|
|---|
 |
Opinion Large Crowds Are Valuable at Marriage Amendment Rallies, It's exciting to see tremendous enthusiasm across the state in favor of killing Margaret Marshall's attempt to ignore our Constitution and to impose gay marriage. Marshall absolutely has no power under our laws to do what she is attempting, say one-half of the other six judges on the Supreme Judicial Court. Those three dissenting judges say her decision is an "aberration." Speaker Finneran has suggested that we just ignore Marshall. If we do ignore her, the case will have to wind its way back to her court again sometime after May, in which event there could be another vote, with a different result. Although we at MassNews have serious reservations about the Amendment that is being proposed, we're happy to publish an email from a local representative of Concerned Women for America, which requests publicity for their State House meeting on Feb. 4 to promote their measure, which is scheduled for a vote on Feb. 11. However, we must point out that the proposed Amendment will not become effective until Nov. 2006. In addition, it would permit civil unions to be imposed as Focus on the Family has allowed in California, and which Focus is alone in promoting in the proposed federal Amendment. CWA still favors a federal Amendment that would bar civil unions, in contrast to the weak one they are endorsing in Massachusetts. But that is not really important in Massachusetts because, regardless of which way the vote goes in the Legislature about the Amendment, we must still come together and work to thwart Margaret Marshall and the evil Boston Globe/NYTimes complex, which has controlled our lives for too long. Every citizen must be made aware how those newspapers have plotted with Margaret Marshall to impose gay marriage across the nation, starting in Massachusetts. That will outrage them. We must also remember that an estimated 50% of the citizens are not religious, including those who favor a-mother-and-a-father for every child. We should not take any chances of alienating them by giving the impression that we believe this is only of concern to "religious" people, particularly to "religious" people from out-of-state.
* * * * * The following article is from Concerned Women for America CWA Praises Bush's "State of the Union"; Still Disagrees with Focus on the Family on "Soft" Federal Amendment President Bush Understands that American Families Care about the Moral Issues The president hit a solid home run in his 2004 State of the Union address. The first base he had to touch was the marriage issue. President Bush did what he had to do for his conservative base regarding marriage: He made it clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. He cited federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act (and in a stroke of genius, reminded the assembled lawmakers that DOMA was signed by President Clinton, a Democrat), which legally defines marriage as the union of a man and woman. Further, he warned activist judges that they cannot redefine marriage by court order, and that, if they do, they will be met with the "constitutional process." This carefully nuanced response respected the fact that conservative organizations differ in their solutions to the problem of judicial activism. At the same time, the president joined conservatives in taking a strong stance against judicial tyranny. The president rounded second base with his choice of language. He clearly stated that our nation must defend the "sanctity" of marriage and that marriage is defined by "moral tradition." Though he shied away from addressing the question of homosexual civil unions, he nevertheless tied the marriage issue to America's moral tradition and the sanctity of the institution. For years, the far Left has had its own rhetoric, in which certain words carry special meanings to those "in the know." Now, conservatives have their own way of conveying messages that have unique significance for them. In the State of the Union address, Christians heard special messages that were conveyed with skillfully placed words. For believers, the "sanctity" of marriage is rooted in those biblical principles that sustain marriage; defining marriage through its "moral tradition" carries specific ramifications in terms of Judeo-Christian values and beliefs. The president reached third base with his resounding message about abstinence and his announcement that federal funding for abstinence programs will double. Again, the careful crafting of the speech was evident. The president talked about abstinence in terms of "right choices" — taking back the word "choice" for more positive uses in terms of a woman's reproductive options. The only right choice to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, he said, is abstinence. It wasn't necessary to add that by making the "right choice" early on, a teenager would not have to face Planned Parenthood's murderous "choice" later. The aspect of the address that sealed the homerun was the president's gravitas. His remarks transcended politics and moved beyond partisanship. He spoke of the values that never change, and he praised the institutions that instill those values, calling them the "unseen pillars of civilization." He challenged the nation to counter our culture's negative influences, in order to send the right messages to our children. He called on professional athletes and others to set the right example. He ended with soaring rhetoric: "By our actions, we have shown what kind of nation we are. In grief, we found the grace to go on. In challenge, we rediscovered the courage and daring of a free people. In victory, we have shown the noble aims and good heart of America." This is a president confronted by a yawning cultural divide, and facing an electorate divided into red and blue camps. That political rift based on values and beliefs was on clear display Tuesday night. Even when President Bush addressed deep moral issues that should have a broad cultural consensus across party lines — e.g., helping children make right choices about drugs and about teen sex — so many liberals could not bring themselves to cheer. Partisanship trumped statesmanship. I watched the speech in an auditorium in the White House with an invited group of conservative opinion leaders. Early on, we laughed at the comedic aspects of the Left's unwillingness to forget politics and be united Americans. As the speech moved into the deeper moral issues, however, the group became subdued and seemed troubled by the sight of national legislators who put partisanship ahead of their concern for the future of the nation's children. I think people in living rooms all across America had the same response. President Bush understands that American families care about the moral issues; the Left continues to disregard those concerns at its peril. Any presidential candidate who doesn't grasp the necessity for helping families "raise healthy, responsible children" is unlikely to win the presidency. He doesn't deserve to. --Janice Crouse directs Concerned Women for America's think tank, the Beverly LaHaye Institute. * * * * * The following quote is from Sandy Rios, President of CWA: “A federal marriage amendment may very well be the solution down the line, but not until we get an amendment worth fighting for and a Congress willing to fight for it.” |
|
|
Archives | Letters | Bookshop |
