It's become the common refrain in numerous news reports around the country–Republicans are simply using the Marriage amendment as an election-year ploy to get voters to back GOP candidates in the fall.
after all, state initiatives to ban same-sex marriage had people flocking to the polls in a previous election cycle.
But, in the interests of fairness, isn't it reasonable to question the political posturing from the "other side of the aisle" in the marriage debate? after all, if Republicans could, theoretically, use the marriage issue to shore up their base, couldn't Democrats, too?
For decades now, homosexual activists have been part of the core of the Democratic Party. When Democrats talk about diversity, they are not simply speaking about skin color. National Democratic leaders, in fact, routinely invoke "gay pride" in their attempt to pander to people who want government validation for their lifestyle–a lifestyle that, in the end, can lead to a myriad of tragic consequences: STDs, alcohol and drug abuse, suicide attempts.
Legalizing same-sex marriage will not end the vicious cycle of desperation and depression which, as a number of ex-homosexuals readily attest, often accompany the ironically-termed "gay life." Rather than building healthy families, the legal recognition of same-sex marriage will only further erode the stability of our communities.
as President George W. Bush stated in his weekly radio address, "ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all."
and that's the critical point here–serving the interests of all. For years, the Democratic Party has been sacrificing the interests of ordinary americans in the name of protecting special interest groups. These groups have included not only activists with a radical homosexual agenda, but also so-called "women's rights" activists who have attempted to legitimize the killing of the most defenseless members of society–unborn children. Democratic Party kingpins have also pandered to people who have attempted to increase the racial divide, sanctioning discrimination when it served their political interests. In today's world, highly-qualified people can be rejected for jobs simply because of their skin color, under the guise of "affirmative action."
In a statement indicative of Democratic double-speak, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts said, "a vote for this (marriage) amendment is a vote for bigotry pure and simple." For the government to say that marriage should be safeguarded as a union of a man and a woman is not bigotry. It's common sense. It's also an attempt to protect order in an increasingly disordered world.
The mayor of San Francisco–the hub of the homosexual rights movement–has had the audacity to say that the defense of marriage is a Republican attempt to placate evangelical Christians. as if a mayor who issues marriage licenses to homosexual couples in a city considered to be the center of "gay power" is not pandering to his "core constituency."
The effort to protect marriage is not a political move. The traditional family is the strength of america. The family has given us Presidents and prelates, statesmen and scientists, diplomats and doctors. It is in the family that we first learn how to think…how to speak…and how to behave. Granted, there are so many tragic cases of families in turmoil today, but it is not the institution of marriage that is to blame.
Traditional marriage is, in fact, america's best hope for keeping our society secure, our neighborhoods at peace, and our children safe from harm. Without marriage, we might as well put away the american flag and replace it with the white flag of surrender.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement