the cancer of liberalism and gay marriage
www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007704040427
www2.indystar.com/articles/1/250099-5011-127.html
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070405/OPINION01/704050453/1031/OPINION01
Each of the above links is related to the gay marriage issue in Indiana. Opponents of gay marriage have sought to have the Indiana Constitution amended to prohibit gay marriage. This step has become necessary because liberal activist judges are so fond of legislating their personal values (or lack thereof) into the state code. It's pretty easy to see that, at some point, a liberal judge in Indiana is going to wake up one morning and decide that the day has come for gay marriage to be allowed under Indiana law. At that point, he will wave his magic liberal activist wand and POOF! Gay marriage will be the law of the state. The proposed amendment would prevent that from happening.
The debate over this amendment has become very contentious, and it's because liberals and conservatives strongly disagree on their core beliefs about the fundamental purpose of government. Conservatives believe "...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...". Conservatives actually believe in the founding principles of America! Liberals, on the other hand, believe that man is his own god, and that it is the responsibility of the omnipotent Mommy and Daddy Central Government to use any means necessary to ensure that this view of our own divinity becomes the law of the land. When I say "any means necessary," I mean that the liberal believes that lies, threats, and intimidation are all appropriate tools to use in the forceful implementation of their godless agenda. Liberalism, you see, is a cancer. It is an insidious disease that renders the victim completely unable to tell the difference between truth and lies. Dishonesty becomes part of the DNA of the committed liberal, and make no mistake, they should be committed. Destroyed forever is the capability of discerning right from wrong, good from evil, or fact from fiction. The 2007 battle in Indiana over the gay marriage amendment (and, believe me, the battle will continue in 2008) has provided proof positive of everything I have said. Please investigate the above links and see for yourself. I'll share some highlights with you:
1. Indiana House Speaker Pat Bauer (Democrat) promised last October to give the marriage amendment an up or down vote in the House. He lied. The House Rules Committee, which serves at the pleasure of the House Speaker, refused to let the proposed amendment proceed to the floor this week, effectively killing the measure for this session. It can be brought up again in 2008. Bauer says that he didn't have any control over that decision, that it was the committee's decision. Look, I was born at night, but it wasn't last night! That is an outright lie. The Speaker sets the agenda of the Rules Committee. It's his committee!
2. Bauer stated that "new information" had come up about the second sentence of the amendment that allowed him to break his promise. "Marriage in Indiana consists only of the union of one man and one woman. This Constitution or any other Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups." Bauer, along with all of the usual suspects in Indiana's "progressive" community, stated that this one sentence would make it impossible to prosecute an individual who was living with a non-spouse of domestic battery. Does the 21st Century liberal actually believe that? I hope not, because it would show a serious lack of gray matter. If a man and a woman are living together but not married, and the man hits the woman, you prosecute him on charges of assault and battery and send him to prison. Period, end of discussion. What's so hard about that? The proposed amendment, contrary to the liberal lies, does nothing to change that.
3. Five Indiana corporations issued statements saying that passage of the amendment would severely damage their ability to recruit the best and the brightest to live and work in Indiana. Well, well, well. Is that a fact? How about some hard numbers? The U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services estimates that between 2.5 and 3% of America's population is gay. A site called GayDemographics.org offers up a different set of statistics, placing an emphasis on the number of same-sex couples in the United States. According to their findings, there were a total of 61,064,407 couples in 2004. Approximately 707,196 (or 1.16 percent) were same-sex couples. If you go to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003432940_
gays16m.html?syndication=rss, you will see a study which says that about 15% of the San Francisco population and 12.9% of the Seattle population is gay. For the sake of argument, I am willing to say that, nationwide, anywhere from 3% to 8% of the American population is gay. Within that tiny fraction of the American population, less than 20% actually live together in a monogamous relationship (see www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet7.html for some interesting statistics). In other words, we are talking about a fraction of a fraction of the American population. That's going to screw up the Hoosier workforce and economy? Give me a break! Once again, liberalism resorts to "The Big Lie."
4. Check out this letter to the editor of The Indianapolis Star:
My experience as a practicing internist for 23 years and parent of four grown children has convinced me that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. Whether to treat others created equal in the eyes of God and our Constitution as "normal," however, is a choice. Using scriptural interpretation to justify ignoring lessons of our past and continuing to ostracize those of different color, religion, gender or sexual orientation is a choice.
