Federal Marriage Amendment open thread

posted at 9:06 am on June 5, 2006 by Allahpundit

The president’s going to try to toss some red meat to the base today by, uh, coming out in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Which doesn’t have a prayer of passing.

Consider this your chance to sound off. I think this guy‘s right on the money, but I’m also among what’s probably a small minority of right-wingers in thinking that, however distasteful one might find certain aspects of gay culture, the Equal Protection Clause should/does protect their right to marry.

Anyway, have at it.

Update: LaShawn‘s not placated, either.

Update: Patterico also opposes the FMA. I don’t have numbers to back this up, but my sense has always been that the righty blogosphere is more moderate than the conservative base whereas the lefty blogosphere is more extreme than the liberal base. Consider this an invitation to chime in on that point as well. Is it true? And if so, why?

Update: Political Pit Bull and Confederate Yankee also think Bush is full of it. Does any righty blogger support this thing?

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Hmmm. Maybe if Bush only allowed gay illegal immigrants, that would appease the left. Probably not. It would definitely stop the “anchor baby” part of illegal immigration, however, since no babies would be born. Or if they were, they would be named “Kennedy”.

clyde on June 5, 2006 at 9:18 AM

I do not believe that gays should have the right to marry. But I also agree that the Equal Protection Clause indeed extends equal rights to gays, and that is unfortunate. But remember when deciding what is and what should be, that we have myriad activist jurists in this country that extend constitutional “rights” to non-citizen illegal aliens!

The framers of the Constitution, and indeed those who wrote and voted for the Fourteenth Amendment, could not have extended their thinking to the gay culture that has become a separatist movement within this country. I equate their inability to read the future to the like impossibility of the framers to imagine millions of illegal immigrants pouring across our borders, their ranks filled with pregnant alien women seeking to give birth to “anchor babies,” who then become American citizens. It was impossible to envision either. But the inability to predict the future does not make future consequences acceptable or right!

I have no doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court will in the not too distant future be compelled to rule on these things, both of which I sincerely hope a Conservative Court dismisses with disdain.

I can only hope. . .

ForYourEdification on June 5, 2006 at 9:28 AM

Do not be fooled. The immigration debate is dying down and we cannot be unfocused. Bush only did this to placate us but we all know he is not sincere. Let us not forget our #1 fight-“illegal immigration.” Bush has made his choice.

donna on June 5, 2006 at 9:35 AM

“Defense of Marriage” ranks somewhere around 75 on my list. Immigration, profligate spending and judicial nominees take up the first 74 spots.

“We won’t be fooled again!”

MCPO Airdale on June 5, 2006 at 9:43 AM

Sad, and transparent, political ploy for BOTH parties… they both get to talk to their bases, and nothing will pass.

For me, Bush’s timing could not be worse on this. His speaking on this now is nothing more than a device to get attention off of immigration, while the bills are in conference, so they can do a little slight of hand and legalize 20 -30 million illegal immigrants, and their families who will soon come across the border to join them.

Keep up the pressure folks, don’t get distracted.

Romeo13 on June 5, 2006 at 9:56 AM

It’s nice to see that the administration has its priorities straight. When I heard of the press conference, I immediately remembered that famous Allen Iverson “prac-tiss” diatribe. As in, “We’re sittin’ here talkin’ about gay marriage? Not the war, or lobbying reform….not spending decreases, immigration, or Iran? Gay Marriage? Gay……Marriage?”

BTW, Master Chief, “We Won’t Be Fooled Again”as performed by The Who was W’s campaign song in 2000. Whether by intentional sarcasm, or unintentional irony, you are brilliant for bringing it up.

Kid from Brooklyn on June 5, 2006 at 9:58 AM

Wow, Bush is conservative again! Does that mean Jeb Bush is also conservation?

FAT CHANCE! Wait till they start a “No Junkie Left Behind” or something like that. The underprevileged and the Democrats will be stuffed with cash again, from our hard earned tax dollar.

easy87us on June 5, 2006 at 9:59 AM

The administration is pulling out all the stops, but they are “misunderestimating” their conservative base.

