WHERE ARE THE DEFENDERS OF HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE ?

WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF RAHM IMMANUEL
famously (infamously) said that one should never let a good crisis go to waste.

By that he meant, of course, that now while the Nation is in a  multi-level crisis it is a good time, the best time, to push through both by Executive Order and by legislation passed by Congress every conceivable change to our mores, culture, belief system, etc.  It was to be expected, therefore, that efforts would be made to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act which President George W. Bush succeeded in getting Congress to pass during his term in office.  That act simply recognizes on the Federal level that marriage is legally only between a man and a woman.

As we have witnessed, the states are free to enact their own laws regulating marriage and several states have already passed laws (some of which are under legal attack) recognizing marriage between two men or two women.  So what is next?

With the confirmation this past week by the Senate of the appointment of (Chicago friend of Obama) Cass Susstein as the Regulatory Czar anything can happen.  Susstein, as you know has, among other things, argued for ‘animal rights.’  He is in favor of allowing animals to sue humans through attorneys hired to defend the ‘rights’ of animals.  I have searched in vain for a list of the ‘rights’ that animals possess.

Could it be that animals have the right to marry human beings and vice versa?  I am surprised that this has not already been permitted in Great Britain where animals are valued above humans.  Don’t forget that back before Roe v Wade followed closely on the heels of the abortion-on-demand law enacted in New York State, England had shown the way by enacting anti-vivisection laws to protect laboratory animals at the same time that abortion-on-demand was legalized for humans in England.

Who will lead the way to this Brave New World?  Probably LGBTTIQQ2S.  What, you have never heard of LGVTTIQQ2S?  Mark Steyn explains that strange acronym:

I see that what I quaintly thought of as the Toronto Gay Pride Parade was officially billed this year as a parade to celebrate “the LGBTTIQQ2S communities.

LGBTTIQQ2S? Oh, come on. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Transgendered, Intersexual, Queer, Questioning and 2-Spirited. Where ya bin? 2-Spirited doesn’t mean too spirited, as in Anne of Green Gables, but is supposedly some First Nations thing. Anyway, you can see why the “current system” of airport security has a hard time keeping up. Any day now, they’ll introduce Intergendered and Transspirited, and by the time Mayor Miller has stumbled through the acronym in his official proclamation, the parade’ll be over. So, when a Bigendering person shows up at the frontier, don’t be surprised if the border guard comes over all 2-Questioning. Travel, explains the Star’s Julia Steinecke, is “complicated for those who live in the grey area between genders.”                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    MARK STEYN   http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/08/27/do-you-notice-anything-shrivelling/

I have written in an earlier post (  GAY ‘MARRIAGE’ – IS IT INEVITABLE? published August 1, 2009) about the basic human need for relationships.
In that post I defended civil unions that offer legal protection for domestic partnerships.
Naturally I am in favor of domestic partnerships that adhere to Judaeo-Christian moral principles.  Just because some heterosexual marriages do not conform to the Judaeo-Christian ideal we do not condemn all heterosexual marriages; similarly we can help those couples who sincerely strive to live holy lives while in a domestic relationship.The protection afforded by civil union legislation is morally defensible.

The Catholic Church needs to draw on all its strength (hierarchy, clergy, religious, and laity) and engage in this struggle in defense of marriage NOW.

Here is some indication of what lies ahead:

FRANK WON’T BACK MARRIAGE ACT REPEAL                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       by Glenn Thrush                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   POLITICO.COM                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    September 13, 2009    
Categories: House Democrats

Efforts by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act have suffered a setback with Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) — the most powerful gay pol on the Hill — expressing opposition to Nadler’s tactics.

“It’s not anything that’s achievable in the near term,” Frank told the Washington Blade, echoing remarks made by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in April.
“I think getting [the Employment Non-Discrimination Act], a repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ and full domestic partner benefits for federal employees will take up all of what we can do and maybe more in this Congress.”

Nadler plans to introduce the repeal of the 1996 law, which directs the federal government to recognize only man-woman relationships as marriages, on Tuesday.

I first reported the effort about a week ago.
He said the bill won’t include domestic partnerships and civil unions because it’s intended to create federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
Reps. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Jared Polis, a gay first-term Colorado Democrat, are on board with Nadler’s approach.
But Frank — whose plate is full to overflowing with the rewrite of the country’s financial regulatory rules — said Nadler’s effort is an impossible political lift, adding that an anti-DOMA  lawsuit filed by the nonprofit Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders stands a better chance of killing the law.
The House Financial Services Chairman took particular issue with a Nadler provision that would allow same-sex couples to take their partnership benefits across state lines, which he thinks will only goad culture-war conservatives into a damaging counterattack.

“The provision that says you can take your benefits as you travel, I think, will stir up unnecessary opposition with regard to the question of are you trying to export it to other states,” he said. “If we had a chance to pass that, it would be a different story, but I don’t think it’s a good idea to rekindle that debate when there’s no chance of passage in the near term.”

Nadler, a Frank ally who represents Chelsea and the West Village, issued a statement saying that Frank’s piecemeal approach could deny federal employees “uniform access” to benefits and other rights that have been denied them under DOMA.

“Mr. Frank knows better than anyone that our opponents will falsely claim that any DOMA repeal bill ‘exports marriage’ in an effort to generate fear and misunderstanding,” Nadler said. “But the dishonest tactics of our opponents should not stop us from aggressively pushing to end this horrific discrimination now, as is the consensus of the nation’s top LGBT groups who all support this approach.”

 Nadler also said his proposed bill wouldn’t force any state to marry gay couples or recognize same-sex couples under state law.
Even if Nadler’s bill passes the House, it is likely to have a tough time in the Senate, despite the apparent support of Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) who says DOMA needs to go.
But LGBT advocates think the symbolism may be just as important as the substance in the short run.
“[W]hat we have here is movement,” writes gay blogger QUEERTY. “It’s maybe the first mile marker of the marathon.”

By Glenn Thrush 12:46 PM

About abyssum

I am a retired Roman Catholic Bishop, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas
This entry was posted in GAY 'MARRIAGE' and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.