be punished; if a man, by castration, a woman, by boring through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least. Peterson, Merrill D. "Crimes and Punishments" Thomas Jefferson: Writings Public Papers (Literary Classics of the United States, Inc. 1984) pp. 355, 356.
More than a dozen briefs filed at the United States Supreme Court this week oppose the declaration of a new constitutional right in Lawrence v. Texas.
Alabama, South Carolina, and Utah (State Attorneys General)
American Center for Law and Justice
Jay Alan Sekulow, Counsel of Record
American Family Association
Stephen M. Crampton, Counsel of Record
Center for Arizona Policy
This brief refutes the errors expressed in the opposing amicus submitted by the American Psychology Association.
Len L. Munsil, Counsel of Record
Center for Law and Justice International
Pat Monaghan, Counsel of Record
Center for the Original Intent of the Constitution
Michael P. Farris, Counsel of Record
Concerned Women for America
Janet M. LaRue, Counsel of Record
Family Research Council & Focus on the Family
Robert P. George, Counsel of Record
Legislators, State of Texas
Kelly Shackelford, Counsel of Record
Liberty Counsel
Mathew D. Staver, Counsel of Record
Pro Family Law Center
Richard Ackerman, Counsel of Record
Texas Eagle Forum; Daughters of Liberty Republican Women of Houston, Texas;
Spirit of Freedom Republican Women's Club
Teresa Stanton Collett, Counsel for Amici Curiae
Texas Physicians Resource Council, Christian Medical and Dental Association, Catholic Medical Association
Glen Lavy, Counsel of Record
United Families International
Paul Benjamin Linton, Counsel for the Amicus
John Rankin was raised a secular humanist, an agnostic Unitarian prior to converting to biblical faith in 1967. He holds graduate degrees in theology from Gordon Conwell and Harvard, is author of the three-volume set, First the Gospel, Then Politics..., and is host of the Mars Hill Forum series. He and his wife have been married for nearly twenty-five years and have four children. Website: www.teihartford.com
The first thing I want to read is something I wrote about seven, eight years ago called "Human Sexuality and Civil Rights." I wrote this quite a bit prior to the debate over same-sex marriage. And it's a non-binding resolution that I desire to see politically debated. And again, it's entitled "Human Sexuality and Civil Rights." And it goes accordingly.
Whereas:
And whereas:
And whereas:
We affirm: [and there are three points of affirmation]
1. Marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman in mutual fidelity;
2. No punitive laws shall exist to restrict private association, whether heterosexual or homosexual; [And there are people on the conservative Christian right that Norm's been talking about tonight who disagree with me on that. You'll find a very strong libertarian ethic, but it's based on a prior definition of equal life for all.] and;
3. All persons shall accept accountability for the public consequences of their private associations and actions, and they shall in no way deprive others of life, liberty, or property.
What I'm saying here is that I disagree with same-sex marriage. I disagree with homosexual relationships. Nonetheless, all people are free to disagree with me as I am with them, so long as we have an understanding of unalienable rights, that everyone has life, liberty and property, free not to be violated by other people. So the real debate comes down to those boundaries. And many acts of a homosexual or heterosexual nature, or other forms of sexuality, do violate life, liberty and property. And I'm equally opposed to all of those because I'm in favor of life, liberty and property. But for those acts of any nature that do not violate them, then people have that freedom in a civil society. And you will not see me pursuing those matters.
The second thing that I want to share with you is a petition that I've circulated around the state. I led off the testimony this year in the statehouse February 11th saying "no" to same-sex marriage. I was part of the same panel last year. And this is actually the summation of my testimony one year ago. And I'll walk through the definition of terms as I go. It's entitled, "Petition to Members of the Connecticut General Assembly."
Yes to man and woman in marriage.
No to same-sex marriage.
[Now an important predicate is, I don't say "no" to anything unless I first say "yes" to something. I think you will find that my agenda is a positive one, and my only concern is to protect life, liberty and property, or should I say, to affirm a government that protects life, liberty and property. I seek to do that myself to begin with. And so the real question is, can we honor these unalienable rights while also coming to a place of difference of interpretation. So my "no" is predicated on a prior "yes."]
As a resident of Connecticut I affirm the following: [and there are four affirmations]
1. In the United States, the civil rights which we all enjoy are rooted in the laws of nature and of nature's God, in the unalienable rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. [I have been in contact with all 187 legislators on this matter, at least five to eight times. I've heard back from 48 of them, and none of them will dispute the statement I just gave to you.]
2. The only source for unalienable rights in all human history is the Creator, the God of the Bible. [I've had a couple of people try to dispute me on this. And some years ago one was Nadine Strossen, who is president of the ACLU. And I said that the only source is the God of the Bible, and she started off that evening, and the topic was homosexuality and civil rights that evening. And she quoted the language from Jefferson, that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And as she quoted that, I said you started at the same source that I started: unalienable rights. And so I just have one simple question. Who is the Creator that Thomas Jefferson was referring to? And Jefferson was a rationalist. He was not by any stretch an evangelical Christian as myself, and yet he and those with him who were from an orthodox Christian background in a Protestant context, appealed to a source higher than King George III. They appealed to the Creator. So I asked Nadine Strossen, who is the Creator? She looked at me and said well, you have your Creator and other people have their Creators. I said no, you've just described polytheism. In other words, that's not the context to which Jefferson was referring to. And if you look at every polytheistic culture in all of human history, they have no concept of unalienable rights. Rights go to those who are in power, whereas the concept of unalienable rights upon which this nation is founded, are rooted in the biblical understanding of the Creator, that says that all people deserve the same rights because they are people, and not because of any other secondary reason.]
3. The God of the Bible defines true marriage as one man, one woman, one lifetime. [This is the order of creation, the image of God.] The health of society is rooted in this foundation.
4. In human history, no society has ever affirmed both homosexuality and unalienable rights. [So here is an intellectual challenge, to track out history, to find out where unalienable rights are affirmed. And if you can find any society that ever has affirmed homosexuality and unalienable rights together, you won't find it.]
Therefore, in order for any member of the Connecticut General Assembly to support legislation that even incrementally moves in the direction of same-sex marriage, he or she must answer these questions.
1. Are civil rights being redefined?
2. If so, why?
3. If so, what is the new basis for these rights?
4. What are the consequences?
Thanks.
You mean you don't have a collection of links and plagarized data to support your own delusions of persecution at drop of a dainty, yet tasteful, hankie?
What kind of paranoia-monger are you????????
</sarcasm>
I've been married almost 20 years and I can't think of anything that would want me to change that. I don't care if homosexuals marry, it wouldn't change the way I feel about my wife at all. I don't think that the government should be sticking their nose into this.
1. Marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman in mutual fidelity;A marriage isn't a marriage a marriage until it is consummated by the marriage act, i.e., coitus, which by definition involves a man and a woman. A "same-sex marriage" is a fiction simply because the "marriage" can never be consummated.
Instead of defining marriage, the language should really be defining "consummation" or "the marriage act" as coitus. JMO.
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.