Karl Rove: it’s STILL about illegal immigration. Other domestic issues pale in comparison.

dman on June 5, 2006 at 10:04 AM

It always gets back to immigration. I am writing to every congressman about immigration again. no retreat no surrender. Let’s keep the heat on. Does Bush think we are stupid, pandering to us now about gay marriage? Please. Don’t think the conservatives are buying it one bit. i think Bus and Rove miscalculated when pushing the immigration issue. They thought we would follow like good little sheep. NOT!

donna on June 5, 2006 at 10:27 AM

The Bush family is to conservatism what the Kennedy family is to liberalism. And both are an anathema to American politics.

ForYourEdification on June 5, 2006 at 10:27 AM

LaShawn’s article is right on:

“It’s an empty and meaningless gesture…”

“(Bush’s) pro-Mexico, anti-America immigration scheme will cause more damage to this great country than a million homosexuals “marrying.” The influx of millions more poorly educated, poor English-speaking, non-assimilating Third World aliens is more of a threat to the average American than the spectacle of men standing at an altar…although it’s difficult to decide which is more disgusting.”

This is a feeble attempt to placate the Conservative base while ignoring the more important issues. Gay marriage IS disgusting, but Bush’s pandering is just adding insult to injury.

speed647 on June 5, 2006 at 10:33 AM

I don’t support gay marriage but I seriously don’t think this should be in the constitution

Defector01 on June 5, 2006 at 10:45 AM

Maybe my hesitancy to gay marriage is beyond that it is just plain wrong. Say they probably have the right to do what they want..I’m losing interest. My concern for that issue is the kids. Who will protect the babies from being adopted into these 2 mommie or 2 daddie families. It is horribly unfair to make any child grow up in that lifestyle, and babies wont have a choice.
Lashawn was right on, and lets not to get distracted from the REAL issues. Its time to blitz congress again about the borders, they must be closed and protected. Ignoring this issue could drastically harm the USA immediately, and for ever. No more distractions Mr. Bush and Co.

shooter on June 5, 2006 at 11:00 AM

It is a sad state of affairs that we are even considering amending the constitution to address Gay Marriage. We have a bunch of light weight empty suits in DC. Activists judges have drawn the line in the sand and the politicians refuse to enforce the checks and balances at their disposal to impeach these idiots who want to make laws from the bench.

This is not worth debating. Two men or two women can’t marry. We’ve been so worn down over the last 10-15 years. Who would have thought this would even be an issue two decades ago. It is ludicrous. It is shameful.

Bush is a panderer. Rove doesn’t get it. We are not stupid. We will not be duped. No matter what Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes say, this is about the illegal immigration. This is BS.

robman27 on June 5, 2006 at 11:33 AM

Who will protect the babies from being adopted into these 2 mommie or 2 daddie families. It is horribly unfair to make any child grow up in that lifestyle, and babies wont have a choice.

This is a red herring. Homosexuals are already allowed to adopt in many states. Besides, many homosexuals have children naturally or via in vitro fertilization, so they have parental rights automatically in those cases. Will you take their children away too?

I don’t support gay marriage but I seriously don’t think this should be in the constitution

You, sir/madam, are a true conservative. And I mean that as a complement. Whatever you think about gay marriage, the thought of writing discrimination and restriction of individual liberty into the Constitution should turn the stomach of anyone who values the document (as conservatives say they do). Remember the last couple of times it was similarly abused? Yeah, “blacks are 3/5 of a person” and “liquor is illegal.” Do we really want to try for number three?

Also consider that Bush knows that this item won’t go anywhere. A shrinking minority favors this ammendment. I don’t even get the feeling that he feels strongly about it, himself. That all tells me that conservatives are being pandered to.

Conservatives: less government, stronger borders, lower taxes!
Polls: 30% approve
Bush: Uh… look over there… two Nancies want to get married!

Don’t fall for it.

Mark Jaquith on June 5, 2006 at 11:38 AM

A huge waste of time, IMO. But the point that was made about red-meat is right. Bush is losing conservatives with the lack of spending restraint and immigration non-enforcement… amongst other issues.

It’s simple election-year politics. I won’t vote for Dems under any circumstances but I can see right through these actions.

Hoodlumman on June 5, 2006 at 11:40 AM

Rove’s summer offensive isn’t working. The “Speaker Pelosi” scare tactics didn’t fly, and this ploy is also going nowhere.

