| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
10 Sep 2004 02:19:29 AM |
| Object: |
Sept 9, 2004 Family Research Council Rant |
Washington State a Warning for Washington, D.C.?
Earlier this week, a second county judge in Washington State ruled in favor
of "same-sex marriage" on the basis that the state's Marriage Protection Act
(which defines marriage as between one man and one woman) violated
Washington State's Constitution. This is despite the fact that the act
passed the state legislature with vast public support - even overriding the
governor's veto. The two cases will likely be consolidated for appeal to the
state Supreme Court. The first line of the judge's decision on Tuesday is in
direct conflict with the rest of his opinion.
Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks states in his introductory remarks that
"the first constitutional principle is that under our form of government the
supreme power belongs to the people who are to be governed." Yet this judge
concludes that the morality of one class of people somehow surpasses what
society, and an overwhelmingly bipartisan majority of elected officials, has
determined to be the definition of marriage and the best environment for
children.
These court decisions in Washington State and elsewhere should send a clear
warning to elected officials nationwide and to the American people that
defending marriage statutorily no longer guarantees marriage's safety from
judges with a clear agenda. Only by writing the definition of marriage into
the U.S. Constitution can we guarantee that marriage will be protected and
children will have the best opportunity to be raised in the ideal family
situation.
Euthanasia Gaining Momentum in Holland
On August 30, the Netherlands chose to further the culture of death by
legalizing the euthanization of children under 12. In fact, reports indicate
that death by lethal injection is becoming commonplace for sick children in
the Netherlands.
Natural law, divine law, and positive law all recognize the inviolability of
human rights. The Dutch, however, have now officially declared that a child
with a grave illness has no value and, as such, is not a bearer of human
rights. At present, this practice has been endorsed to put an end to
"unbearable suffering." In reality, this just brings us to another slippery
slope. Is the real concern a patient's suffering or what they will cost to
keep alive? Given that modern medicine provides excellent palliative care,
we're inclined to think that the pocket book has very unfortunately won this
battle. But the Netherlands are not the first to euthanize children. In
modern history, the Nazis had a policy of euthanizing German children as a
means of eugenics.
Protecting innocent life has been a battle in the past and is so today. We
must remain vigilant in our efforts to build a culture of life - one in
which every human life is respected, from conception to natural death. The
situation in the Netherlands should remind us of our grave responsibility.
Thousands Nationwide Taking a Firm Stand for the Family
I'm encouraged by the response we're seeing around the county - the
grassroots are engaging in the battle for the protection of the family.
This past Tuesday evening, over 13,000 people came out in Raleigh, NC, for
the second "Stand for Family" rally sponsored by Focus on the Family Action
and FRC Action. And it's looking as though our next simulcast scheduled for
Sunday, Sept. 19th, will be a larger audience than the previous two.
I believe pro-family voters will be critical to the outcome of November's
elections. We must remain continue to build momentum. We have four more
"Stand for Family" rallies scheduled this fall. Two are scheduled in
Louisiana in late September and two in South Dakota in early October. You
can get all the details for these rallies and the Sept. 19th Battle for
Marriage simulcast by visiting the links below.
Additional Resources
Stand for the Family Rallies
http://www.frc.org/index.cfm?i=LK04I23&f=WU04I10&t=e
September 19 Battle for Marriage Simulcast
http://www.frc.org/index.cfm?i=LK04I24&f=WU04I10&t=e
.
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Sept 9, 2004 Family Research Council Rant |
10 Sep 2004 06:29:36 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Washington State a Warning for Washington, D.C.?
Earlier this week, a second county judge in Washington State ruled in
favor of "same-sex marriage" on the basis that the state's Marriage
Protection Act (which defines marriage as between one man and one
woman) violated Washington State's Constitution. This is despite the
fact that the act passed the state legislature with vast public
support - even overriding the governor's veto.
When will these guys learn that Public Support <> Constitutional Law?
--
__________________________________
"Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes
up. It knows it must run faster than the
fastest lion or it will be killed...every morning
a lion wakes up it knows it must outrun the
slowest gazelle or it will starve to death. It
doesn't matter whether you are a lion or a
gazelle...when the sun comes up, you'd
better be running."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Sept 9, 2004 Family Research Council Rant |
10 Sep 2004 11:38:34 AM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES> wrote in message
news:Aeg0d.12010$w%6.8056@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
tock@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Washington State a Warning for Washington, D.C.?
