Marriage was deconstructed in Vermont by a one-vote victory in the legislature that overrode the Governor Douglas' veto. It is the only state that has deconstructed marriage by legislative action.
The vigorous homosexualist campaign outspent the pro-marriage forces some 20 to 1 and worked to the last minute to influence legislatures to sacrifice pro-marriage principles for political gain. As first-term Rep. Jeff Young, D-St. Albans, who is philosophically opposed to "gay-marriage" put it: ""You realize that, you know, it's a poker game in some ways," Young said. "Chips on the table. I'm a freshman. I have no chips. If I ... had 20 years of chips, I probably could play any card I want. I don't have that option." And added, "It's the way the political game is played."
This certainly provides the neutered marriage forces more democratic foundation than the oligarchical tactics for deconstructing marriage we have been experiencing. If this trend continues, which indicates that vociferous propaganda and huge bank rolls confounds the legislature and perhaps eventually even a majority of the voters, I will be struggling more to remove governments from licensing marriages since they do not know the meaning of the word. The other possibility, as I've suggested before, is to rename marriage so as to differentiate from what it is not.
We will continue to work for a Federal Marriage Amendment and to vote out of office those that failed to understand the value of mother and father in the family structure and who confound any "loving" sexual relationship with marriage.
We have 40 states that explicitly restrict marriage to opposite sex couples with 30 of these states doing so through state constitutional amendments.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hesb4aHbI1j_7LkIVzStq6u_hqbgD97DOPPO0
One of the things which has happened is that wealthy SSM activists have poured a lot of money into campaigns to defeat supporters of traditional marriage---but by hammering them publicly on issues unrelated to SSM. This was done, for instance, by millionaire Adam Rose in 2006 to defeat Rep. Sue Kelly of New York, and Tim Gill has also used this strategy against many, including Rep. Marilyn Musgrave. Naturally, this is what many elected representatives now fear.
ReplyDeleteOf course, like all political strategies, two can play at this. If one looks hard enough, it is always easy to find votes, from either side of the political spectrum, that are hard to explain to the voters. Maybe it's time for defenders of marriage to start looking.
Here's another one of those wealthy SSM activists: Steve Schmidt.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=30164
And now Rick Warren is trying to claim that he never "never once even gave an endorsement" for Prop 8.
ReplyDeletehttp://onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=481280
You guys are going to run out of allies.
Relevancy, Peter?
ReplyDeleteWarren clarifies his remarks here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/aprilweb-only/114-31.0.html
Seems to me he simply doesn't want to be painted with the broad brush of "anti-gay pastor" that so man others have been -- and as so many gay activists are eager to do.
As he says in the link: "There's a lot of hatred out there. People don't realize that you don't have to agree with somebody to love them."
I read Warren's clarification. Must be that nuance thing everyone's been talking about.
ReplyDeleteRelevance? It demonstrates that vociferous propaganda and huge bank rolls confound not just legislators "philosophically opposed to gay marriage," but also prominent pastors like Rick Warren.