Note to Karl: How to prevail in November: 1) Enforce EXISTING law; 2) Stop betraying your base.

dman on June 5, 2006 at 12:04 PM

Personaly, I don’t care about gay marriage. Seems that it is covered under the “pursuit of happiness” clause.

I agree that it is a red herring. Their are far more important issues going on today, and to bring up and hype a non issue just diffuses the attention spent on real problems.

I still think we need to walk on DC. Every single person who is against amnesty, liberal, conservative, legal, illegal, real and imaginary needs to walk up to the Whitehouse lawn and with one voice declare; “We are America, and We will be heard!”

Maybe then the government will listen.

Wyrd on June 5, 2006 at 12:09 PM

A man that is emotionally isolated from the opposite sex isn’t healthy. Human beings aren’t disembodied minds that only sync with their bodies 25% of the time. A man living with a man isn’t married to the man he’s living with, even if he pretends he is. And I can’t pretend otherwise; I almost wish I could, so I could get the “cool crowd” butt slap too.

I think it’s important. Not because I think I need to take up for Jesus, but because my own reason says the whole thing is insane, and I don’t want anybody “reprogramming” my daughter’s daughter when she finally creates a model of the human mind, and can identify, describe, and cure homosexuality. Anyone reading this can count the rules I’m breaking just by writing it–”cure“ is a biggie. Science has to stop, reason has to stop, the biology books have to be burned and replaced with “non-heteronormative” rubbish, and we have to walk into never-never land–and for what again?

I support the amendment. It reads “We choose reason over the new gods” and I want that pretty badly. I think the stakes are higher than many of you do. But I admit it won’t break anything or fix anything–it’s just another battle in the erosion.

For the Equal Protection clause to be relevant, someone’s rights would have to be arbitrarily denied based on some characteristic, is that right? But a homosexual man has exactly the same rights to marry that I have. What the activism is pursuing is different: to live in the fantasy of being married to his lover–which incidentally would be fine for him to do–and then require the rest of the world around him to join in. Pretending you are Napoleon is fine; requiring everyone to call you Emperor is not; managing to create law that requires other people to call you emperor is … where we are.

Damn it Bush–I’m not some tard flipping through Kos and shouting “Yeah!” I can _see_ pandering. You aren’t supposed to be acting that way.

Axe on June 5, 2006 at 12:29 PM

A man that is emotionally isolated from the opposite sex isn’t healthy.

Speak for yourself, chump!

Allahpundit on June 5, 2006 at 12:30 PM

What is that supposed to mean? I’ve got to be gay before I can recognize that there’s something wrong with being isolated from the opposite sex?

Axe on June 5, 2006 at 12:33 PM

No, it means I was making a joke at my own expense.

Allahpundit on June 5, 2006 at 12:35 PM

lol … hey, I told you :)

Axe on June 5, 2006 at 12:41 PM


We have a Nationl Crisis on the Border, with terrorists wanting to kill millions of Americans, and all Boosh can do is drag up the Marriage Ban on Gays? Give me a break. Boosh and his advisers are NUTS. He’s going to end up being responsible for deaths of Americans. Just looking at, and listen to Bush turns my stomach. I really don’t know how any conseratives can respect this wind bag idiot. We’re doomed…thank you JORGE BOOSH!

SparkyFD on June 5, 2006 at 12:46 PM

GWB and Mr. Rove think we are a bunch of short attention span Bushaholics. He thinks we can be distracted like Dory on Finding Nemo.

Hey look! Something Shiny!

This may work on Libs but not true Core-principled United States citizens. Do what we put you there to do. STOP BEING A JERK!

robman27 on June 5, 2006 at 1:02 PM

“…I’m also among what’s probably a small minority of right-wingers in thinking that, however distasteful one might find certain aspects of gay culture, the Equal Protection Clause should/does protect their right to marry.”

Thank you. I’m with you 100% on this one, and its about time that we go back to less intrusive government. I’m not gay, but hey, I’m not a Dixie Chick fan either. Doesn’t mean I think they should be outlawed. However, this gay marriage issue seemed to be the gift that kept on giving during the last election. And the left was all over it, caring more about the rights of the gay community to marry than other pressing matters. I mean, who cares what individuals do in the privacy of their own homes? Smoke screen if you ask me. This administration looks set to milk it once again. Perhaps they’re just out of ideas. Let them get spending under control, immigration issues worked out, security issues adressed.

