GOP says ‘I do’ to bigotry…
That’s the title of Ted Kennedy’s op-ed in today’s Boston Herald but I’d title it “Democrats Say Yes to Anything Goes”. I’m certain that people would say that my title is extreme but it isn’t from a legal standpoint. Let’s take a look at Teddy’s drivel:
It’s no wonder that the American people are frustrated with the Republican Congress. Americans deserve progress, but instead are bombarded with politics driven by fear and division. They deserve action on the challenges we face as a nation, an endless and costly war in Iraq, skyrocketing gas prices and soaring health-care costs. Rather than dealing with real priorities, the Republican leadership is focused on writing discrimination into the Constitution.
The reality is that Democrats aren’t serious about the biggest issues of the day. The American people deserve two political parties that see terrorism as a serious problem. Unfortunately, we don’t have that today. The American people deserve people that’ll get serious about solving our energy needs.
They don’t need a windbag like Ted Kennedy lecturing people about high gas prices while preventing a wind farm from being built on their favorite yachting waters and preventing drilling for natural gas in ANWR.
The country is divided over gay marriage; within the laws of each state, there is ongoing debate in which Congress should not intervene.
Divided??? Is he serious??? It’s divided about 60-40. Even in liberal Oregon, they voted against same sex marriage with just under 60 percent. As for Congress not intervening in this debate, the only reason they’re getting involved is because his Massachusetts Supreme Court intervened in that debate.
A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry, pure and simple. A vote for it is a vote against civil unions, against domestic partnerships, and against efforts by states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law.
Wrong, Sen. Moosebreath. It’s a vote for traditional social policy. It’s a vote against marriage defined as anything goes. There isn’t a lawyer around that won’t tell you that there’s no legal wall preventing polygamy once traditional marriage isn’t the norm. If you don’t believe me, look at Europe.
It’s a vote to impose discrimination on all 50 states, denying them their right to interpret their own state constitutions and to pass their own state laws.
Kennedy gives it away by saying “their right to interpret their own state constitutions”. The truth is Ted wants liberal courts imposing their will on the people.
Marriage is a solemn commitment to plan a future together, to share in life’s celebrations, and be a source of comfort easing life’s burdens and pains.
Wrong. It’s a solemn commitment to each other and to have and raise children. It isn’t surprising that Teddy wants to redefine marriage. He hasn’t stopped moving left since getting elected back in 1962.
Technorati Tags: Ted Kennedy, Gay Marriage, Same-sex Marriage
Cross-post at LetFreedomRingBlog
June 5th, 2006 at 10:29 am
[...] Cross-posted at California Conservative Categories: Culture, Senate, Kennedy | [...]
June 5th, 2006 at 11:06 am
The real issue in this same-sex marriage debate is whether or not judges can act like bishops and mullahs.
My view is that the legislative process has always been the final arbiter of defining marriage.
While I would disagree with an elected legislature redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, it is much better than having a pope or a panel of imams decide.
June 5th, 2006 at 11:22 am
Moosebreath, as you call him, is correct on one point only: it is the states who have the right to define marriage, not the feds.
That being said, it is also not the jurisdiction of the courts, which his infamous gang of legal thugs decided to ignore in his own state and declare social change from the bench.
And who is this monster to be preaching to anyone? A walking murderer, souse, philanderer, socialist and all-around ne’er-do-well has all the moral authority of any skid row bum. It’s just unfortunate the turkey was born with a platinum spoon in his mouth.
As far as his rant against the “Republican” Congress goes, the House generally tends to keep a little to the right. The Republican senators, in their rush to win approval from their collegues on the left (outer space, in Kennedy’s case) and from the drive-by media, have left all semblance of standing for something, anything, and have taken the Clintonesque road of seeing which way the wind is blowing. Because they only do so in the senate, it’s always blowing to the left.
The day the nation has to receive and revere its moral authority from MA is the day a revolution will begin. I would just as soon take moral preachings from Beelzebub. Same authority, ultimately.
June 5th, 2006 at 11:33 am
Funny how when popularity numbers plummrt and billions of dollars evaporate in an unproductive war that the GOP should find the American family in peril.
Really?
I’m not a fan of double talk so I’m going to speak bluntly with the hope of encouraging the GOP to do the same. This all comes down to the fact that homosexuals are considered inferior and abnormal in the eyes of the conservative movement.
I would have more appreciation for this useless debate if the proponents of a constitutional ammendment came forward and said “Dude, you’re not like me, you don’t have access to the same rights as me.”
We are 25 years into the fight against AIDS, a fight whose progress was grossly delayed under the watch of a conservative government.
By allowing gay marriage, or hell, civil unions, we are offering stability to a group of people who are otherwise unstable. Offer people a chance at normalcy, at convention, and you would see how communities can thrive.
Are we really making the most use of our legislative freedoms and capabilities to debate whether two adults can commit to each other?
I invite any honest conservative to spend a day with my partner and I and our families so they can see what just how threatening we really are to the moral fiber of this country.
For all the flag toting and pride the conservative segment of our contry takes in America’s “liberty” they seem to be more focused on limiting as many people’s liberties as possible.
June 5th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
So misguided. So pathetic.
Okay, let’s look at Europe.
Europe is miles ahead of the US on this issue. But enough about doing what’s right. Let’s look at some of the often-cited reasons for banning gay marriage.
Let’s take the second point first. You’re saying that if you can’t have children, you shouldn’t be married? Tell that to Bob and Liddy Dole. (If you can tear Bob away from the studio where he’s recording another ad for Viagra, that is, but that’s another argument altogether.) Tell it to the increasing number of couples who marry but never have children, whether by choice or due to procreation issues. (And the flip side of this coin is, in fact, lesbian couples who either came to the relationship with children or conceive of children through articial means; does this arguement apply to these couples, meaning they should be married, by inverse logic?) Andrew Sullivan said it best: “Childless heterosexual couples feel… what gay couples now feel, which is that society is diminishing the importance of their relationships by consigning them to a category that seems inferior to the desired social standard.”
And what of committment? What you’re saying is that two adults shouldn’t be free to make a committment to one another? How is this not discriminatory? Today, 3 to 5 percent of our people — gays and lesbians — are locked out of marriage, “one of the most stabilizing, enriching institutions in our society,” according to Jonathan Rausch. He continues, “Right now, Americans are deciding the shape of marriage—the basic legal and social framework of family—for years to come.” Further, “married people are healthier, happier, more prosperous, more secure; they even live longer. To shut millions of Americans off from those benefits is to inflict a very real harm.” It’s not just a religios issue, its a moral issue. And it is immoral to discriminate. Period.
Finally, Carlos, you are so wrong when you say:
You see, it is the jurisdiction of the courts. Just look at a couple of simple facts: You go to the county courthouse to get a marriage license. If you don’t want a religious ceremony, you go to a Justice of the Peace. And if it ends, as nearly 50% of all heterosexual marriages do, you go to divorce court.
There are 1,047 rights and responsibilities granted to married individuals, and telling our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters that they are not entitled to these rights is simply wrong. To our brothers and sisters, I say, hang in there: the news is good. The percentage of people who view gays and gay marriage as a favorable thing is increasing. In fact, many predict in 20 years, gay marriage will be just another part of life in the US, and just like elsewhere when gay marriage has been accepted, it will mean equality for all, and nobody will even question whether or not it was a good idea. Just like allowing interracial marriage. Just like every other acceptance of civil rights.
Just like normal.
June 5th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
And no sooner, this pops up:
Wedding Nixed After Bride and Groom Brawl