Monday, June 05, 2006

You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone

--Joni Mitchell


Shame on the blogosphere—particularly conservative bloggers, who should know better—for their deafening silence, or even opposition, on the Federal Marriage Amendment. We could name names, but we’ll restrain ourselves, for now.

Many seem to be taking the Arlen Specter RINO Republican duck-and-weave position, which loosely translates: I’m not in favor of gay marriage, but let’s leave it up to the states. (The bill, sponsored by Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., is being heard now in Specter’s Senate Judiciary Committee.) That’s a really bad idea, for a number of reasons.

One is simply the fact that we can’t have a mish-mash of laws from state to state on something so fundamental. The full-faith-and-credit principle at the federal level means homosexuals who are “married” in Massachusetts may legally be able to make that stick when they move to, say, Colorado. It will take time and litigation, perhaps, but eventually the will of a few states will end up being imposed on all the others.

So, the whole idea of “let the states decide” is bogus to begin with. That position is a de facto pro-gay marriage position, however one might try to parse it. It’s a sham.

The other major problem is simply the magnitude of the issue. This isn’t small potatoes. The marriage issue is right up there with the global war on terror. Our entire civilization, whether we realize it or not, rides on such issues.

Think we’re exaggerating? Do the homework, and see how many social problems trace directly back to the breakdown of the family. People like Star Parker make a strong case for salvation of the socially ravaged black community through the restoration of the institution of the nuclear husband-wife family. And that’s really no less true for the rest of us, just a matter of degree.

Monkeying with the institution of marriage is the worst thing we could do, especially at a time like this. If marriage is redefined to mean whatever some special interest groups or activist judges feel like making it, then it really loses all meaning. Cohabitation, already rampant, will replace marriage, which will go the way of Europe, where the cause is all but lost. And so are they, in my opinion. Failure to protect marriage is the beginning of the end for any society.

I agree with President Bush: "Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization, and it should not be redefined by activist judges." And a constitutional amendment is the only way to prevent that.

1 Comments:

Blogger Stacy L. Harp said...

Oh man, come on name some names, or are you a blogger in name only :) LOL...

7:56 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

/body>