THeDRiFTeR on June 5, 2006 at 1:24 PM

robman27 thant’s what I was thinking. Here kitty kitty, here’s a nice juicy fish. Leave those poor little illegals, I mean mice alone. And get away from the door of the Conference committee!

I find the sudden appearance of this item insulting, right as the real immigration bill is shaped.

That said, I support this amendment, because, as a conservative, I understand that in America, we can never put on the brakes, we don’t have discretion, and there is always a group that pushes the law into someone else’s face.

The pilgrims I was taught, came to America because they did not like the improper things being taught to their children in the old country. They wanted to control their children’s moral upbringing.

In the US today, to the degree that homosexual marriage becomes legally protected, to that same degree it is pushed into the face of other people’s children. Mr. X., the kindly kindergarten teacher posts a picture of his spouse, and tells the little kiddies that one day you boys may find a good man to marry to. Somethng like this happened recently in these parts.

Can parents stop this overt influencing of their kids? Not in public school, without the protection of the amendment. This is already being inserted into textbooks all over the US, and there will be zero recourse soon, other than home-schooling, without this amenment.

Not far behind are the insertion of like sex marriage into public documents, public service ads, post office videos that are in your face from overhead tv monitors while you wait in line to buy stamps, etc.

People’s children will get the indoctrination, even if home schooled.

Second point: marriage is a male female business. People have seized upon that state, and decided to redefine it to cover their situation, but it is not the same, any more that polygamy is the same.

I do not see the stabilizing effect of same sex marriage that others see. I just look at the degeneracy in the gay rights parades, the movement towards lowering age of consent in the gay world, and the soft stance towards NAMBLA to not want to institutionalize this lifestyle.

If like sex couples want the privileges like inheritance etc, then pass a law for those privileges. Or set up a trust fund.

I recently read a quote from someone described as a leading gay rights lawyer in Canada who said there is room for religious freedom, or gay rights, but not both.

I see a ferocious trend in the gay community to suppress faiths that dissapprove, and to co-op and bend other sects to their new interpretation of the Bible.

I think those who say they are conservative, and pro-gay marriage, are more likely libertarian. Gay marriage goes against a trend of centuries. It is not ‘conservative’ but radical compared to human norms.

entagor on June 5, 2006 at 1:37 PM

Karl Rove: You are losing your touch. This is the best you can throw out? Gay marriage? Address immigration seriously.

tommy1 on June 5, 2006 at 1:47 PM

Everyone knows the best defense against illegal immigrants and terrorists are flag burning gay married couples……..

Bush hasn’t changed his colors, he has always been first and foremost for business. Throwing some crumbs to the religious right worked before, why blame Rove for thinking these folks are damned easy to fool?

honora on June 5, 2006 at 1:54 PM

Where we all of ya’ll a few weeks ago when I made the comment that gay marriage amendment is SO LOW on the totem pole??? I was totally chastised for saying that the United States has much bigger problems and issues to deal with than gay marriage. I was “put in my place” so to say and was told that this is such a CRITICAL issue, families will go to pot, all hell will break loose, moral corruption, blah, blah, blah. I’m glad to read here that more of ya’ll actually AGREE that this is a smokescreen to prevent us from seeing the REAL issues: immigration, tax reform, social security reform, to name a few. Don’t get me wrong, i’m not saying that i think gay marriage is necessarily a great thing – the only point i’m trying to make (and the point i was trying to make a few weeks back on a different thread) is that we should focus on things that affect EVERYONE. I would like an apology please. i am a woman scorned.

pullingmyhairout on June 5, 2006 at 2:26 PM

Mark Jaquith,
I believe you were on my side the last time we debated this issue. i AM a true conservative. I am in total agreement with you that limiting personal liberties is the antithesis of what is written in our constitution. Thank you!

pullingmyhairout on June 5, 2006 at 2:30 PM

I gave my solution to the gay marriage problem a long time ago. Apparently the world just isn’t ready yet!