Earlier this week, a second county judge in Washington State ruled in
favor of "same-sex marriage" on the basis that the state's Marriage
Protection Act (which defines marriage as between one man and one
woman) violated Washington State's Constitution. This is despite the
fact that the act passed the state legislature with vast public
support - even overriding the governor's veto.
When will these guys learn that Public Support <> Constitutional Law?
They won't. I think they all skipped their Civics classes for bible
brainwashing, er, study. I remember hearing the same idiotic rants in the
'60s when they had their titties in a wringer about interracial marriages.
But it is kind of amusing to watch their pointy little heads spin every time
they're reminded how the legal system works.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Sept 9, 2004 Family Research Council Rant |
10 Sep 2004 05:41:36 PM |
|
|
Dennis Kemmerer <dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES> wrote in message
news:Aeg0d.12010$w%6.8056@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
tock@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Washington State a Warning for Washington, D.C.?
Earlier this week, a second county judge in Washington State ruled
in favor of "same-sex marriage" on the basis that the state's
Marriage Protection Act (which defines marriage as between one man
and one woman) violated Washington State's Constitution. This is
despite the fact that the act passed the state legislature with
vast public support - even overriding the governor's veto.
When will these guys learn that Public Support <> Constitutional Law?
They won't. I think they all skipped their Civics classes for bible
brainwashing, er, study. I remember hearing the same idiotic rants in
the '60s when they had their titties in a wringer about interracial
marriages.
But it is kind of amusing to watch their pointy little heads spin
every time they're reminded how the legal system works.
True..
--
__________________________________
"Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes
up. It knows it must run faster than the
fastest lion or it will be killed...every morning
a lion wakes up it knows it must outrun the
slowest gazelle or it will starve to death. It
doesn't matter whether you are a lion or a
gazelle...when the sun comes up, you'd
better be running."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Sept 9, 2004 Family Research Council Rant |
10 Sep 2004 06:16:24 AM |
|
|
In article <5Ac0d.9624$yp2.4558@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>,
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Washington State a Warning for Washington, D.C.?
Earlier this week, a second county judge in Washington State ruled in
favor
of "same-sex marriage" on the basis that the state's Marriage Protection
Act
(which defines marriage as between one man and one woman) violated
Washington State's Constitution. This is despite the fact that the act
passed the state legislature with vast public support - even overriding
the
governor's veto. The two cases will likely be consolidated for appeal to
the
state Supreme Court. The first line of the judge's decision on Tuesday is
in
direct conflict with the rest of his opinion.
Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks states in his introductory remarks that
"the first constitutional principle is that under our form of government
the
supreme power belongs to the people who are to be governed." Yet this
judge
concludes that the morality of one class of people somehow surpasses what
society, and an overwhelmingly bipartisan majority of elected officials,
has
determined to be the definition of marriage and the best environment for
children.
These court decisions in Washington State and elsewhere should send a
clear
warning to elected officials nationwide and to the American people that
defending marriage statutorily no longer guarantees marriage's safety from
judges with a clear agenda. Only by writing the definition of marriage
into
the U.S. Constitution can we guarantee that marriage will be protected
Like saying giving blacks the right to vote threatened white rights.
and
children will have the best opportunity to be raised in the ideal family
situation.
Is it better they be raised in a foster home, or an orphanage? By abusive
parents?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Sept 7, 2004 Family Research council Rant, or "Proof God is Dead"
Sept 1, 2004 Family Research council Rant
Sept 2, 2004 Family Research Council Rant
Sep 10 2004 Family Research Council Rant
June 2 2004 Latest findings from the Family Research Council
Sep 8, 2004 Family Research Council Rant
Family Research Council Rant Aug 26, 2004
June 22, 2004 Family Research Council Madness -- yet more anit-gay blather
| July 21 2004 Family Research Council Rant . . . fyi . . .
16 Sep 2004 Family Research Council Rant
Family Research Council madness . . . june 1, 2004
More rantings from the Family Research Council June 25, 2004 (7 months to Xmas, btw)
July 9 2004 Family Research council rant
Latest "research results" from the Family Research Council -- June 16, 2004
July 15 2004 Family Research Council Rant -- "A Cunning Plan"
|
|
|
