Off Topic Forums > Off Topic Forum

Marriage Protection Amendment

(1/3) > >>

Joe K:
Must be a voting year, because those tired old GOPs are bringing out the demons to provide the smoke and mirrors to hide their own ineptness.  Even still, Congress is debating this Amendment right now and in what is possibly one of the best analysis of this whole debacle, I present the following column from today's edition of the Sun-Sentinel.

Don't enshrine discrimination

None of the major arguments supporters cite holds up to light of reason.

By William Butte
Posted June 5 2006

Is same-sex marriage a sin, or a civil right?

This divisive question is the crux of a fierce debate the Senate will have this week concerning the fallacious Marriage Protection Amendment, the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- designed not to protect marriage but enshrine discrimination, by outlawing marriage or "the legal incidence thereof" for committed same-sex couples, thereby turning millions of Americans into second-class citizens.

The amendment -- defeated 50-48 by senators in 2004 as the Federal Marriage Amendment -- is the handiwork of the Arlington Group, described in The Wall Street Journal as "an umbrella alliance of 60 religious conservative groups" that banded together in 2003.

Conservative? Members include the Rev. Lou Sheldon, who claims gays and lesbians need "an exorcism" (in other words, gays are demon-possessed), and Dr. D. James Kennedy, president of Coral Ridge Ministries, whose former vice president, George Grant, wrote Legislating Immorality, a sermonic tome which includes a fire-and-brimstone rant on our nation's long abandonment of a Scripture-inspired death penalty for homosexuality.

Republicans, facing Nixonian approval ratings as midterm elections approach and desperately seeking votes, are more than willing to pander to our modern-day Puritans and their homophobic fears.

To that end, Senate Republicans who favor the MPA will offer four easily dismissible reasons why they support it.

First, amendment supporters will claim that wedded same-sex couples will destroy the "traditional" and "natural" definition of marriage between one man and one woman. But historically, marriage has more often been polygamous than monogamous.

(Speaking of which, why are these moralists so outraged about 7,000 legally married same-sex couples in Massachusetts, yet strangely silent about the estimated 50,000 Americans living throughout the West in outlawed polygamous marriages, many involving underage girls? Even more curiously, why does the proposed amendment define marriage as "a union of a man and a woman" (emphasis added), without a numerical limit? Is that a concession by the Arlington Group for any of its members who might hold Scripture-fueled polygamous beliefs?)

The amendment's supporters will next argue the will of the majority should prevail. But this is the same morally bankrupt argument that kept Jim Crow laws in place for decades, making interracial marriage a felonious offense in numerous states only 50 years ago.

Perhaps recalling that taint to our nation's history, a poll by Peter D. Hart Research Associates taken in April revealed the will of the majority of respondents, 63 percent, rejected the idea of amending the Constitution to deny committed same-sex couples the right to marry.

The third assertion will be to deny the amendment is discriminatory, with supporters rebuffing the idea that denying marriage to same-sex couples violates a civil right, since they believe a same-sex couple in love -- the one word amendment supporters will shun -- is "a behavior," "a choice" or "a lifestyle." But in 1967, when the Supreme Court struck down existing state anti-miscegenation laws barring interracial marriages, they declared those laws indeed violated a civil right to marriage.

And as MPA supporters know, the Supreme Court's 2003 decision striking down existing state sodomy laws jeopardizes state laws restricting marriage to heterosexual couples, hence the rush to push this discriminatory amendment.

The fourth -- and for virtually all amendment backers the most important -- reason for their unwavering support is their fervent belief that same-sex marriage is immoral and contradicts God's will for marriage as an institution for procreation. But we don't outlaw marriage for either the infertile or nonbelievers. And all Judeo-Christians -- as well as modern secular society -- ignore many things Scripture both condemns and embraces, just as they ignore the fact that they ignore certain irreconcilable verses.

As examples, Bible-followers who are parents don't kill their disobedient children, although Scripture commands them three different times to do so (Ex. 21:17, Lev. 20:9, Deut. 21:18-21). In America, we don't put people to death for working on the Sabbath (Ex. 31:15, Num. 15:32-36). We don't stone mediums (Lev. 20:27). We don't allow for slaves, or their brutal beatings (1Peter 2:18-21). And we also ignore the verses that say people who divorce and remarry are committing adultery (Mark 10:11-12).

Imagine the public outcry if these religious moralizers were pushing an amendment to ban divorce. That is, however, one of their future goals.

Legal experts are already arguing whether, if passed, the MPA could be used to prevent states from legally recognizing civil unions or domestic partnerships, or bar committed same-sex (or even unmarried heterosexual) couples from things like shared health benefits, insurance coverage, or making life-and-death decisions for each in hospital emergency rooms -- already legal issues in states with similarly amended constitutions.

The civil rights of millions of Americans -- including the right to either marry their loved one or divorce -- shouldn't be held hostage by a theocratic group of extremists, whose stone-casting sin is exemplified by this reprehensible amendment.

The Canuck:

--- Quote ---Members include the Rev. Lou Sheldon, who claims gays and lesbians need "an exorcism" (in other words, gays are demon-possessed)
--- End quote ---

This Rev. is the type I call '' lobotomised pea brain ''..his IQ = undetectable.  8)

The Canuck

Moffie65:
Lately, I have been answering many of the narrow minded of this neighborhood, with the simple exclamation, " If your Jesus/God is so all fired in favor of the protection of Marriage, then why the hell did he spend three years, traveling around the Eastern Mediterranean with no wife, no girlfriend, very long hair, a dress and twelve boy friends"?  I think a totally legitimate observation/question.

In Shock and Awe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jack:
Joe, all I have heard in recent days is that this stands absolutely no chance of passing. I think Bush is doing everyone who supports gay marriage a favor. He is shining the big light on this, and discrimination usually loses in the US when you shine the light on it. We have no idea if he is doing this because polls say people desperately want this, or if he is using it to take attention away from his disaster in nation building,or if he really thinks gay marriage needs to be banned because of his religious beliefs.
I will bring this subject up occasionally during political discussions or arguments in groups of people,who are republicans, and I have yet to hear anyone say they support this ban. Most of these people are not the far christian types, so i guess its a biased sample, but I say it turns off most conservative types because it smells like discrimination.
I believe if you are for gay marriage,you should want Bush talking about this ban everyday. The dude fucks up everything and he will fuck this up too.

aztecan:
Hey Joe,

Great column. I think it puts exposes the fallacies of this proposal pretty well.

This is just a blatant attempt by Bush to bring out the conservatives and get them to the polls, the old "god, gays and guns" thing.

Tim, honey, you are priceless. May I borrow that response?

HUGS,

Mark

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version