RE: Bush's Address on Gay Marriage

I submit that this is  one of the intended diversions from what's going
on in Iraq as we speak.  If Iraq isn't a fundamental issue in the coming
months, it's the fault of us all to FOCUS on what is going on.    The
daily death toll is rising since the so-called "handover" and Iraq looks
more look like Vietnam with each passing moment.   All that's missing is
the draft.

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
cpratt-UYko1UTVIqz2fBVCVOL8/[email protected]
Sent: July 10, 2004 8:29 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ballistichelmet] Bush's Address on Gay Marriage


[Rep. Marilyn Musgrave's (R-CO) version of the amendment has 126
co-sponsors. 
Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO) has 10 co-sponsors on the Senate version of the

amendment.  I have a feeling that Iraq will become less of an issue in
the 
months to come; gay marriage and the economy will be the hot spots.
Senate 
vote on the amendment could come as early as next Wednesday. If you care
about 
this issue, please ask your Senators and Representatives to vote No on
this 
amendment.

There is a muddling of the meaning of marriage in the minds of 
fundamentalists. They cannot separate the legal concept from the holy 
sacrement. Gay marriage is a legal union, it does not force churches to 
sanctify the relationship. 

Marilyn Musgrave, in an interview with ABC News, declared she was
inspired to 
put forth the amendment by the great people of the nation fighting for
the 
defense of traditional marriage.  She, like others, (including Rick
Santorum 
of PA) have declared the legal sanction of gay marriage will lead us
down a 
slippery slope of polygamy, group marriage, incest and bestiality.
That, my 
friends, remains to be seen.

I present to you, in its entirety, W's inspiring speech about those darn

activist judges and the need to preserve traditional marriage.

bon appetit.

-x]



THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. The United States Senate this past week
began an 
important discussion about the meaning of marriage. Senators are
considering a 
constitutional amendment to protect the most fundamental institution of 
civilization, and to prevent it from being fundamentally redefined. 

This difficult debate was forced upon our country by a few activist
judges and 
local officials, who have taken it on themselves to change the meaning
of 
marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the state's highest court
have 
ordered the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same
gender. In 
San Francisco, city officials issued thousands of marriage licenses to
people 
of the same gender, contrary to the California family code. Lawsuits in 
several states, including New Jersey, Florida, Nebraska, and Oregon, are
also 
attempting to overturn the traditional definition of marriage by court
order. 
 
In 1996, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Defense of Marriage Act, and

President Clinton signed it into law. That legislation defines marriage,
for 
purposes of federal law, as a union between a man and a woman, and
declares 
that no state is required to accept another state's definition of
marriage. 
Yet an activist court that strikes down traditional marriage would have
little 
problem striking down the Defense of Marriage Act. Overreaching judges
could 
declare that all marriages recognized in Massachusetts or San Francisco
be 
recognized as marriages everywhere else. 

When judges insist on imposing their arbitrary will on the people, the
only 
alternative left to the people is an amendment to the Constitution --
the only 
law a court cannot overturn. A constitutional amendment should never be 
undertaken lightly -- yet to defend marriage, our nation has no other
choice. 

A great deal is at stake in this matter. The union of a man and woman in

marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, and the
law can 
teach respect or disrespect for that institution. If our laws teach that

marriage is the sacred commitment of a man and a woman, the basis of an 
orderly society, and the defining promise of a life, that strengthens
the 
institution of marriage. If courts create their own arbitrary definition
of 
marriage as a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its
cultural, 
religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost, and
the 
institution is weakened. The Massachusetts court, for example, has
called 
marriage "an evolving paradigm." That sends a message to the next
generation 
that marriage has no enduring meaning, and that ages of moral teaching
and 
human experience have nothing to teach us about this institution. 

For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that
traditional 
marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families
pass 
along values and shape character, traditional marriage is also critical
to the 
health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not 
undermine them. And changing the definition of traditional marriage will

undermine the family structure. 

On an issue of this great significance, opinions are strong and emotions
run 
deep. All of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and

decency toward one another. All people deserve to have their voices
heard. And 
that is exactly the purpose behind the constitutional amendment process.

American democracy, not court orders, should decide the future of
marriage in 
America. 

The process has now begun in the Congress. I urge members of the House
and 
Senate to pass, and send to the states for ratification, an amendment
that 
defines marriage in the United States as a union of a man and woman as
husband 
and wife. 

Thank you for listening. 

_______________________________________________
heads mailing list
[email protected]
http://ballistichelmet.org/mailman/listinfo/heads/
http://ballistichelmet.org/donate/

_______________________________________________
heads mailing list
[email protected]
http://ballistichelmet.org/mailman/listinfo/heads/
http://ballistichelmet.org/donate/