In a society founded upon the principle of separation of church and state, questions arising from a personal experience with Scripture should not enter into the legislative decision-making process. Instead, in our multicultural society, we should focus on being more inclusive, celebrating common bonds, embracing diversity, appreciating and learning from the vast and reasonable experience of others. Might we choose this to define "normal"?
William C. Buffie, M.D.
Internist,
Co-author of "The Christian Pluralist: An Invitation from the Pew"
Indianapolis
OK, I guess we are just supposed to fall to the ground and accept all of the above whoppers as The Truth. No thanks! An "internist" has no more knowledge on the gay "nature or nurture" debate than I do. He's just a shmuck with an opinion, same as me! And by the way, Dr. Internist, America was not founded on the principle of separation of church and state. That's the old U.S.S.R. you are thinking of. And the gay marriage amendment doesn't ostracize anyone. It just seeks to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. And what's this about "questions arising from a personal experience with Scripture should not enter into the legislative decision-making process."? Are you saying that lawmakers should not pray to God in the name of His Son Jesus for guidance? Good grief! What part of "free exercise" does he not understand? Last question--what's a "Christian Pluralist?" Sounds like a non-Christian to me.
5. Speaker Bauer said that the Rules Committee (which he has nothing to do with) tabled the proposed amendment because public opinion was against it. This is perhaps the biggest liberal lie of them all. Liberals are oh-so very fond of saying that their cockamamie ideas are supported by the majority. Bull! When put to a vote, gay marriage legislation has never lost! Red states, blue states, it just doesn't matter. We the people want marriage defined as one man/one woman. Question---if Speaker Bauer is so convinced that the Hoosier majority is against gay marriage legislation, why doesn't he let it come up for a vote? The voters would defeat it and then throw out the Republicans who sponsored the legislation. It would be a huge political victory for the Dems! Of course, deep down in his liberal-ravaged soul, he knows that's a lie, and that he can never give the people a choice (Question--why is "choice" good when it comes to killing babies, but bad when it comes to gay marriage legislation? Hmmm.).
Do you see the truth in my words? The modern liberal can't play the game straight up, with the facts, because they aren't supported by the facts. Liberalism must then rely on lies, threats and intimidation to win their cause. The fact that the average 21st Century liberal is ready, willing and able to resort to those tactics tells you everything you need to know about the effects of the disease.
www2.indystar.com/articles/1/250099-5011-127.html
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070405/OPINION01/704050453/1031/OPINION01
Each of the above links is related to the gay marriage issue in Indiana. Opponents of gay marriage have sought to have the Indiana Constitution amended to prohibit gay marriage. This step has become necessary because liberal activist judges are so fond of legislating their personal values (or lack thereof) into the state code. It's pretty easy to see that, at some point, a liberal judge in Indiana is going to wake up one morning and decide that the day has come for gay marriage to be allowed under Indiana law. At that point, he will wave his magic liberal activist wand and POOF! Gay marriage will be the law of the state. The proposed amendment would prevent that from happening.
The debate over this amendment has become very contentious, and it's because liberals and conservatives strongly disagree on their core beliefs about the fundamental purpose of government. Conservatives believe "...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...". Conservatives actually believe in the founding principles of America! Liberals, on the other hand, believe that man is his own god, and that it is the responsibility of the omnipotent Mommy and Daddy Central Government to use any means necessary to ensure that this view of our own divinity becomes the law of the land. When I say "any means necessary," I mean that the liberal believes that lies, threats, and intimidation are all appropriate tools to use in the forceful implementation of their godless agenda. Liberalism, you see, is a cancer. It is an insidious disease that renders the victim completely unable to tell the difference between truth and lies. Dishonesty becomes part of the DNA of the committed liberal, and make no mistake, they should be committed. Destroyed forever is the capability of discerning right from wrong, good from evil, or fact from fiction. The 2007 battle in Indiana over the gay marriage amendment (and, believe me, the battle will continue in 2008) has provided proof positive of everything I have said. Please investigate the above links and see for yourself. I'll share some highlights with you:
1. Indiana House Speaker Pat Bauer (Democrat) promised last October to give the marriage amendment an up or down vote in the House. He lied. The House Rules Committee, which serves at the pleasure of the House Speaker, refused to let the proposed amendment proceed to the floor this week, effectively killing the measure for this session. It can be brought up again in 2008. Bauer says that he didn't have any control over that decision, that it was the committee's decision. Look, I was born at night, but it wasn't last night! That is an outright lie. The Speaker sets the agenda of the Rules Committee. It's his committee!
2. Bauer stated that "new information" had come up about the second sentence of the amendment that allowed him to break his promise. "Marriage in Indiana consists only of the union of one man and one woman. This Constitution or any other Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups." Bauer, along with all of the usual suspects in Indiana's "progressive" community, stated that this one sentence would make it impossible to prosecute an individual who was living with a non-spouse of domestic battery. Does the 21st Century liberal actually believe that? I hope not, because it would show a serious lack of gray matter. If a man and a woman are living together but not married, and the man hits the woman, you prosecute him on charges of assault and battery and send him to prison. Period, end of discussion. What's so hard about that? The proposed amendment, contrary to the liberal lies, does nothing to change that.
3. Five Indiana corporations issued statements saying that passage of the amendment would severely damage their ability to recruit the best and the brightest to live and work in Indiana. Well, well, well. Is that a fact? How about some hard numbers? The U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services estimates that between 2.5 and 3% of America's population is gay. A site called GayDemographics.org offers up a different set of statistics, placing an emphasis on the number of same-sex couples in the United States. According to their findings, there were a total of 61,064,407 couples in 2004. Approximately 707,196 (or 1.16 percent) were same-sex couples. If you go to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003432940_
gays16m.html?syndication=rss, you will see a study which says that about 15% of the San Francisco population and 12.9% of the Seattle population is gay. For the sake of argument, I am willing to say that, nationwide, anywhere from 3% to 8% of the American population is gay. Within that tiny fraction of the American population, less than 20% actually live together in a monogamous relationship (see www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet7.html for some interesting statistics). In other words, we are talking about a fraction of a fraction of the American population. That's going to screw up the Hoosier workforce and economy? Give me a break! Once again, liberalism resorts to "The Big Lie."
4. Check out this letter to the editor of The Indianapolis Star:
My experience as a practicing internist for 23 years and parent of four grown children has convinced me that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. Whether to treat others created equal in the eyes of God and our Constitution as "normal," however, is a choice. Using scriptural interpretation to justify ignoring lessons of our past and continuing to ostracize those of different color, religion, gender or sexual orientation is a choice.
In a society founded upon the principle of separation of church and state, questions arising from a personal experience with Scripture should not enter into the legislative decision-making process. Instead, in our multicultural society, we should focus on being more inclusive, celebrating common bonds, embracing diversity, appreciating and learning from the vast and reasonable experience of others. Might we choose this to define "normal"?
William C. Buffie, M.D.
Internist,
Co-author of "The Christian Pluralist: An Invitation from the Pew"
Indianapolis
OK, I guess we are just supposed to fall to the ground and accept all of the above whoppers as The Truth. No thanks! An "internist" has no more knowledge on the gay "nature or nurture" debate than I do. He's just a shmuck with an opinion, same as me! And by the way, Dr. Internist, America was not founded on the principle of separation of church and state. That's the old U.S.S.R. you are thinking of. And the gay marriage amendment doesn't ostracize anyone. It just seeks to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. And what's this about "questions arising from a personal experience with Scripture should not enter into the legislative decision-making process."? Are you saying that lawmakers should not pray to God in the name of His Son Jesus for guidance? Good grief! What part of "free exercise" does he not understand? Last question--what's a "Christian Pluralist?" Sounds like a non-Christian to me.
5. Speaker Bauer said that the Rules Committee (which he has nothing to do with) tabled the proposed amendment because public opinion was against it. This is perhaps the biggest liberal lie of them all. Liberals are oh-so very fond of saying that their cockamamie ideas are supported by the majority. Bull! When put to a vote, gay marriage legislation has never lost! Red states, blue states, it just doesn't matter. We the people want marriage defined as one man/one woman. Question---if Speaker Bauer is so convinced that the Hoosier majority is against gay marriage legislation, why doesn't he let it come up for a vote? The voters would defeat it and then throw out the Republicans who sponsored the legislation. It would be a huge political victory for the Dems! Of course, deep down in his liberal-ravaged soul, he knows that's a lie, and that he can never give the people a choice (Question--why is "choice" good when it comes to killing babies, but bad when it comes to gay marriage legislation? Hmmm.).
Do you see the truth in my words? The modern liberal can't play the game straight up, with the facts, because they aren't supported by the facts. Liberalism must then rely on lies, threats and intimidation to win their cause. The fact that the average 21st Century liberal is ready, willing and able to resort to those tactics tells you everything you need to know about the effects of the disease.
posted by hondo at 10:46 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home