If you are for this, please call your congressman and ask him to vote for it.
HR 4892
I say its worth a try. You can email your congressman at:
http://www.house.gov
This would just erode states' rights even more than they are already. Eliminate the federal courts' authority to impose gay marriages nationwide, let states decide, and leave it at that.
FIRST PERSON: The marital enemy few speak of
By Samuel Smith
Jul 23, 2004
FORT WORTH, Texas (BP)--My mailbox is deluged weekly with fundraising letters from pro-family organizations that invoke the threat of same-sex “marriage” being legalized by liberal judges in various states.
As important as it is to stand for the truth, these groups are tilting at windmills as long as American Christians continue to have a less-than-biblical respect for opposite-sex marriage.
That point was brought home to me recently with astounding clarity. A young lady who my wife grew up with decided to divorce her husband of two years, with a young daughter relegated to being tossed back and forth in a joint custody arrangement. There was no abuse or adultery, but since marriage is hard when two people are young and broke, she decided they made, in her words, “better friends than marriage partners.”
As far as I know, the young lady has never made a profession of faith, does not attend church and does not claim to know Jesus Christ, so to no one’s surprise she sees no problem with a quickie divorce when things have not worked out the way she wanted.
It’s time we quit being “huffy” when a pagan acts like a pagan -- what else do you expect?
What disgusted me was the response of the young lady’s mother and grandmother, which is symptomatic of how lightly modern American Christians esteem marriage. Both the mother and the grandmother claim to be Christians and attend church regularly. The mother said very little except to offer her daughter a place to stay. The grandmother, however, was bolder. “I don’t believe in divorce,” she said, “but sometimes it can’t be avoided.”
Well, in this case we’ll never know if it could have been avoided. No one tried to counsel the young lady or her husband or share with them what God has to say about marriage.
As a quick review for the sake of convenience, God said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24, NASB). Expounding on the theme, Jesus added, “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matthew 19:6, NASB). Jesus went on to add that Moses gave the exception allowing divorce because of the hardness of people’s hearts. Therefore, the exception is not absolute and does not have to be followed.
God’s opinion on divorce of any kind is quite clear: Malachi 2:16 says that God hates divorce.
As God’s children, should we not also hate divorce? Of course we should, and we should seek to avoid it wherever and whenever possible. But the simple fact of the matter is that corporately we do not hate divorce, nor do American Christians avoid it any better than our non-believing fellow Americans. A 2001 survey by George Barna showed that the divorce rate among evangelical Christians is “statistically identical” as the divorce rate among the general population.
When marriage means that little to the people of God, why should the broader culture care what we think about the subject?
The pro-homosexual “marriage” crowd is the one making all the noise and actually having the courage to stick up for what they believe, as perverted as it is. They understand that the first rule of getting what you want from the government in a democracy is to make more noise than the other guy.
There is really only one way for Christians to respond to this nightmare and silence the critics of traditional marriage and proponents of homosexual “marriage.” It’s not easy. It’s not always fun. It takes everything a person can give all the time.
It’s called staying married, even when times are tough and you want out more than you want another breath. Beyond that, Christians should seek to glorify not themselves but God with their marriages.
If the broader culture should see the divorce rate among Christians go through the floor, they would know that there really was something different about us. Who knows what kind of opportunities this radical strategy would bring about for evangelism and national revival?
Right now, roughly a third of Americans say they support homosexual “marriage.” But in another few years, homosexual “marriage” will be the law of the land if Christians – too many of whom see no problem with easy, no-fault heterosexual divorce -- have not recovered a respect for marriage beyond sending the occasional check to a pro-family organization.
--30--
Samuel Smith is a student and a news writer at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.
Appeals court upholds Fla. ban on homosexual adoption
By Staff
Jul 23, 2004
ATLANTA (BP)--A divided 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Florida's ban on homosexual adoption July 21, leaving intact the toughest such law in the nation.
The lawsuit, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, may end up before the Supreme Court. The ACLU said it is reviewing its legal options.
In a 6-6 vote, the appeals court refused to reverse its earlier decision from January when a three-member panel unanimously upheld the Florida law and said it was constitutional. The ACLU panel subsequently appealed the case to the full court. A majority vote was needed for a reversal.
Florida, Mississippi and Utah are the only states that prohibit homosexual couples from adopting. But Florida's law is considered the toughest because it prevents homosexual singles from adopting.
Pro-family leaders praised the ruling.