Jim Treacher on June 5, 2006 at 3:07 PM

OK, for about 5 minutes I have taken my mind off our borders. For 5 minutes you have made some senses. Now that your 5 minutes are over, so may I ask again,

President Bush, what have you done to protect our border since this morning?

easy87us on June 5, 2006 at 3:08 PM

It’s getting to the point where every time a christian conservative opens his freaking stinkhole about how it’s not acceptable in this country anymore to be a christian or about how he’s being persecuted, I reflexively think about how McCain really may not be that bad after all.

And I REALLY don’t like that. We’re really caught between a rock and a hardon these days.

Mark V. on June 5, 2006 at 3:49 PM

I actually think that the only reason Bush has pushed for the FMA at all is because he knows it doesn’t have a prayer in ever passing. The reason to do it? Well, it helps him with his religious base while really only pissing off people who didn’t like him to begin with.

Most people in the middle are all for gay rights, civil unions, letting gay partners visit each other in the hospital, etc. The big problem is the word “marriage.” If gay groups sought the rights first (which is, at its base, the important thing to gays), without insisting on using the word marriage, polls would have almost 60% of the people behind them.

I also agree with what Bruce at GayPatriot said on the issue here and here.

Will on June 5, 2006 at 4:00 PM

I think there is a lot of confusion over “rights” versus “desire”. Originally marriage wasn’t a civil issue but a religious one.
The concept of equal protection to validate gay marriage is a non-starter. Homosexuals and lesbians currently have the same rights to marriage as anyone else in the country. Any gay man can marry the woman of his choice, any gay woman can marry the man of their choice.
Same as everybody else. Ergo no discrimination.
The traditional definition of marriage is a concept that requires a male and female in order to satisfy the requirements of what the definition of marriage is. To alter the male and female pairing basically redefines “marriage” into something other than the traditional definition and therefore becomes something other than marriage. Semantics actually.

That being said, I agree that there are more pressing issues at hand than this.

Cpilot on June 5, 2006 at 4:46 PM

The main thing is this is just such transparent election year patronizing. We haven’t heard about this FMA thing since the last time we were expected to officially re-empower the Republicans, two years ago. The issue wasn’t a factor for me then, and it’s not now, but I would hope that the people for whom it is aren’t going to buy this.

Alex K on June 5, 2006 at 4:48 PM

As for the blogosphere versus base, I think it’s somewhat disaggregate, at least on the right (but then I read more on the right). But I do think that there is something of a “metrocon” vibe among the rightwing blogs that is more moderate on social issues. And, with some honorable exceptions such as MM, much of the blogosphere has only gotten persistently interested in immigration in reaction to current events, whereas much of the base, at least in pertinent parts of the country, has been itching for this fight for years.

The one area where the bloggers and professional writers who blog are probably more pure than the base is in the size of government. I don’t get a sense that even base voters get really worked up over the absurd number of departments and entitlements and so forth. Whereas bloggers are philosophically ready to scrap it all if there was the political will to do anything about it. There may some real grumbling about spending throughout the base but I think it has more to do with debt and the specter of taxes than with philosophical objections to government.

The left blogs are certainly more to the left than Democratic voters on the whole, but more so than the left base? I think of the left base as a coalition of special interests, so I’m not sure you can get more left-wing than each of those interests when it comes to their particular issues. Is any given left blogger really as insane as the teacher unions are on their issue? Well, maybe some… The left blogs are certainly cruder, profaner and angrier than the comparable right blogs though, so maybe that contributes to the impression.

Alex K on June 5, 2006 at 5:03 PM

I did not attack you last time, But I will apologise for those that did :)
The difference is that now Bush is using it as a smoke screen to make people forget about the illegal issue.

marriage was a religous issue, Cpilot is dead on.

The state should not be concerned with marriage in any way,shape or form. Leave that to the religeous denominations. Now if some people want to write out a cohabitation contract which is ratified by the state and acknowledges right and privaledges of the parties involved… well, thats different.
Bottom line is, at this point in time it is nothing more then a smoke screen. It will not pass the senate (from what I have seen and heard) so it is a null issue. Their is still a lot to be said about it, being neither gay nor married I have probaly said too much already, but gosh darn it, I like the taste of my own foot!

Wyrd on June 5, 2006 at 5:36 PM

“Any gay man can marry the woman of his choice, any gay woman can marry the man of their choice.
Same as everybody else. Ergo no discrimination.”

