The Struggle for Marriage: Moving Forward after LAWRENCE

BreakPoint ^ | 7 Aug 03 | Chuck Colson

[Mr. Silverback]

The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision striking down the Texas law banning sodomy has moved us a giant step closer to sanctioning same-sex "marriage."

The response to the decision has been swift. First, the Vatican issued a powerful statement calling all Catholic officeholders to vote against gay "marriage," to uphold traditional heterosexual union, and to work for the repeal of laws that weaken marriage.

The very next day President Bush took a clear, unequivocal -- and, I believe, courageous -- stand. He declared his support for the sanctity of heterosexual marriages, significantly using the word sanctity. He also counseled that in this campaign we must be gentle and loving.

If nothing is done in the wake of the LAWRENCE decision, I think that it is just a matter of time before gay "marriage" is sanctioned. Massachusetts and New Jersey courts are considering cases right now. If either state embraces it -- as predicted -- homosexuals will rush there to get married. Then they'll return to their home states where, because of the Defense of Marriage Act, those so-called "marriages" will not be recognized. That's certain to precipitate a constitutional challenge. And with the Court disposed as it is in the light of this recent decision, I suspect they will throw out the Defense of Marriage Act, and we will have gay "marriage" imposed by courts without so much as a single vote by the people.

The best way to head this off is a constitutional amendment affirming heterosexual marriage. The Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has expressed his support. Members of Congress are lining up fast.

We cannot afford to lose this titanic struggle -- and we won't, if the Church does its job. Bible-believing Christians have got to get serious and become activists for the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Parts of the Church, however, are shaky. Look at what's happening to the Episcopalians right now, ordaining a gay bishop. Many denominations are debating whether they will give same-sex "marriage" ceremonies in church. If you're involved in a church where this issue is being debated, register your alarm and make it clear that if your denomination embraces this, you're out.

Arrange to visit with the leaders of your church, and get your church committed. Ask your pastor to speak on this issue from the pulpit. We need more than anything else a huge groundswell of ordinary Americans expressing their outrage over this most serious threat to the institution of marriage.

If we don't act, we will be out-gunned by gay rights activists who are well financed, well organized, and capitalizing on public sympathy. A majority of Americans still oppose same-sex marriage, but that margin has been shrinking as gays ask the question: "What's wrong with making our union legal? It's monogamous; we keep to ourselves; we don't bother anyone."

But what's wrong is, when a society gives equal moral weight to the homosexual "marriage" as to the heterosexual, the institution itself loses meaning. It can no longer be the basic unit for procreation and character formation of children -- it is simply an agreement for two people, any two people, to live together and practice whatever sex they choose.

Please call us today. Let us send you a packet that you can use to equip yourself to debate this issue. If you haven't gotten your church involved, please do so. This is urgent.

[Mr. Silverback]

I am not sure we can get an amendment passed, but I am absolutely sure we must try, and that Colson's scenario for SCOTUS passage of nationwide gay marriage if very likely is the amendment is not passed.

Time to get to work, folks!

[Mr. Silverback]

BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[steplock]

We don't need an ammendment...

Why What is Happening - Explains the SCOTUS, CHURCH, etc (no religious explanations here either)

...when you INVOKE your Second Amendment! .

[billbears]

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. --Madison Federalist 45

Sorry but no. If we must fight for an Amendment, fight for one that restates in the clearest terms possible that any rights not outlined specifically in the Constitution belong to the states. The right to determine what marriage is within a state is already there. It just needs to be restated for politicians of all stripes that choose to ignore it in lieu of grabbing more votes

[LiteKeeper]

SPOTREP

[EdReform]

Bump & Ping

read later...

[Noachian]

" And with the Court disposed as it is in the light of this recent decision, I suspect they will throw out the Defense of Marriage Act, and we will have gay "marriage" imposed by courts without so much as a single vote by the people.

This is what happens when the Congress abnegates its constitutional authority to oversee the unelected courts. The Congress has the constitutional authority to blunt or counter any ruling that may become de facto law emanating from the unelected Judiaicary

. It is amazing how the American people (the products of a wasted educational system) have assumed (since the 1960's) that the unelected Supreme Court is our chief law making body, and that any ruling they IMPOSE on the people must be the law of the land. Utter rot!

The Court is but one branch of three branches of a co-equal government, and their rulings can take the force of law ONLY if the Executive and the Legislature allow them to do so. The restrictions on the Judiciary are spelled out in the Constitution and those restriction should be called upon more frequently. The problem is that the Congress surrendered its authority over the Judiciary long ago, and now condescends to accept Court rulings no matter how offensive they may be. Rarely does the Legislature find enough masculinity to oppose the courts.

The Congress can pass the Defense of Marriage Act with the proviso that "...this act shall not be reviewed by the Judiciary.", and it would be all perfectly legal. The liberals, and the Judiciary, could hold their breath and turn blue if they wanted but the DMA would be the law of the land. The Court could still rule on its constitutionality, but no ruling it issued would have the force of law. Of course this would require politicians that have guts and that's an oxymoron.

In the final analysis the American people have lost control of the High Court because their elected Representatives refuse to use their authority over the Judiciary. This leaves the people at the mercy of an elite oilgarachy of nine judges who are accountable to no one. This is legislation without representation, and, it's time for the people to take matters into their own hands and demand that their Justices be answerable to the electorate through direct elections.

[xzins]

Let's take an "oath of allegiance" that a new enlistee swears to when he joins to defend the nation. That private and his country are part of a team known as the military. There are provisions of that contract that are premised on the risking by that private of his own life and the faithfulness of his government.

