?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Federal Marriage Amendment in Clarion Ledger - The pen of enlightenment in a state of disrepair. [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
media_watch_ms

[ website | Noam Chomsky ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Federal Marriage Amendment in Clarion Ledger [May. 28th, 2004|04:19 pm]
media_watch_ms

media_watch_ms

[prince_mab]
A letter caught my eye today, so I will promptly respond to it now. Send in one as well! Feel free to rely heavily on whatever I wrote.
The new letter, to which I will respond this evening is about the Federal Marriage Amendment. Here's the letter. My response is forthcoming...feel free to write your own reply as well!

Website Link
Marriage amendment must be supported — for families!

You've probably heard in the past few weeks the charge that the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would define marriage in the U.S. Constitution as the union of one man and one woman, would write discrimination into our country's founding document.

Don't believe it for a second.

The truth is, the Constitution is going to be altered one way or the other. Either that change will come from unelected, unaccountable judges intent on creating a right of homosexual couples to marry when the Constitution grants no such right; or it will come from the American people through this amendment to preserve marriage as it has served society for millennia.

Amendment opponents have also turned to an emotional argument in asking, "How does one couple's gay marriage threaten anyone's heterosexual marriage?" This question misses the point: The goal of gay activists isn't the individual relationship of any two people. It is the revision of national policy to say that gender, especially in child-rearing, is inconsequential, even though research indicates children do best when raised by a married mother and father.

This campaign can be defeated — but only if we all stand up to support the marriage amendment.

Julie Engle
Clinton

My Response:
The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) is discrimination. The Founders of our country would not have understood same-sex marriage or ‘interracial’ marriage, and probably would have disapproved of marriage across class lines. Historically, marriage was an institution of property ownership, not love.
‘Family’ comes from the Roman Familia, denoting a Master and his property, including things and persons. Wives, children, slaves, and animals all belonged to the head of the household. He could beat, rape, sell or kill any of his properties.
In the Biblical sense, the property relation still existed. Raping a man’s wife was not a crime against her, but against her husband; an abuse of his property. He could also sell off or kill his children at his discretion.
During Feudal society, a compliment was, ‘he loved his wife like a mistress’. An extra-marital lover, of either the same of opposite gender, was considered legitimate, as marriage was only to consolidate property and power.
I hope the definition of ‘Marriage’, and ‘Family’ has changed already. Marriage should be about love, recognition and rights.
If in the 1920s the “American people” were to vote on ‘interracial’ marriage, do you think the Right to marry people regardless of ‘race’ would exist?
And legitimate research does not suggest that children do ‘best when raised by a father and mother’. Children do best when raised by two loving, responsible adults. The American Psychiatric Association notes that the problems faced by children of same-sex couples come not from the home, but from a hostile society and discrimination; the type of thing the FMA would legitimate.
linkReply

Comments:
From: ceridwen
2004-05-28 09:13 am (UTC)
I love it when these fanatically idiots try to have made up research to support their claims and yet never put any link or refrence to their source.
I think your argumenet is very forceful and well researched. It just needs a good closing now.
(Reply) (Thread)