Thursday, June 22, 2006

Gay Marriage is #1 in the Hearts and Minds of MFI

Mass "Family" Institute out in Newton, Mass has a new email alert out. They don't send as many "updates" as Article 8/Massresistance but then again they're supposed to be more legit (and not to be confused with those people). Among the typcial announcements of "New Anti-gay ads", "Romney reducing Judges pay", etc.. was this:

South Dakota ballot packed with pro-family issues, churches warned

The people of South Dakota will have an opportunity to vote on not one, but three important pro-family issues come November. The first, and likely most important issue, is a constitutional amendment protecting the definition of marriage. While South Dakota was the first state, back in 1996, to approve a Defense of Marriage Act, amendment supporters believe that a constitutional amendment is the only way to protect marriage from activist judges. The House and Senate both voted in favor of putting the issue before the people.

The other two pro-family issues that will be appearing on the South Dakota ballot are abortion and video gambling. The Legislature earlier this year approved a sweeping ban on nearly all abortions that was then signed into law by the state governor. Pro-abortion advocates almost immediately challenged the law, and have since successfully collected enough signatures to place the law on the ballot for the people to decide. Voters will also be able to vote for or against repealing video lottery for the state.

Since all three of these issues are all routed deeply in the faith of many people, churches and nonprofit groups obviously plan on playing a role in their passage, or defeat, whichever the case may be. Because of this, many of these groups are being wrongly told they could lose their tax-exempt status if they speak about these ballot questions.

"Not that any churches here in South Dakota have [crossed the line], but they've definitely received a message from ultraliberal organizations that don't want to see the churches involved," said Rob Regier, executive director of the South Dakota Family Policy Council.

"The churches have the duty to speak without ambiguity about the covenant of marriage and why redefining that to allow men to marry men would be wrong," Regier added. "The churches have a duty to speak about the sanctity of life. They should talk about those issues, and they should have the freedom to preach on whatever they want."


When did South Dakota become a burning issue for people in Massachusetts? And when did "two people who love each other and want to make a life long commitment to each other" become the "first and most important issue"? I thought the "sanctity of life" always came first? To these people politics comes first and same sex marriage is an issue they think they can win easily. Did I mention that 2/3rds of Canadians feel the same-sex marriage issue is settled?
(Angus Reid Global Scan) – Many adults in Canada believe homosexual couples should be allowed to legally marry, according to a poll by Environics Research Group released by Canadians for Equal Marriage. 59 per cent of respondents agree that same-sex couples should have the same right to civil marriage as opposite-sex couples.

4 comments:

Gay Gloater said...

We're No. 1 --- We're No. 1. Take that you unborn. I always knew we could do it. I just want to spike that ball in the endzone and thank Jesus!

Reggie said...

For those you Slate.com fans, they point out that the reason the right is crazy for an amendment is because they want to enshine discrimination before public opinion turns in favor of equal rights for gay people. Hmm, I guess they read the Canadian newspapers afterall.

Anonymous said...

They know once it becomes an amendment it is almost impossible to remove it from the state constitution. It would require a 2/3 rds vote of the people to remove it. They want to ride the wave while homophobia is still strong. Once in, this amendment is almost guaranteed to be there for another 100 years.

Rieux said...

Once in, this amendment is almost guaranteed to be there for another 100 years.

In the South Dakota Constitution, maybe--but barring an anti-gay amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it's really only a matter of time before the U.S. Supreme Court rules that marriage laws that discriminate against gay couples are unconstitutional. That will invalidate anything South Dakota (or any other state) can do, and it will also neuter the similarly homophobic Defense of Marriage Act.

With right-wing Republican appointees like John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court, it could be a generation yet before gay marriage gets its Brown v. Board of Education decision, but there's no doubt--it will happen. That's why the right wing wants a "Federal Marriage Amendment" now, to stop the spread of gay human rights before they become too popular.

Anyway, though, the point is that a bunch of twits in South Dakota can do nothing to prevent this.