The government expects courage, discipline, obedience, and participation. The private has been promised care, respect, aid, provisioning, and veteran's benefits. This "contract" is between the soldier and his government.

Up walks a guy who didn't join the military, but he and a few friends donned cammo and went to the paint ball wars out on the farm. On occasion they even put on civil war uniforms and participated in "re-enactments" of civil war battles.

He says, "Why should I be discriminated against? What I did is like the military. I want those veteran's benefits, too. I wore a uniform. I was in a battle."

Just because someone "mimics" a soldier doesn't make him a "veteran."

Just because someone "mimics" real sex and family doesn't make him married.

[brillig]

I am having trouble understanding how a case that was decided on the basis of privacy rights can be construed to establish precedent for a public act such as marriage. Sex is private (well, it should be); marriage is public. Can anyone clarify this for me? It just seems to be a logical disconnect.

[thoughtomator]

Bingo - right on target. The reason the gays think their hookups are morally equal to actual marriages is the utter negligence of heterosexuals to treat their marriages as the important institutions they are, rather than... well, just hookups.

An Amendment is the wrong way to go. The right way to go is to penalize couples that divorce; and to make it extremely difficult to do so, absent clear evidence of physical violence.

In the meantime, we can educate the rest of the nation that the purpose of marriage is to see that humanity perpetuates itself; this is why the marriage bond is priveleged, and why gay relationships don't measure up to the standard of a marriage.

[thoughtomator]

It's an equal protection of the laws argument. It is a plausible argument in the context of over half of heterosexual marriages ending in divorce.

[mhking]

Just because someone "mimics" real sex and family doesn't make him married.

Agreed. I don't think anyone will deny that point.

Marriage is sanctioned by and governed by the states individually ("By the power vested in me by the state of..."), not the federal government.

We're trying to reduce the level of bureacracy in federal government, not increase it (at least that's what I thought one of the GOP's aims were).

Not only that, the Founding Fathers specifically indicated that powers not ennumerated were left to the states. But now we have people trying to say that we can't trust state government to regulate the institution of marriage. What's next, do we want them to run the health departments, police departments and the rest of the functions of state and local government, too?

Part of the key behind the success of our Union is that power is distributed among the states and at the local level.

We have to trust the states. We have to trust the people in those states. Ultimately, if that doesn't happen, then we begin sliding down that slippery slope toward a theocratic dictatorship.

Coming back full circle, this is not a matter of legislating morality, as some have said. This is an issue of property rights, of taxation law, and of individual identity. The states govern those issues as well. Linking marriage to those issues is paramount, and will solve the dilemma that exists. But this has to be done on the state level, or it won't hold judicial muster when it gets before SCOTUS.

Don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of the notion of gay marriage. But in order to address this issue properly, we must look at the larger picture logically and dispassionately.

[MHGinTN]

Your words are sound, the reasoning clear to my simple mind. May I add a conundrum? ...

If Bruce and Steve (not homosexuals but wanting to take advantage of the special rights garnered with marriage contract) decide to present for a 'civil sanctioned union', will they be allowed to since Hank and Harry Homosexuals are granted one?... The issue is the carving out of special rights for a self-defined sexual minority! Once this is allowed, the institution of marriage itself is degenerated to nothing of great import, easily manipulated, an empty civil institution.

Traditionally, marriage is between one man and one woman. PERIOD. To allow any 'special interest group' (that has defined itself by its sexual proclivities, for instance) to dismantle an institution as vital to our civilization as marriage, simply so they can insert their degenerate reality into that institution as a means to push for normalization of their chosen sexual deviancy is unacceptable ... if we are to survive the onslaught of liberalization that now seeks to mutate this Republic into a sick sham of what the founding documents set out to construct.

[scripter]

Thanks for the post. Thanks for the ping.

Homosexual Agenda Index

Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search

All FreeRepublic Bump Lists

A simple freepmail is all it takes to subscribe or unsubscribe from my homosexual agenda ping list.

[billbears]

We're trying to reduce the level of bureacracy in federal government, not increase it (at least that's what I thought one of the GOP's aims were).

Well said. However I think now that 'conservatives' are in power instead of actually following through with such an action, they would choose instead to use the power of the bureaucratic behemoth to suit our needs instead of returning such an issue to the states. As much as I disagree with some of the more ardent Federalist views, it's quite clear where this issue should lay

[tdadams]

Once this is allowed, the institution of marriage itself is degenerated to nothing of great import, easily manipulated, an empty civil institution.

You think some people aren't using marriage as it is today for cynical and sinister purposes? You don't think people are marrying for wealth or status, for insurance coverage, for a green card? Hell, think of Anna Nicole Smith if you can stomach the thought.

What you say is true, the institution of marriage can be used to manipulate the system. But that's true whether you're talking about a same sex or opposite sex marriage.

[MHGinTN]

Opening the door to further degeneration doesn't work to improve that which is ailing. Adultery is already threatening to negate the instituion of marriage ... extrapolate from there.

[jimt]

-- it is simply an agreement for two people, any two people, to live together and practice whatever sex they choose.

If we are to disregard the meaning of marriage, a union between one man and one woman, there's no reason to limit the expansion to two people. What justification is there for a numerical limit of two? If everybody loves each other, why must it be limited to people?

Once the definition of marriage is shattered there's no "minor fixes" that will make it whole again.

[Zack Nguyen]

The best advise IC an give you is to read Justice Scalia's desent in the Lawrence case. It is available on the SUpreme Court website.