Monday, March 08, 2004

Tonight it is time to get serious. I turn on the news and what do I hear Seattle, Washington, Oregon and New Jersey have joined San Francisco, and upstate New York in marrying gay couples. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts continues to debate the recent state Supreme Court ruling which essentially legalized gay marriage until the issue can be brought before the people in a state constitutional ammendment, which can not happen until 2006 because such and ammendment must be passed by both houses of the state legislature in two consectutive lected sessions.

President Bush has come out in support of ammending the US Constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Not only is this the way marriage has been defined in western civilization, but is also the natural order laid forth in the Bible. It should go without saying, but in this day and age the idea of those professing the inerrant and infallible Word of God are called close minded, hateful, and bigotted. I don't hate gays, never have, some of the folks who I call friends are gay. I disagree with the homosexual act, the sin itself, not the sinner. We are all sinners..I heard it best put last night and I will paraphrase, I have my sin and you have yours. Now if my stance is going to cause me to be called close minded, biggotted, hateful, or whatever else might come my way, so be it. This New England born and raised, now living in Texas guy can take it.

Now, the Democratic Party and the projected Presidential nominee, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts has gone on the record that he does not see a Constitutional Ammendment as necessary and that the issue of gay marriage should be left to the states. Am I the only one who finds it to be an oxymoron for a liberal Democrat to be espousing states rights? The Constituition states :
"Article IV.

Section 1
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records,
and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

So pretty much in a nutshell, the public records which marriage is part of, must be recognized from state to state. So anyone who endorses the state issue argument is quite simply giving an endorsement of gay marriage but phrasing in such a way as to not alarm the non-thinking public. Allowing a legal gay marriage in one state, means every other state must recognize it, and thus it must be made legal in those states. This is not a states rights issue no matter how much the Democrats make it out to be.

I further question the motives of the Democratic Party and their potential nominee. On the campaign website for Senator Kerry
we find the following statement "John Kerry was raised in the Catholic faith and continues to be an active member of the Catholic church." If Senator Kerry is indeed a Catholic, should he not be following the Word of God and come out against gay marriage? Logically, his beliefs would dictate his actions. Does Senator Kerry believe he can place his own knowledge of what shoudl be moral above that of God? If so, why does he still affiliate with a Church that does not share his view and why has he not been excommunicated from the Catholic Church?
Another well known Catholic has also recently chided President Bush for his "hateful" remarks, Rosie O'Donnell, and I'll leave it at that.

It have heard it argued and it is my understanding that gays just want to be recognized in their loving relationships. However, the agenda presented in public appears to be nothing but a smoke screen for trying to force the acceptance of homosexuality on the rest of the country. By being able to change the way marriage is traditionally defined it is the hope that homosexuality will grow to be more tolerated and more accepted in main stream. Smoke screens are good for awhile, but eventually the true positions become visible.

From a strictly legal standpoint, the ability to redefine the traditional idea of marriage can lead down a slippery slope. If marriage can be redefined once, it can be redefined any special interest group wishes to, 2 women and one man, 3 men and a women, a man and his sheep (cause man he loves that sheep). The point isn't that these are extreme situations, these become very much a possibility if marriage can redefined for any special interest group.

So what can those who oppose gay marriage do? This question was brought up by friend Andy last night in conversation and I have given it much thought. The only thing to do is to get off of our rears and be heard. No longer can the majority opinion remain quiet while a small group tries to push an agenda. What we see today in politics is the 1960s anit war movement (the left) making policy and continuing to push the leftist envelope vs. the button down conservativ patriots. When we think of the 1960s movements, it is the anti war movement that comes to mind because they made themselves vocal and they elected those they needed into office to legalize and push their views on the rest of the country at a locat, state and federal level. It is up to the generation of today to make their voice heard, last night someone said that God has drawn the line in the sand, it is time to show how many stand on that line willing to protect it and willing to fight for it. It is time to make sure that those elected to office are those who will follow the convictions of their faith, who will not back down to the attacks of the left and who will not compromise their beliefs even if it makes them unpopular. Write to local goverment officials, state officials and federal officials and even Presidential canidates, not just on the gay marriage issue but on every issue we hold dear to our hearts, which will be different from person to person. There is even the ability to run for public office and be an instrument of chang, surrounding yourself with people who back you and support you and will get the word out...start with friends and family and work from there, they'll know you best.

The line has been drawn, but are we to prove that it is drawn in sand and easily swept away or are we to show that it is carved in the Rock. It is a trying and troubling world we live in and as darkness grows, light shines brighter. Darkness is frequently associated with night and right now I can not help but think of a better close to this entry than Dylan Thomas' famous poem "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night":

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

-- Dylan Thomas

Perhaps a good amount of tempered rage is needed now.

No comments: