FRC Mentions Indiana in Daily E-mail Update
The Washington, D.C. based Family Research Council had an item in yesterday’s daily e-mail update about the status of marriage accross the states and Indiana’s efforts to pass SJR 7 were mentioned.
In places like Iowa, Indiana, Maryland, and Florida, the President’s annual State of the Union address is taking a backseat to what many see as the troubling state of their own unions. Pro-family Hoosiers, who recently celebrated the legislature’s decision to vote their marriage protection amendment out of committee, are facing a do-or-die battle to get the initiative on the November ballot. If House Speaker Pat Bauer (D) sabotages the bill, as he has promised to do, voters will have to wait four to six years for another shot at protecting marriage. If Bauer, who is an award-winning opponent of traditional marriage (so honored by the ACLU), bars citizens from defining marriage, it will only be a matter of time before Indiana’s courts do so for them. In the Sunshine State, where residents are consumed by the presidential primaries, another race hangs in the balance–the race against time for traditional marriage proponents. Florida4Marriage has been scrambling to gather thousands of new signatures to place a marriage protection amendment on this November’s ballot. As a result, left-wing groups are out in full force, countering the petition drive with the same scare tactics that defeated the Arizona marriage amendment. Preying on the fears of the elderly, liberals are wrongly arguing that the amendment would threaten their well being. It would not, but homosexuals aren’t letting a little thing like the truth get in the way of an effective campaign. Elsewhere, Iowans are so outraged at the activism of a lower court in striking down the ban on gay marriage that they have petitioned the legislature to impeach the judge responsible for last year’s ruling. At a January 16 rally, protestors demanded that their leaders take up a marriage protection amendment before the case goes to the Iowa Supreme Court. Although Governor Chet Culver (D) pledged to “stop gay marriage from coming to [his] state,” he has yet to do a single thing to prevent it. On the contrary, he’s publicly refused to push any legislation until the high court rules. In the brief time since Maryland’s General Assembly has convened, proponents of same-sex “marriage” have already canvassed the State House, lobbying members to introduce bills that would overturn the existing ban on homosexual marriage. Reports indicate that a handful of those bills are making their debut in the legislature today. Time is of the essence! If you live in these states or have friends who do, we urge you to make your voices heard. On the future of marriage, it could make all the difference!
You can find the contact information for The Hair The Speaker here.
January 26th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
You wrote:
“If Bauer, who is an award-winning opponent of traditional marriage (so honored by the ACLU), bars citizens from defining marriage, it will only be a matter of time before Indiana’s courts do so for them.”
Hm. Now that’s interesting, Brian, on two points.
First, SJR-7 strips the legislature of the power to define marriage. The authors refused a compromise with language reserving the power of definition to the legislature precisely because they know the majority of young Americans have no problem with same sex marriage, which sentiment eventually would express itself legislatively. (In fact, I am running into a remarkable number of young Republicans who wish the party would “get off the topic.”) The authors don’t care in the least about whether the people have the right to define marriage.. their effort isn’t to protect that right… their effort is to usurp it.
Second, isn’t it interesting how, in a state of both Republicans and Democrats who tend toward conservative, as do the judges they have appointed, the authors of that message say it is only a matter of time before a judge defines civil marriage in a manner that would include same sex couples? Seems to me that if there was any confidence that the current non-status of same sex couples was consistent with the call of the Constitution toward equal protection and religious freedom, there would be no fear of judicial action whatsoever and no need to amend the Constitution. But the authors know that as Hoosiers and Americans, we are guaranteed rights to equal protection of the laws, and so they know what the true responsibility of judges is to do… apply the Constitution as its words demand and as is consistent with what it means to be American.
This contempt for Constitution’s guarantees is the reason that Eric Miller changed the name of his organization from “Citizens Concerned for the Constitution” to “Advance America.” The Constitution is an impediment to the ambitions of the extreme right.
It is only that document that has protected us.