Blame the Supreme Court. Again. They made a federal case out of homosexual “marriage.” On July 15, the Senate will debate the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), which reads:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
Homosexuals currently enjoy the same civil rights as the rest of us, but marriage is not a civil right. Homosexual “marriage” has never been a civil right in America or any civilized society. Restrictions are placed on who can marry whom. Minors can’t consent to marriage. A person can’t marry someone else while they’re married. You can’t marry your dog or cat. And a man can’t marry a man, and a woman can’t marry a woman.
Homosexuals can form all the unions they want, with several different people if they desire. Who cares? But what they really want is not traditional marriage but something unrelated to it. I believe their true purpose is merely to shock and mock traditional-minded and God-fearing folks and parade in public what should be kept private.
They even have the gall to equate sexual perversion with skin color. I get nauseated every time I hear/read about blacks, especially those professing Christ, supporting such an abomination.
Now that it’s clear what I think of homosexual “marriage,” I have to confess that I don’t support the FMA. First of all, the amendment will never be approved. Amending the Constitution is very difficult because it requires such a broad national consensus. The drafters made certain of it. For example:
— Two-thirds of each house of Congress must approve the amendment.
— If every Republican senator voted for the FMA, 16 Democrats would have to vote for it.
— If every Republican congressman voted for it, 60 Democratic votes would have to vote for it.
— Three-fourths of the states would have to ratify it.m
Some states can (and will) refuse to vote on the FMA or reject it outright. If 13 states do either of those things, the amendment is dead. The second way to amend the Constitution is if two-thirds of the states call for a Convention and the FMA is ratified by three-fourths of the states. Good luck with all that. On the other hand, an amendment would prevent unaccountable judges from forcing new laws on the rest of us and rights never envisioned by the Constitution.
Another reason I don’t support the FMA is because marriage laws should be determined by the states. We already have The Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton, which preserves states’ rights and goes far enough in protecting traditional marriage by allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex “marriages” performed by other states. Former Congressman Robert Barr wrote an interesting op-ed about this issue.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause also protects states’ rights. States are not compelled to recognize the laws of another state. If rogue judges give their stamp of approval on such an incomprehensible offense as homosexual “marriage,” other states may recognize such unions as legal or not.
I highly recommend Kathleen Parker’s latest column and President Bush’s remarks.
A frightening consequence of legalizing so-called same-sex marriage is that perverts will have another reason to prey on children. Joe over at Evangelical Outpost blogged about this back in March. Boys as young as 14 can marry with parental consent. I’m certain that plenty of shiftless and immoral parents would…I don’t even want to think about it! The deviants at the North American Man/Boy Love Association would be ecstatic.
God forbid it.