Cpilot, well said!

“The state should not be concerned with marriage in any way,shape or form. Leave that to the religeous denominations”

Wyrd, good point. Trouble is, state uses the definition of marriage to launch all sorts of things, from social engineering requirements in school, to public service announcements that intentionally normalize the relationship in the name of ‘inclusiveness’.

I’ve been propagandized. I worked at a government agency where we had to sit through demonstrations of how to use a dental damn to have safe lesbian sex. Compulsory attendance. Paid for by tax dollars. To me offensive, not part of my job.I considered the forced instruction sex harrassment.

In this ‘inclusive’era, anything normalized has to be included in everything federal, pamphlet photos, government web sites. Your next tax instruction booklet could have examples like ‘If John and James are married , and both have a sub-chapter-s, etc…’ Being the government, it will have to be included.

Cpilot has the best answer. If we go beyond his logic, there is no end to pushing the envelope. It has already started.

entagor on June 5, 2006 at 9:01 PM

This whole Federal Marriage Amendment situation is nothing more than an attempt to write one particular religious viewpoint into law. Period. According to “Cpilot”: “The traditional definition of marriage is a concept that requires a male and female in order to satisfy the requirements of what the definition of marriage is.” Oh? Says who? Also according to “Cpilot”: “Homosexuals and lesbians currently have the same rights to marriage as anyone else in the country. Any gay man can marry the woman of his choice, any gay woman can marry the man of their choice. Same as everybody else. Ergo no discrimination.” And Negroes are free to use the “Blacks Only” water fountains, bathrooms and waiting rooms, right? No discrimination, right? I don’t know who is worse – the traitorous liberals or the bigoted conservatives. Oh, and for the record, I have no use for _any_ religion.

Rusty Bill on June 5, 2006 at 9:20 PM

Mark Jaquith on June 5, 2006 at 11:38 AM -/
– Did you think about or see what you wrote above-here? —–Gays, naturally having children?—–
-you wrote”Besides, many homosexuals have children naturally or via in vitro fertilization,” you’ll have to explain that one, the nature one.-
Yes they adopt now, but it’ll be a free-for-all if they carry a marriage license.
So anyway, how does that natural gay children thing work?

shooter on June 5, 2006 at 9:27 PM

Compromise on gay marriage:
1) State issues civil union licenses for everyone: gay and straight.
2) “Marriage” is exclusive domain of churches.
3) To get married, you first get the civil union license from the state, then find a priest/minister/rabbi, etc. to perform the religious part.
4) All legal aspects (insurance, survivor benefits, divorce provisions, even child custody) is based on civil union laws.
5) Seal the borders. We’re not buying this gay marriage diversion!!!

dman on June 5, 2006 at 9:38 PM

Well Rusty Bill, while you take issue with the common definition of marriage as an affront to your “sensibilities” I challenge you to consider what comes to ones mind when “marriage” is mentioned.
Now I’m sure with your agenda driven imagination you will absolutely deny the mental image that all people in this society have. That of a female bride in a gown and a male in a tuxedo.
However that is the image in our society that the word marriage evokes.

Why I’ll bet money that gay men and women have to mentally check themselves to alter the first mental image that comes to mind in order to alter it to their particular perspective.
As far as the “says who” argument, well it’s been a long time since I’ve been on a playground. So I’ll shoot for a mature reply.
The general consensus is that since marriage was originally a religious construct, and therefore defined marriage within the tenants of said religious beliefs, then I would say that they have a certain affinity to define it.
The state of relationships seem to be fairly well defined.
For instance you don’t call polygamists “multiple married”, or refer to them as “serial marriages” because these relationships fall outside of the definition of marriage….they are polygamists…plain and simple. People do live in these kinds of relationships…and they may consider themselves married. But society sees tham as something else because the nature of that relationship falls outside of the definition.
Under your logic we should be willing to redefine our concept of what society generally accepts as “marriage” to accomodate not only gay relationships but any other relationship with “consenting adults”.

I don’t find it logical. Sorry.

Cpilot on June 5, 2006 at 10:26 PM

Marriage is already a legal civil union. When marriage becomes a sacrament, it becomes part of a religious service. U.S. Jews, Christians and Muslim leaders are for keeping marriage between a man and a woman.

