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.

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…

Considering the President’s failure to control spending, reshape Social Security, rally the nation in support of the Iraq war, confront Latin American dictators, and face down the Iranians, the Republicans need a flag around which they can gather the …

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!

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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!

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.

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

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.

If the President simply wants to say he is still the man we elected in 2004, perhaps there is a better way of saying it. If he is trying to make up for his stand on the immigration issue, he is treading on some bigger corns there, and those don’t heal…

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