It would appear that the homosexuals are severly over-represented in
this newsgroup.
The fact is, if the majority of the citizens decide to pass this
amendment, it will be the law of the land.

They will do so if they believe it is in the best interests of the
nation.

It would appear that the homosexuals are severly over-represented in this
newsgroup.
The fact is, if the majority of the citizens decide to pass this
amendment, it will be the law of the land.

They will do so if they believe it is in the best interests of the nation.

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 12:03:24 -0800, "N. Czerniak" <Nate57@cox.net> wrote:

http://www.newhavenregister.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11050509&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=7581&rfi=6

No one can explain how gays are such a horrible threat by John D.
Anderson
March 2, 2004

Britney Spears and President Bush believe in the sanctity of marriage.
She said so after she got married as a joke in Las Vegas. Bush said so
in his State of the Union speech. This is America, so they are both free
to believe what they want, however disingenuous it sounds in her case and
is beginning to sound in his case.

But none of this has anything to do with the current move to extend legal
marriage to gays and lesbians. We want recognition from the state.
Sanctity is not a legal concern.

Bush seems to think that, like the Roman emperors, his role includes the
function of Pontifex Maximus. This isn't Rome. He was elected to be
president, not high priest. His concerns for the sanctity of marriage are
extraneous to the interpretation of law. No one is suggesting that the
Massachusetts court or any other courts require faith communities to
extend their religious ceremonial where they do not choose.

I've paid careful attention to print media and television whenever there
was a discussion of same-gender marriage.

Robert Wenz of the National Association of Evangelicals a few weeks ago
spoke of marriage "as God designed it" and "God's biological design for
marriage." Bryant Gumbel asked Wenz what the consequences of gays
marrying would be. Wenz just said there was a need to protect marriage.
He never said from what.

James Dobson of Focus on the Family sent a February direct-mail appeal
saying homosexuals were about to "administer a devastating and
potentially fatal blow to the traditional family."

I don't know what this means, but I'm reminded of that period in our
history when blacks for the first time legally got into the swimming pool
and all the whites got out. Will heterosexuals stop getting married if I
can?

No one has been able to specify what this horrible threat to marriage is.

A few months back, I challenged the readers of this newspaper to write in
and help me out on this. Nothing happened. The truth is that gay marriage
in no way affects traditional heterosexual marriage.

The bishop of Boston recently spoke at the annual Mass for lawyers. He
called upon them to protect marriage and block gay marriage.

There was not a word about divorce or domestic violence. Marriage as an
institution has been shattered by heterosexuals. The divorce rate is 50
percent. Clearly the threat to marriage predates gays and lesbians.

There's so much knee-jerking going on over gay marriage it's starting to
look like a Rockettes kick line.

As I wrote last time, if marriage is about kids, gays and lesbians are
already there. Millions of children are being raised by two men or two
women. And the sad thing is that these kids lack legal protections of
kids whose parents are heterosexual.

But marriage under the law is not about children. Marriage in our culture
doesn't necessarily include children. We hear that two people are married
and we ask, "Do they have kids?" Marriage exists without children in our
minds, our language, our society. When people marry, they negotiate
whether to have kids.

The state recognizes children outside of marriage. A single person with a
child is recognized and supported by the legal system, as is the child.
The state safeguards their relationship with all its rights and
privileges - for example, inheritance. Insurance companies automatically
extend coverage to kids.

My point? Outside of religious institutions, marriage is a legal
contract, a state-recognized and legally bolstered relationship. It's not
about sanctity. It's about equity and stability.

There's a lot of desperate talk about polls and activist judges imposing
their will on the people. In the State of the Union speech, Bush said
these judges are acting "without regard for the will of the people and
their elected representatives." He said "the people's voice must be
heard."

It is being heard. It was heard in the 1960s, when the Supreme Court
struck down laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage. The courts don't base
the interpretation of law on polls. The polls after racially mixed
marriages became legal showed overwhelming popular dissent. The law
didn't care, nor should it.

Did Bush ask for a poll when the Supreme Court gave him the presidency?

©New Haven Register 2004

Liberalism is Communism one drink at a time. - P.J. O'Rourke