The Episcopal Church is going through some very heavy times over Gay issues including bishops/priests living openly with same sex partners and priests insisting that they have the right to bless gay unions (turning the union into a sacrament). Possible schism with the rest of The Christian Communion on the horizon over Gay rights.

I still like George Bush. He’s not perfect, but Gore or Kerry would have been a friggin’ nightmare.

Hening on June 5, 2006 at 10:29 PM

The Patriots: Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Henry — none of them perfect in their lives, yet all of them respectful and humble in their public references to “The Creator”. They used His principles to frame the foundations of this country. Lincoln, the Emancipator — also humble in all of his references to “My Maker” and his principles.

The God of Moses, the God of Christ, and the God of Ishmeal — all abhorred homosexuality. We think we are so culturally enlightened that we can take this issue lightly. Science, from the level of population growth, to anatomy, to the DNA level tells us clearly that same sex unions were not in the DESIGN for the family building blocks of society. You “enlightened” people better think twice before we spurn our Maker. I fear the natural consequences alone will take us down as a country. It already is.

We have got to rest our moral foundation on something better than what “seems” to us as right. All the arguments gay people make for thier lifestyle can be made for murder, stealing,lying. Maybe I was just a natural born murderer, thief, and liar, and ya’ll are just discriminating against my right to be the way I was born. We are discriminating agains natural businessment like Kenneth Lay who need the right to suck money away from the little people.

I am very concerned by the nonchalant acceptance of homosexuality as no different than being black or white — especially among people I am fighting along side for the salvation of this country. The constitution of this country was so good because it was built on the principles of the God these people were seeking. It was devotion, however imperfect, to the timeless true principles of an eternal God that made this country strong. If we forget that, no written document is going to hold us together as a country.

I respect the wisdom and intelligence of this group, but I am saddened in the realization that what I have written will fall flat in here, and be seen as politically ignorant and intellectually simple tripe. Our democracy can only be as strong as the moral fiber of the individuals in it — and without God, we are indeed a lost nation.

CountryDoc on June 6, 2006 at 2:04 AM

Isn’t using religeon as a means of controlling what people can and can not do what the Muslims are doing now?

Solomon had 700 wives, why was Polygymy good for him and bad now?
Morality can be taught with out religeon. it almost has to. Why is a catholics morality superior to Sharias, or Baptist, or Mormon?
It is only superior in context of the society one lives in. In America we have freedom to choose any religeon, or none. Under that system can you pigeon hole moralty? The mormons are a great example. Most of the Mormons I know are good people. They are not drug abusers, alchaolics, or murderers. Yet their view of morality is wrong because it does not mirror the founders vision? Isn’t that at odds with the freedom of religeon?
I understand where you are coming from Country Doc. I agree that their is a definite need for morality. But is religeon the only way to be moral? I am an athiest yet I have risked my life protecting strangers. I am not a thief, nor a substance abuser. I was brought up with a good moral code that borrows from religeon, but is not restrained by it.
Would it interest you to know how many rapeist, child molestors, crack addicts etc that I have met that go to church at least once a week?
Morality begins at home with a loving family who is not afraid to discipline a child when it is needed. Religeon can be a guidebook, but it is not the only path to morality. Perhaps in moderation it is good. but when a person becomes a fanatic then religeon is warped and twisted out of control. The baptist minister shouting at dead soldiers saying that god killed them because america loves gays comes to mind, as do the precepts of Sharia.

Religeon is a very complex issue, with a million different arguments for and against it. In America we have the right to choose any argument we want in regards to it. But does anyone have a right to force their views on another? (yes, their are a lot of problems with this line of thought also)

On the bright side, world war three will make most of these questions moot.

Wyrd on June 6, 2006 at 7:16 AM

The principal argument for this amendment is that gay marriage devalues traditional marriage. Fair enough. Then why, pray tell, can’t the President and other proponents see that illegal immigration devalues citizenship?

dman on June 6, 2006 at 7:55 AM

Sorry but Jorge is throwing us a bone! He’s so screwed up immigration, spending etc that it’s his last hope to pull this flameout of a presidency from sinking into the teens!

