Update II (06/06/06): Did Lawrence v. Texas get the “gay marriage” ball rolling?
Update (3:02 p.m.): Ann Coulter will appear on Pundit Review Radio this Sunday, and she’ll probably discuss homosexual “marriage,” illegal “immigration,” and her new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism.
Listen live on WRKO in Boston.
I’ve added Ann’s book to my Amazon Wish List (hint, hint…)
Tomorrow morning I’ll participate in a bloggers conference call with Senator Rick Santorum, who supports the Federal Marriage Amendment.
————————————————————————————————————————–
Now that George Bush and his co-president Vicente Fox of Mexico have got their America-destroying “immigration” plan working its way through a “deballed” Senate, Bush is trying to throw his base dogs a bone with a homosexual “marriage” ban amendment to the Constitution.
Bush has the wherewithal to fight to change the freakin’ Constitution, yet when it comes to stopping illegal aliens from crossing the border, he has no fight in him to execute laws already on the books? OK.
Politicians are so transparent. The midterm elections are quickly approaching (can you believe 2006 is half over?), and Bush is trying to appease angry conservatives and Christians by pushing this amendment. It’s an empty and meaningless gesture because the thing will never be ratified.
I no longer support or defend Bush, and I don’t support a “gay marriage ban” amendment to the Constitution. One doesn’t have anything to do with the other, however. My support for such an amendment waned and weakened a couple of years ago even when I thought Bush loved this country. In The Nationalization of Marriage, I argued against it on procedural and “states rights” grounds, and reminded people that Bill “Slick Willie” Clinton already managed to pass marriage-protecting legislation. Ironic, isn’t it? 
From the post:
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.
I suspect many disappointed conservatives will rally around the president on this issue. While Bush attempts to sound conservative, remember that his 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 (more importantly, Third World-retaining) 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.
If you’re reading this blog, King George, this is what I think of you and your proposed amendment:
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Sources:
- Gay Marriage Ban Short of Votes in Senate
- Gay Marriage to the Rescue!
- Gay marriage creates new conflicts for neighbors
- Protecting marriage: The battle dawns
- Politics of the Altar
- Bush expected to jump-start debate over same-sex marriage
Have you blogged about this topic? Trackback, and I’ll link to your post.
Bloggers: Fellow Christian Randy Thomas and I disagree on the marriage amendment but agree on almost everything else. I appreciate his work with Exodus International. Once caught up in the homosexual lifestyle, Randy travels and shares his testimony about the healing power of Christ.
Glenn Reynolds, who supports “gay marriage,” says:
There are times when I’ve found Bush’s transparent lack of enthusiasm for this measure [the proposed ban] comforting, but of course it just makes it more obviously pandering when they trot it out at this point. Or maybe I should say “attempted pandering,” since if LaShawn’s reaction is typical it’s not a very successful effort.
The Moderate Voice, Scott Ott’s proposed amendment wouldn’t pass in 1,000 lifetimes, but I like it. 
, Opposing Arguments, Inoperable Terran, The Dragon and the Phoenix (cool blog name!), The Reid Report, Thoughts from a lack of sleep (another good one), Adam’s Blog, Ron’s Random Ruminations, Cagey Mind, The Political Pit Bull, All Things Beautiful…
So long as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) holds, there’s no need for a Constitutional amendment that would directly interfere in the affairs of the states. It does appear as though the DOMA will hold, and if it doesn’t, only then is it time to consider the possibility of amending the Constitution. To create a preemptive amendment to deal with a potential court case seems to be overkill to me.
Homosexual blogger and “marriage” supporter Andrew Sullivan, with whom I had a brief e-mail exchange on this issue last year, writes:
By spear-heading the FMA again, Bush has alienated a vast swathe of socially inclusive suburbanites, the veep’s daughter, every gay person and many of their families, libertarians, constitutional conservatives and principled federalists. But he’s won over the fire-breathers, right? It turns out: Not even them any more. When you’ve lost LaShawn Barber, things aren’t looking too good.
Don’t stand too close to the flames!
Say Anything, an atheist, says:
I oppose a marriage amendment to the Constitution, mostly because I think that marriage is something that should be decided by the voters/legislators of the various states. I don’t want judges deciding the issue for everyone, but nor do I want to deny the citizens of California or Massachusettes their right to allow or deny gay marriage depending upon the will of the voters.
{ 59 comments }
← Previous Comments
#62 W Brady and #67 Stover do not permit the possibility of marriage being a “value centered” institution. W. Brady asks (and Stover echoes): “Has anyone presented an (sic) fact based argument as to why gay marriage “destroys†traditional marriage?
What naturally follows this false cause in logic is to substitute “gay marriage” with a long list of other possibilities. To wit: multiple spouses, father and son, mother and daughter, man and monkey, multiple gays, men and little boys, cats and dogs, etc.
Some liberals will go out on any limb, no matter how weak to attack the established order.
Perhaps marriage has out lived its usefulness and the state should get out of the business of recognizing it. Let child custody, inheritance, parental responsibility, spousal abuse, desertion, dual contracts and the rest all be decided on television in the people’s court presided over by Ophrah Winfrey, Jerry Springer and Madonna.
