Monday, June 05, 2006

marriage amendment

This weekend, President Bush impressed me with his stand in protection of the institution of marriage. On June 7th, just two days away, the US Senate will be considering a Constitutional amendment that would define marriage as union between a man and a woman.

According to a poll from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 63 percent of Americans opposed gay marriage in February 2004. The articles I read from the MSM regarding the upcoming debate didn’t sound hopeful about the passage of such an amendment. In “Bush Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage,” Nedra Pickler wrote, “It [the amendment] stands little chance of passing the 100-member Senate, where proponents are struggling to get even 50 votes. Several Republicans oppose the measure, and so far only one Democrat _ Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska _ says he will vote for it.”

In previous posts, I've focused on marriage and homosexuality.
Marriage Keeps People Healthy, Wealthy and Wise
A Great Evil

Orson Scott Card also wrote an excellent article on this topic, “Homosexual 'Marriage' and Civilization.” He explains what the breakdown of the family and traditional marriage will do to our society.

What do you think? Should the protection of marriage be a federal or state issue?


Wholesome Works said...

Great post!

I think the protection of marriage should be a state issue. The people are a little closer to the state government than the federal government, and it would also protect state's rights.

That article was long, but well well worth reading.

Thank you for posting this!


Elizabeth Ellen Moore said...

The article was thorough, and the arguments were well thought out. I liked what he said about the transfer of our loyalty and the distrust of the public schools. Homosexuals are not born; they are the product of sin and are usually influenced by their upbringing. I am not exactly sure if this is a state or national issue, but I tend to lean toward the state.