[Vision2020] Constitutionial Ban on Gay Marriage

Fri, 01 Aug 2003 08:48:50 -0700

Visionaries,

There is an important difference between sexual hypocrisy, which our nation 
has in spades, and which practices privately what it condemns publicly, and 
the tragic way of removing that hypocrisy, which is to bring yourself to 
approve the sin formally. Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to 
virtue, and we always need to remember there are two ways to get out of a 
double standard. One is to repent of the sin, and the other is to drop the 
pretence of virtue. We are in the course of pursuing the latter, and it 
will not bring enlightenment.

If it is true that marriage is nothing more than a "tax break," and is no 
longer a sacred institution, then we are not just talking about homosexual 
unions. We are also talking about polygamy, as long as more than two can 
physically fit into the privacy of the bedroom. What kind of sexual unions 
will have to be permitted as soon as the courts learn the rudiments of 
logic? He who says A must say B.

And while we are on the subject of keeping the government out of the 
bedroom, why is it, when I built my house, the government wanted to tell me 
how far apart the sheetrock screws had to be in the bedroom, how the 
electric outlets had to be placed, how big the windows had to be, and so 
on, ad nauseam. Government out of the bedroom, aye.

Cordially,

Douglas

At 05:15 PM 7/31/2003 -0700, you wrote:

>McClellan said,"The president is strongly committed to protecting the 
>sanctity of marriage and defending a sacred institution that he believes 
>is a between a man and a woman" "We are looking at what may be needed in 
>the context of the court cases that are pending now."
>
>Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the statement "sanctity of marriage 
>and defending a sacred institution" already gone!?!
>
>I mean really, you want to defend marriage, why not start with ending the 
>80% of adultery, the 50% divorce rate after five years and the 72% divorce 
>rate after ten years? I mean when something is MAYBE ten percent of your 
>problem and something else is 72% of your problem, shouldn't you 
>concentrate  your efforts on the 72%?
>
>I guess this just goes to show how arrogant and stupid the people are that 
>oppose even Civil Unions. I don't think this amendment has a snowball's 
>chance in hell, which is good. I shutter at the prospect of  this country 
>passing an amendment that singles out a group of people to be denied the 
>right to marry. Marriage is no more a sacred institution, it just a tax 
>break, and why deny people a tax break because of what they do in their 
>bedrooms? That is just plain wrong.
>
>Donovan J Arnold
>
>>From: Douglas Stambler <ccm_moscow@yahoo.com>
>>To: vision2020@moscow.com
>>Subject: [Vision2020] Article: "White House Mulls Constitution Ban on Gay 
>>Marriage"
>>Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
>>
>>
>>
>>(Reuters Photo) White House Mulls Constitution Ban on Gay Marriage
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>July 31
>>— By Randall Mikkelsen
>>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration would consider seeking a 
>>constitutional amendment to ensure a ban on same-sex marriages, a White 
>>House spokesman said on Thursday.
>>
>>Spokesman Scott McClellan said President Bush, who on Wednesday said 
>>administration lawyers were studying ways to ban gay marriages, also was 
>>opposed to civil unions as an alternative.
>>
>>
>>
>>Asked about the possibility of a constitutional amendment, McClellan 
>>said, "obviously that is something to look at in this context."
>>
>>Any administration action would depend on the outcome of pending court 
>>cases on the gay-marriage issue, he said.
>>
>>"The president is strongly committed to protecting the sanctity of 
>>marriage and defending a sacred institution that he believes is a between 
>>a man and a woman," McClellan said. "We are looking at what may be needed 
>>in the context of the court cases that are pending now."
>>
>>Bush also opposed legalization of homosexual civil unions, which are 
>>allowed in Vermont, McClellan said. He cited Bush's support for current 
>>federal law, which holds that states do not have to recognize such civil 
>>unions granted by another state.
>>
>>The gay-rights group Human Rights Campaign on Wednesday criticized the 
>>president's stance, saying it suggests "further codifying discrimination."
>>
>>Debate over the issue of same-sex unions has intensified since Canada has 
>>taken steps to legalize gay marriages and the U.S. Supreme Court in June 
>>struck down state sodomy laws. Conservative critics say the Supreme 
>>Court's ruling could open the door to same-sex marriages in the United States.
>>
>>The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, signed by former Democratic President 
>>Bill Clinton, defines marriage for federal purposes as between one woman 
>>and one man. Gay marriages are forbidden in the United States.
>>
>>Bush said on Wednesday he would not compromise his belief in the 
>>"sanctity of marriage."
>>
>>But, as recently as earlier this month, he said a constitutional ban on 
>>gay marriage proposed in the House of Representatives might not be 
>>necessary despite the high court's decision.
>>
>>Any proposal to amend the constitution faces high hurdles. To be 
>>successful, it must be approved by two-thirds of the House and the Senate 
>>and ratified by three-quarters of the states.
>>
>>When asked his views of homosexuality on Wednesday, Bush said "we're all 
>>sinners," but McClellan said this should not be interpreted as a belief 
>>that homosexuality was a sin.
>>
>>He noted that Bush's questioner began by saying many of the president's 
>>supporters thought homosexuality was immoral. Bush's response expressed a 
>>conviction that it was "not his place" to judge others, McClellan said.
>>
>>
>>photo credit and caption: President George W. Bush answers a reporter's 
>>question during a morning press conference in the Rose Garden at the 
>>White House in Washington, July 30, 2003. Bush on Wednesday rejected same 
>>sex marriage but declined to pass moral judgment on homosexuality, saying 
>>he was "mindful that we're all sinners." Paraphrasing the Bible, Bush 
>>told reporters "I caution those who may try to take the speck out of the 
>>neighbor's eye when they've got a log in their own." Photo by Gary 
>>Hershorn/Reuters
>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------
>>Do you Yahoo!?
>>SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
>_____________________________________________________
>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the 
>communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
>ЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