RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM president: Marriage ruling is 'Dred Scott decision of our time' » Episcopalians approve ceremonies for all legally-qualified couples » NOM's wishful (and disrespectful) thinking: SCOTUS ruling is 'illegitimate' » Focus on the Family creates itemized price list for 'saving' marriage » Fox News pays this person for his opinions » Pat Buchanan doubles down on 1983 column claiming AIDS is nature's punishment » Is NOM really going to push for a constitutional convention on marriage? » Video: Great piece from 'CBS Sunday Morning' highlights sweet success » Yes, the American marriage equality fight is over—the rest is just bluster » Goodnight from the White House to your house  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

05/23/2006

Marriage ban not 'marriage banny' enough for CWA

by Jeremy Hooper

Of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, whose text currently reads:

Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

...the Concerned Women For America's Robert Knight (pic.) says today:

CWA does not support the Marriage Protection Amendment as currently worded because the second sentence is open to differing interpretations, and its drafters acknowledged that it was specifically crafted that way so state legislators could create civil unions, domestic partnerships and other forms of counterfeit marriage.

CWA believes that legislators should not create incentives in the law that encourage people to remain trapped in homosexuality, and that such laws inevitably result in the degradation of the natural family and the oppression of people who hold traditional views of marriage.

So yea, those of you who CWA and allies claim are "trapped in homosexuality" and whose unions they describe as "counterfeit marriage" -- stop degrading/oppressing the poor evangelical Christians. Mr. Knight's only asking that you ditch your sexual truth, become a shell of a human, pretend you're oriented to enjoy the opposite sex, and protest anything he interprets as not being conducive to his religious beliefs. Or you can remain "trapped" as a gay, where Knight and friends will work to ensure that your unions aren't legally recognized in any way, shape, or bias. Can't you see how much your cries of "please stop making me feel as if this country despises me for who I am" are nothing but bigotry towards those who are making you feel this way? Can't you see how we're oppressing them?

Yea, no -- neither can we. At all. Not even a little. Because we're not.

Knight goes on to say:

CWA prefers the Institution of Marriage Amendment authored by Home School Legal Defense Association President Michael Farris. That amendment, which has not been introduced by any member of Congress, protects marriage in all aspects:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither the United States nor any State shall recognize or grant to any unmarried person the legal rights or status of a spouse.

While CWA believes this is better language than the MPA, we also think a single sentence that does not muddy the constitutional waters on civil unions is the next best option.

Therefore, CWA would support this language:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

And just imagine what they're next step will be, should they succeed in getting a so-called Federal Marriage Amendment. Let's see: They don't like us and they think we can and should change our sexualities. Golly, we can't see ANY REASON why we should be scared of their next ideas at "saving" America...

Why a Marriage Protection Amendment Is Needed [CWA]

space gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails