Amendment Defining Marriage

support_traditional_marriage

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments challenging Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment in California defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.  Use this link to sign the petition in support of traditional marriage: http://bit.ly/XER0ge

CNN states: “The stakes, though, are decidedly clearer. In the case argued Tuesday and another to be heard on Wednesday, the nine justices could fundamentally alter how American law treats marriage.”

The problem most Americans have with challenging California’s ban on same-sex marriage (and same sex unions) by going to the Supreme Court is that a small group of people are trying to force their lifestyle on the majority who voted against it.  United States of America is a nation that (supposedly) is ruled by law.  Therefore, when the people of California (and in other states) voted down same sex marriage/unions, the people’s vote should stand.  Keep in mind that, before an election, an item must gather enough signatures on a petition to be put on the ballot; the outcome of the election sets the law.

Proponents of same sex marriage/unions used everything within their rights (along with violence) to get out their message to people and to motivate their supporters to vote.  When the decision was made on proposition 8, the topic should have been over and done with, but supporters of same sex marriage/unions won’t take “no” for an answer.  They believe their lifestyle should be recognized legally by the state in spite of election results.

The problem with taking California’s proposition 8 ban on same sex marriage/unions to the Supreme Court is that, if the Justices vote against California, the federal government would be negating a state’s authority on marriage.  And that is exactly the problem Justice Kennedy has with making a ruling on this matter; believing the federal government should not be intruding on a state’s authority to regulate marriage.

To the extent the swing justice [Justice Kennedy] is wary of the political implications of striking down all states’ marriage laws, then he might not want a ruling that would set the logical precedent for such a move.  …Cato Institute

It was noted in a letter from ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice) several years ago that legitimizing same sex marriage/unions would be no different than legalizing relationships between first cousins, brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, and polygamy.

Use This Link to Watch Video on Supreme Court and Same Sex Marriage

Is the question really about procreation, equal rights, or REDEFINING MARRIAGE? Redefining Marriage is the problem most Conservatives have about courts giving same sex the right to marry and raise children.  The concern with same sex marriage/unions is that children will become confused about the role of men and women and relationships when the people they learn from are confused about these roles.  This seems to be a legitimate concern, which was discussed to a small degree in the CNN video, but it is misrepresented as a procreation issue and not a role model for what it means to be a man and what it means to be a women.

  1. News for same sex marriage

    1. Fear of gaymarriage backlash far-fetched
      Chicago Tribune ‎- by Clarence Page ‎- 51 minutes ago
      Supreme Court justices justifiably have the jitters about a public backlash if they overreach in the samesex marriage cases they are...
  2. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samesex_marriage

    Samesex marriage (also known as gay marriage) is marriage between two persons of the same biological sex and/or gender identity. Legal recognition of 

  3. http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/26/politics/samesexmarriage-court

    4 days ago – Supreme Court justices seemed reluctant Tuesday to extend a sweeping constitutional right for gays and lesbian to wed in all 50 states..

  4. Rush Limbaugh: Samesex marriage will be legal nationwide | The …

    news.yahoo.com/…/rush-limbaugh-predicts-samesexmarri
    Chris Moody
    by Chris Moody – in 36 Google+ circles – More by Chris Moody

    2 days ago – From the blog The Ticket: On his radio program on Wednesday, conservative host Rush Limbaugh predicted that samesex marriage would 

  5. Obama: Samesex marriage constitutional, but an issue for the …

    http://www.cbsnews.com/…/obama-samesexmarriage-constitutional-but-a…

    2 days ago – President says in Telemundo interview he hopes the Supreme Court recognizes samesex marriage as a state decision.

  6. http://www.washingtonpost.com/…samesexmarriage…/c8d85442-95ad-1…

    3 days ago – The justices question whether the time is right to rule on California’s voter-approved ban.

Congress Health Plan

I was intrigued by this email and so I decided to share it with you, hoping you will go to the website and sign the petition. I think Congressman John Fleming of Louisiana has a good idea.  Please read and then follow my example!

On Mon, 11/16/09, robert gatrell wrote:

Three cheers for Congressman John Fleming of Louisiana !

Congressman John Fleming ( Louisiana physician) has proposed an amendment that would require congressmen and senators to take the same healthcare plan they force on us (under proposed legislation they are curiously exempt).

On Tuesday, the Senate health committee voted 12-11 in favor of a two-page amendment courtesy of Republican Tom Coburn that would require all Members and their staffs to enroll in any new government-run health plan. It took me less than a minute to sign up to require our congressmen and senators to drink at the same trough!

Congressman Fleming is encouraging people to go on his Website and sign his petition (very simple – just first, last and email). I have immediately done just that at:

http://fleming.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=55&sectiontree=29,55

Please urge as many people as you can to do the same!

If Congress forces this on the American people, the Congressmen should have to accept the same level of health care for themselves and their families. To do otherwise is the height of hypocrisy!