Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Recently, the editorial writers of the Peoria Journal Star published an editorial declaring that the effort of Illinois citizens to gather petition signatures to place on the ballot an advisory referendum to define marriage as between one man and one woman was redundant.  On June 11, 2006 the Peoria Journal Star published an opinion piece written by a member of the Cato Institute with the headline “Marriage amendment is big government at its worst.”  The Cato Institute is a conservative think tank.  I imagine the article was published to dissuade some conservatives from supporting the marriage amendment that Congress is considering.

If that was the purpose of the article, it didn’t work for me and I hope and pray it didn’t convince others either.  First of all, the Cato Institute is not particularly concerned with values.  They are concerned about big government as they define it.  The arguments presented are based on that premise.  However, they ignore at least two major and important facts that can not, should not be ignored.

The author of the article declares “Social conflicts are minimized when decisions about private lives are made privately.” (page A5)  The author seems to imply that people were sitting around a camp fire one night singing “Kum Ba Yah” (Come By Here—an African-American Spiritual) when they developed an idea to hinder the spread of homosexuality.  The idea, of course, was “wouldn’t it be grand if a Constitutional Amendment was passed to prevent homosexuals from marrying.”  That, of course, is an outrageous misrepresentation of the truth.

There was no demand or desire for a Constitutional Amendment to protect the long held definition of marriage until homosexual activists began to demand and insist upon being allowed to marry contrary to long held practices and contrary to law in some States.  It was homosexual activists who moved the marriage issue from the private arena to the public arena.  Not the other way around.  

Now, the Cato Institute and others are promoting one of many “Big Lies.”  The lie is that there would be no problem if it was not for those trying to amend the Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.  LIES!!!   LIES!!!  LIES!!!  The homosexual activists expect us to just acquiesce to their demands because they demand it—libertine “democracy” in action.

The second major error in the author’s arguments is that this is a State question and should be answered at the State level.  Fine!  I’m all for that if the homosexual activists would also agree to the same.  But, they haven’t and they won’t.  They have demonstrated that they will use any and all avenues to achieve their agenda of promoting homosexuality.  

Every State that has had a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as being between one man and one woman has passed that amendment—twenty different States at my last count.  Did the homosexual activists say, “The people have spoken?  The people want marriage to be defined as between one man and one woman.  So be it.”  OF COURSE NOT!!!  They went running to the courts to try to get the courts to overturn the will of the people!!!

We already know that the United States Supreme Court has overturned the will of the people by allowing women to murder their unborn child.  We already know that the United States Supreme Court has overturned the will of the people by declaring that States can not have laws that define homosexual acts as illegal acts.

We know from far too many past examples that the United States Supreme Court does not necessarily follow the meaning of the Constitution unless it is something that even the Supreme Court can not misrepresent.  The only way to insure that the United States Supreme Court does not overturn the will of the people in relation to marry is to amend the Constitution of the United States.  Even the Supreme Court has not yet had the gall to rule a Constitutional Amendment to be unconstitutional.  A Constitutional Amendment is the best and perhaps the only way to protect marriage in this nation.  

Time magazine in its December 6, 2004 issue had a one page essay in the back of the issue.  In the essay, the author argued that the moral conservatives in the United States won a battle in the 2004 election but that it is inevitable that the push for homosexuality will win.  She uses as her proof, the saturation of sin throughout our society.  Of course, she did not refer to it as sin but the changing cultural values that have permeated our society in the movies, on television, in songs, and in every area of our lives.  She knows that we reap what we sow.  We need to start sowing true Christianity instead of worldliness!

We have allowed the Court to gain too much power already.  We have allowed the Court to redefine our moral values and character.  Don’t allow the Court to redefine marriage.  It is not too late.  

If the present members of Congress will not support traditional marriage, we must elect members to Congress who will.  We need a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the Court from rewriting another area of our moral values.  Don’t allow marriage to become the next murder of unborn babies ruling!!!                      


Post a Comment

<< Home