"Common sense and human history underscore the fact that children need a mother and a father," said Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief. "Hopefully this decision will form a basis for other states to follow Florida’s example of preserving family relationships that include a mom and a dad.”
The six justices who would have overturned the law relied heavily on the Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas ruling that overturned anti-sodomy laws.
But the other six justices disagreed. Justice Stanley Birch -- who wrote the decision in January -- said in his July 21 opinion that even if Lawrence "did acknowledge a constitutional liberty interest in private sexual intimacy, this liberty interest does not rise to the level of a fundamental right."
Birch, though, took the unique opportunity to say he personally opposes the law, even though he believes it is constitutional.
"If I were a legislator, rather than a judge, I would vote in favor of considering otherwise eligible homosexuals for adoptive parenthood," wrote Birth, who added that he would not "allow my personal views to conflict with my judicial duty."
Judge Rosemary Barkett argued the law was unconstitutional and that homosexuals were singled out.
"There is no comparable bar in Florida's adoption statute that applies to any other group," she wrote. "Neither child molesters, drug addicts, nor domestic abusers are categorically barred by the statute from serving as adoptive parents."
Birch's earlier opinion was more strongly worded than his July opinion.
"[T]he state," he wrote in January, "has a legitimate interest in encouraging this optimal family structure by seeking to place adoptive children in homes that have both a mother and father. Florida argues that its preference for adoptive marital families is based on the premise that the marital family structure is more stable than other household arrangements and that children benefit from the presence of both a father and mother in the home.
"Given that appellants have offered no competent evidence to the contrary, we find this premise to be one of those 'unprovable assumptions' that nevertheless can provide a legitimate basis for legislative action."
Although I agree with the sentiment, I don't see where the US Constitution gives authority to Congress for this kind of thing.
As for polygamy, I think Utah gave it up as a condition of statehood. I could be wrong about that, but I'm pretty sure that they weren't getting in otherwise.
What is the constitutional jurisdictions for this federal law to "supercede state laws?"
Art I, Sec 8 , "Powers of Congress"
Cl 3 "commerce clause?"
Cl 17, exclusive legistlative jurisdiction over purchased state land by federal government with state approval?
Article VI, Sec 2
laws made in conjunction with treaties as the law of the land?
But even if you can find federal jurisdiction for this law in one of the three articles listed above, the law still cannot vilate the Bill of Rights and successive amendments.
The law would violate Amendment IX, rights "retained by the people," and Amendment X, rights "reserved" to the states and the people.
Again, this is why I do not call myself a conservative any longer nor do I wish to vote for a Republican.
Conservative implies the desire to "conserve" something. How about conserving the Constitution.
Republicans are just like Democrats in their desire to contol how people wish to live their lives with unconstitutional, anti-liberty, communist/socialist laws but with just a different agenda than the Democrats and at a slower pace.
Can the dems attach the AWB renewal to this Bill? Wouldn't put it past them to try to attach it to anything that comes out of the House.
Homosexual Agenda Ping - Hmmm, National Marriage Law. I don't know what to think, I'll have to read more and see what you all think.
It does sound good upon first reading.
let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
This has the added bonus of reinforcing the current law which prohibits homosexual marriage for immigration purposes.
A US citizen can petition for any fiance OR spouse to automatically get to enter the USA. A homosexual in Mass., in theory, is entitled to petition the immigration services for a homosexual fiance to enter the USA to "marry" in Mass.
If permitted it would reverse decades of rules which have prohibited the recognition of foreign polygamist marriages for immigration purposes.
this is very good news because we are seeing a plethora of effort to stop this homosexual "imposition" from many fronts.
Has the DNC adopted a plank which endorses homosexual marriage yet?
Aw, jeez. Bush just lost another 500 Libertarian votes.
If the bill is written so that a state doesn't have the right to decide this issue for itself, then it will fail to get support. If it is written so that each state can make this decision legislatively for itself, then it has a chance of avoiding a filibuster.
The critical issue is the federal court system. Courts must not be telling states that they must accept other states same-sex marriages/unions. Also, that once a state debates the issue and comes up with a DOMA of their own that a Federal Court doesn't overrule it.
McCain will not go for a DOMA that forbids each state to make its own decision. He will almost be forced to go with a law that leaves it up to each state and takes away Federal judicial jurisdiction.
Let's take that sure-win step first. And then build on that.
Bump for tracking bill and calling congress people.
I wonder if Mr. Kerry will show up for the vote...