If he really cared about this issue, what’s he been doing for the past 6 years! I mean besides clearing brush from the ranch!

God I miss Ronnie!!! Newt ’08!

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on June 6, 2006 at 9:54 AM

I’ve read through several of the posts here and there is a range of opinions on this issue. Some are humorous, some are serious. I take the more serious side and would like to alert all of you as to Why We Fight For Traditional Marriage

I hope that many here will take a moment to read some or all of the Artile 8 Alliance/Massresistance emails posted at my Talkwisdom message board. They vividly will show you what legalizing “gay” marriage leads to… And…what it leads to is not good!!

I guarantee that you will see that Massachusetts has become the “indoctrination gone wild” state of homosexual activism!!

Christian friends…do we really want this in California?

Or, if you live elsewhere…in your home state?

After reading and seeing all of the email notices, messages, blogposts and links, is there any doubt that the threat of “gay” marriage legalization is a serious issue(that is, unfortunately, currently ‘legal’ in Mass. due to a radical left-wing loonie activist judge) that needs to be protected from activist judges and stopped through a Constitutional Amendment?

And, if you are mistakenly of the mindset that the traditional marriage protection issue is about “civil rights” for homosexual individuals, please read this excellent article in The Weekly Standard called, Same-Sex Marriage: Hijacking the Civil Rights Legacy.

President Bush was absolutely right when he stated:

“Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization, and it should not be redefined by activist judges. For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, marriage is also critical to the health of society…This national question requires a national solution. And on the issue of such profound importance, that solution should not come from the courts, but from the people of the United States. An amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our nation with no other choice. When judges insist on imposing their arbitrary will on the people, the only alternative left to the people is an amendment to the Constitution, the only law a court cannot overturn.”

If you don’t believe that this is a very important issue of our time, then you haven’t been paying any attention to the radical homosexualization indoctrination going on in our public schools and in our courts. Massachusetts is the “poster boy state” for closing the door on “gay” marriage through a Constitutional Amendment. We must do this for the sakes of our children and grandchildren…

Christinewjc on June 6, 2006 at 1:03 PM

50% of all (traditional) marriages end in divorce. And the big threat to “the well being of families” is….gay marriage. Alrighty then.

honora on June 6, 2006 at 1:23 PM

50% of all marriages end in divorce because marriage itself has been devalued for 50 years.
It’s easy to get into and, if you don’t have children, easy to get out of.
Redefining it will only devalue it further.

Cpilot on June 6, 2006 at 1:37 PM

I think the issue of illegal immigration is very important. MM has done a very good service to keep this issue in the open. Based on information from this blog I wrote snail mail letters to the office of the President and my Senators and Representative and made small contributions to Tom Tancredo’s PAC and the Minutemen and sent out emails to encourage others to do the same and explained to phone solicitors why I would not contribute directly to the RNC.

I believe President Bush is wrong on the illegal immigration/amnesty issue. But I believe we are a much safer country because he is president rather than Gore or Kerry. Compared to the alternatives: we have lower taxes; we are not under the Kyoto Treaty; major terrorist activity has been kept down in our country; the new Supreme Court judges are more conservative…etc.

I believe President Bush is right in his support for traditional marriage. But the problem is not the Constitution; it is the activist judges. No matter what the Constitution says or does not say they seem to be able to twist it to legislate matters contrary to the intents of the founders. During the first hundred years of our nation (and before) homosexual acts and abortion were illegal – and neither the founders nor those immediately after them noticed this was contrary to the Constitution.

More important than that is what the Bible says. Our founders had reverence for the Bible. Based on their predominately Christian view of life they made the foundation for what has become the most free, most strong, and most wealthy nation the world has known.

Whether one believes in God and the Bible is irrelevant in some matters just as whether one believes in gravity or not is irrelevant in some matters. If one steps off a tall building the result is the same regardless of the belief or lack of belief.

Consider what is said in the third book of the Bible – Leviticus 18:22-25 (NAS):
22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
23 Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.
24 Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled.
25 For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants.

roydee43 on June 6, 2006 at 2:42 PM

Consummation of a couple married gay guys is SICK by any standard. So, which one gets pregnant? Marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of love and propagation, not sexual gratification.

gary on June 6, 2006 at 5:29 PM