Gay marriage is the leading edge of recognizing homosexuality as a civil right. Once established, why shouldn’t homosexual sex be taught by an expert practitioner in school health classes as a vibrant and uplifting form of mutual gratification that only the prissy Puritans oppose?
Most of us know gay people and enjoy their friendship. Most of us are related to gay people. Most of us have learned to live with the reality of gay unions. Many of us even have a a friend who is a total “flamer.” But most of the gays we know are not militant “queer nation” types. In sum, we have carved out our treaties for mutual respect. That is why “civil unions” seem to be more readily accepted.
Marriage is clearly a values centered concept. If you don’t believe that, you are out of the societal loop. Sweden has successfully shattered the institution of marriage. Study up on their problems if you want to know more about the model of unbridled liberalism gone amok.
Nope, didn’t get to see Ann. I’ll try to download a recording from the MSNBC site.
>>I care very much about defending marriage, but I oppose amending the Constitution to do it…>>
Given the position of activist judges, what would you propose as a solution?
Heliotrope argues that marriage is “values centered.” What does that mean? How does a “values lifestyle” exclude gays? Honestly, it seems that people against gay marriage are against a gay lifestyle and want to eradicate it. But how–and this is the key question–does allowing gays to be gay or marry gays, affect YOUR lifestyle? Its like saying (which I hope you wouldn’t) that Jewish or agnostic values are different from Catholic values and that you need to legislate against the Jewish/agnostic lifestyle to save yours. My point is that there is a potential for harmonious cultures. Absent a reason my gay marriage “destroys” traditional marriage, just let them marry. Be nice and tolerant, partiularly of people you will never see or know. No?
As to the slippery slope argument, there need not be a link between gay marriage and any other sort of marriage. If for instance polygamy came up as an issue, anyone can easily identify why its harmful to society. [For one thing, it is bad for women in the marriages]. Notably–and this is my entire point–there is no similar argument for gay marriage.
Is it really that allowing gays to get married will lead people to marry monkeys? Is that all you can come up with? You can’t draw a line? Who wants to marry a monkey? What would that even entail? How would the taxes work? I’d propose we draw the line at some sort of socially accepted norm, like the courts do all the time in cases of discrimination and punishment. What does society tolerate? Now, there are estimates that 5-10% of the population is gay. To me, within limits which I think our current laws cover, that deserves respect. When 5-10% of the population wants to marry chickens or have 5 wives, I’ll listen and probably be able to come up with good reasons to reject the idea.
So, in any case, I hope when congress proposes the anti-man monkey marriage amendment, you can come up with a better argument then allowing men to marry monkeys will allow men to marry fish, which, of course, your values just couldn’t tolerate.
Thanks. Before I can digest it, the argument is as follows:
1) Allowing gay marriages encourages gayness, which is bad for society.
2) Endorsing gay marriages gives others a weakened perception of marriage, which presumably, in turn, leads to fewer and/or weaker marriages and weaker families.
Is there anything else? This is by no means obvious. Can you quantify the harm?
To all, my apologies, I did not intend to offend anyone by posting a quote containing the “f” word. Afraid my years in the Army left me somewhat desensitized about the “f” word.
For the record, I dont think either of the 2 arguments I wrote above are valid, particularly number one. I was asking for clarification. In fact, I think that the less exclusive and combattive the institution of marriage is, the more stable it it will be. Not to say I even think marriage is such a good thing in many cases.
W. Brady writes: “Honestly, it seems that people against gay marriage are against a gay lifestyle and want to eradicate it.”
Wrong!. The gay lifestyle is firmly implanted from next door to Key West, Mardi Gras or Fire Island. Television even offers the “queer eye for the straight guy.”
Understand that the gay lifestyle is grounded in physical sex (carnal knowledge) between people of the same sex. Since gay sex, by definition, is barren sex (not possible to produce offspring) there is no particular reason for society to concern itself about legitimacy, near blood relationships, age or even multiple partners. (Unless you want to introduce “values” into the discussion.)
You pose the idea that being against gay marriage is tantamount to wishing for the eradication of gays. Nice try, but Hitler I am not.
I simply do not see why the definition of marriage that has been around for eons should be expanded to include gays? What benefit does society derive from it?
I know what the agenda is for gays: homosexuality is a civil right and carries all the rights and privileges accorded those who qualify for affirmative action, Americans with disabilities, those interned during WWII, Native Americans, military veterans, etc.
All across the country we find men and women who “live together” and produce offspring without being married. All across the country we find gays who “live together” without being married. Both groups borrow money as “couples” for houses and enjoy the benefits of the fair housing acts. Both groups enjoy being free from government harassment.
What is the necessity of gays being married other than to establish a civil rights foothold? What is so magical about chipping away at the meaning of marriage? “Where’s the beef?”
Its good for gays to get married: 1) they want to and allowing them to do so would make them happy, 2) many of the benefits of marriage would benefit gays, 3) the gesture of including them would break down painful cultural divides 4) it would promote stability and benefit children of gay couples. Need I go on?
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 21 trackbacks }