Personal Statement On Gay Marriage (David Horowitz supports President on CMA)

Front Page Magazine ^ | February 25th, 2004 | David Horowitz

[Sabertooth]

I am a believer that the gay Americans should have the rights of all Americans, including the right to have legally recognized unions. I am personally not opposed to calling these unions "marriage." I have publicly opposed the federal marriage amendment to the Constitution. But I am appalled by the assault on the American legal and political system by the left, the attempt to change a 5,000 year old social institution through a one-appointed-judge majority, the defiance of law and of majority opinion by one elected official in the city of San Francisco, and the anarchy to which this will lead.

To stop this destructive juggernaut, I will now support the Federal Marriage Amendment. I applaud the stands taken by President Bush and Governor Schwarzenegger against these destructive developments and in defense of the American political system, which allows deeply divided communities to live side by side in peace.

I am certainly not alone in these views. The gay rights movement has shot itself in the foot with its arrogant political tactics and contempt for those who disagree. This arrogance which pervades the liberal side of the political spectrum these days with a manic intensity may even cost the Democrats the upcoming elections. Sixty percent of California voters supported the law that one Democratic mayor in San Francisco has sought to overturn. A recent Zogby poll shows majorities not only in the red states but also in the blue states against gay marriage. By choosing to throw down this particular gauntlet at this particular time, gay leaders will produce a backlash that may swamp Democratic electoral hopes.

If the gay political leadership had supported civil unions, which would confer the missing legal rights on gay couples, and if they had pursued this through the legislatures (as in Vermont) they would have undoubtedly persuaded majorities in many states to support their admirable quest for equal protection under the law. But by displaying their arrogant contempt for the deeply held beliefs of the American majority, and for the political and legal system that holds our disparate communities together, they have provoked the majority into defending itself in ways that will defeat their own agenda and set back their cause for years to come.

[Sabertooth]

[Unam Sanctam]

Good for David. I agree -- such radical social change should be discussed through the democratic process, not imposed by rogue courts or local executives.

[longtermmemmory]

Today on the news channels the homosexuals were focusing on the equal protection argument. They do not want the public to focus on full faith and credit.

[Kryptonite]

So they're pushing O'Connor's lonely position in Lawrence v. Texas, intending to draw attention away from the Defense of Marriage Act and Kerry's no vote? No surprise there.

Their *plan* is sooo transparent. Wink wink nod nod to the populace while selling their snake oil to the robes.

I hope to my core that Kerry and every democrat alive continues to hang on their every word.

[Kryptonite]

As noted by Justice Scalia in Lawrence v. Texas, O'Connor's "equal protection" position was held by her and her alone:

[Finally, I turn to petitioners' equal-protection challenge, which no Member of the Court save Justice O'Connor, ante, at 1 (opinion concurring in judgment), embraces.]

[goldstategop]

Liberals are full of themselves. They are feeling their oats. They'll keep on with such self-destructive tactics up to Election Day cause they think they already have the White House in the bag and to them now is the perfect time to accelerate the implementation of their radical agenda since their opponents have been thrown into disarray and are off-balance.

[EdReform]

Ping

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

The Stamp of Normality

[sr4402]

David Horrowitz,

How many More children will loose their mommies and daddies because of what you have written this day. What will be the increase of sodomizing rapes of young boys because of what you have said. How many more children (percentage) will choose not to marry, become diseased, depressed and commit suicide because of what you advocate?

Your conclusion is the same as that of Barney Frank, that this is an issue of bad timing. No, what is proposed will be fatal to America's children and freedoms. I doubt our nation will survive if what you propose comes to pass.

May sin be sin and lawlessness unrestrained in those who propose harm for our children. May it be a warning to this land.

SR.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Angeda Ping.

Horowitz weighs in on the right side.

Let me know if you want on or off this ping list. Very busy of late.