|
|---|
|
National Review’s Kurtz Is Solid on Opposing Gay Marriage, but Forgets One Thing An article by Fred Kurtz in the National Review about the Federal Amendment is solid on opposing gay marriage, but Kurtz forgets one thing. Even if we are highly successful on the Amendment, what good will it do? That Amendment will only stop the opposition from using the word “marriage.” It will not stop civil unions. Such an attempt by Focus on the Family in California in 2002 was wildly “successful” with over 60% of the citizens voting for such a referendum, only to see civil unions become “wildly successful” immediately thereafter. That is why every family organization did not agree with James Dobson about the Federal Amendment and had to be coerced by him into going along. In “ Gay Marriage Is Not Inevitable, Don’t Count FMA Out,” Kurtz points out some of the tremendous implications of the gay marriage debate, but he doesn’t understand the difference between what happened in Missouri with what happened in the Federal Marriage Amendment. In Missouri, there was a unified front by conservatives; whereas in the FMA, we were terribly divided by James Dobson. Kurtz must stop reading the New York Times and the Washington Post for his news. He attempted to talk accurately about what happened here in Massachusetts, but obviously got all his news from the Times satellite, the Boston Globe. Although he is trying to get to the bottom of many complicated issues for which no one knows the answer, he continues to believe that we can write language that liberal judges will obey. But they have proven time-after-time that they have no shame. The core answer is to get more power so we can eliminate such judges. We must unify behind people like Alan Keyes who are trying to do exactly that, instead of searching for warts on our candidate. |
 |
|---|
Copyright 2008 ©All Rights Reserved MassNews.com® 508-410-2087 |
|---|
