10 Nov Good and Bad News
November 10, 2008
Good and Bad News
Election night results brought good and bad news. The good news of course is the noteworthy passage of all three state constitutional marriage amendments. Our friends in California, Florida and Arizona rallied to ensure a meaningful win for marriage and the family. Congratulations to the thousands of volunteers, donors and coalition members who worked faithfully to the final hour.
Not everyone is celebrating the win. Anti-family riots occurred last gayriot.jpgweek in Los Angeles, Hollywood, Santa Monica, and San Francisco where hundreds of protestors caused chaos in the streets. Some were arrested by the LA police after becoming violent. Anti-Proposition 8 leaders have already filed lawsuits to overturn the new constitutional amendment. Homosexual extremists angry that they lost will do whatever it takes to overturn the will of the people.
Interestingly, the people have spoken and they represent all walks life – men, women, Hispanics, African-Americans and Whites; rich and poor, old and young. Marriage crosses demographic lines and even party lines. According to exit polls in California, Arizona and Florida; a combination of Hispanics and African-Americans pushed the amendments over the top by overwhelmingly voting for marriage.
Thirty states now have a constitutional provision to protect marriage thanks to the support of the people. The bad news is marriage is still at risk.
The newly elected United States president and the Congress put the immediate future of families in the hands of liberals. Not only will they move quickly to repeal the federal DOMA law, but watch for dangerous anti-family legislation like:
– The Freedom of Choice Act: Abortions on Demand Paid for with Tax Dollars
– The Fairness Doctrine: Censorship of Conservative Talk Shows
– Reproductive Health Funding: A World-Wide Right to Abortion Paid for with US Tax Dollars
– And, Dangerous International Treaties like:
CEDAW – Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
and the CRC – Convention of the Rights of the Child, which is a world-wide child welfare law
Not only is the future of the family in the United States at risk, but the new liberal leadership will result in a stunning shift of power that will open the flood gates of radical opportunistic policies at the United Nations and around the world.
It appears that fighting to preserve marriage and the family at the state level is simply not enough. Many have opined that a federal amendment to the United States Constitution must occur in a timely manner to put a stop to this madness.
During the debate over these ballot initiatives, voters heard numerous sound-bite arguments against passing a marriage amendment, most of which were based on misinformation and misunderstanding regarding the facts. David M. Andersen, an intellectual property and litigation attorney with the law firm of Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP in Scottsdale, Arizona, is a longtime supporter of UFI and has studied constitutional law and its effect on the family and religious freedom.
Below is Andersen’s shortened version to rebuttals to ten of the most common arguments that were proffered against the marriage amendment and an explanation of why the need for state and national constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman are essential. To read his entire explanation please click on the title:
WHY EVERY STATE AND OUR NATION NEED A MARRIAGE AMENDMENT
ring.jpg1. “Gay marriage won’t affect my marriage or family.” This common argument, which is based on false assumptions, is the red herring of the marriage debate. First, this argument ignores the existence of any harm that is not a direct and immediate harm on one’s own marriage and family. No rational person would argue, for example, that child pornography should be legalized because it “doesn’t affect my marriage or family.” See UFI Guide to Family Issues: Sexual Orientation and The Marriage Advantage available at www.unitedfamilies.org.
2. “There are more pressing issues than defining marriage.” Opponents of man-woman marriage often list a host of other societal problems that require more urgent attention than marriage-issues ranging from violent crime to economic hardship. To these opponents, marriage is simply a side issue used to distract voters from “real” issues such as gas prices and global warming. What these opponents do not appreciate, however, is that the root cause of many of the social and economic ills facing our nation and our communities is the disintegration of the family.
3. “Marriage is not a constitutional issue.” Unfortunately, activist judges have made marriage a constitutional issue. While opponents of man-woman marriage clamor that we should “keep politicians out of marriage,” unelected judges have already entered that realm and have caused great damage in overriding the will of the people.
4. “You can’t legislate morality.” Every law-be it a statute, an ordinance, or a regulation-legislates morality because laws are the central means by which society collectively draws lines between right and wrong.
5. “Gay marriage can provide the same level of benefits as man-woman marriage.” No other social institution has ever provided or will ever provide the same level of benefits as marriage between a man and a woman.
6. “Two people who love each other should be allowed to get married.” Marriage has a far more fundamental and influential role than simply the public or legal recognition of “love.” Many people love each other, but love is not the sole basis for allowing them to marry.
7. “People should be free to define ‘marriage’ for themselves.” The purpose of defining anything under the law is to preserve and to promote the order and stability of societal institutions. If people were left to define these social institutions for themselves, there would be no consensus on why these institutions exist and what purpose they serve.
8. “Marriage is solely a religious institution that has no place in the law.” No one can deny the important role that marriage has in the doctrines of religions and the beliefs of religious adherents. However, such religious importance is no reason for the law not to recognize and value the social importance of man-woman marriage.
9. “A marriage amendment would write discrimination into the Constitution.” Contrary to what the some argue, defining marriage as the legal union of a man and a woman does not “discriminate” against anyone as that term has been used by the opposition.
10. “Gay marriage will not affect religious institutions or religious adherents.” Once again, recent history and logic do not support this argument. If genderless marriage takes over as the primary social unit of society, religious institutions and adherents will face (and already have faced) a social and political onslaught against their religious freedoms.
Fortunately for families in Arizona, California, and Florida, voters recognized the dangers of failing to protect the institution of marriage as the foundation of a family and the cornerstone of society. Unfortunately, this round of our fight for the family has just begun.
Carol Soelberg, President
United Families International