The Crumbling of Marriage and Culture

GARY BAUER

Campaign for Working Families, June 18, 2003

Campaign for Working Families, June 26, 2003

Campaign for Working Families, June 27, 2003

Campaign for Working Families, July 1, 2003

Campaign for Working Families, July 2, 2003

Campaign for Working Families, July 3, 2003

Campaign for Working Families, July 7, 2003

CHUCK COLSON

Prison Fellowship Ministries, June 30, 2003

KEN CONNOR

Family Research Council, June 19, 2003

Family Policy Network, June 20, 2003

Family Research Council, June 23, 2003

Family Research Council, June 26

Family Research Council, June 30, 2003

Family Research Council, July 1, 2003

Family Research Council, July 9, 2003

DAVID CROWE

Restore America, July 3, 2003

JERRY FALWELL

Old-Time Gospel Hour, June 26, 2003

ROBERT KNIGHT

Culture and Family Institute, July 2, 2003

Gary Bauer, Campaign for Working Families, June 18

The Northern Front

A new front has opened in the culture war. For years our northern neighbor, Canada, has been experimenting with social radicalism. But for the first time the effects will be felt here in the United States. We have been warning for months that the battle over marriage is about to "go nuclear." For thousands of years everyone knew what was meant by the word "marriage." Now that too is open for debate in our relativistic society.

Last week Canadian courts legalized homosexual marriages, and now the liberal Canadian parliament is working on legislation to validate that ruling. According to today's New York Times, the United States recognizes legal Canadian marriages. Moreover, Canada does not have any residency requirements to obtain a legal marriage there. You can see where this is leading.

Homosexual advocates will point to Canada as an example the United States should emulate. The Canadian example is bad enough, but the issue of homosexual marriage is currently pending before the Massachusetts Supreme Court. We have all the makings of a constitutional and societal crisis over the very definition of marriage and family, yet most of our political leaders are silent! I believe the White House must be proactive. It must speak up now and it must speak boldly in defense of traditional marriage. It must send strong signals to Capitol Hill that a constitutional amendment must pass to ensure that marriage in this country remains the union of one man and one woman.

Ken Connor, Family Research Council, June 19

Hockey Players, Cold Fronts and Now Gay Marriage

Canada soon will be sending us "married" homosexuals. The decision of the government not to appeal the Ontario court ruling--and Prime Minister Chretien's pledge to quickly pass a gay marriage bill in Parliament--makes this a done deal. What does this mean for the United States? Countries recognize each other's marriage contracts. Homosexuals in the U.S. already are traveling north to get "married" and returning to demand their states recognize these Canadian contracts. And "married" homosexual Canadians moving south also are likely to demand legal recognition of their marital status. Yet 37 states have enacted defense of marriage (DOMA) laws defining marriage exclusively as the union of one man and one woman. And the federal DOMA law exempts states from having to recognize same-sex "marriages" from other states. Consequently, this has all the makings of a diplomatic mess.

The assault on marriage from every quarter--the courts, legislatures, the cultural elite, and now Canada--is unprecedented in human history. Americans seeking to preserve marriage as the bedrock foundation of society must make their voices heard.

Family Policy Network, June 20

JESUS CHRIST: WWW.HOPE FOR HOMOSEXUALS.COM

Christian activists in three states will work together this weekend to confront park-goers attending pro-homosexual events in Pennsylvania and Texas with the truth that Christ can set them free from the sin of homosexuality. Since the beginning of June, the Virginia-based Family Policy Network (FPN) has been contracting pilots to tow banners over pro-homosexual events in various states that read, "JESUS CHRIST: WWW.HOPE FOR HOMOSEXUALS.COM."

'Project Hope Days' received national attention earlier this month when a controversy over free speech rights erupted after FPN sought a temporary restraining order in a federal court to lift the 'no-fly zone' over Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida. FPN had wanted to fly the 'Hope' banner over Disney's 'Gay Day' on June 7, but the attempt to lift the prohibition against Disney flyovers failed. The banner was flown anyway - legally criss-crossing the highway leading to the Magic Kingdom.

FPN established the "Hope for Homosexuals" web site (www.hopeforhomosexuals.com) to encourage practicing homosexuals to "come out" of that destructive lifestyle, and home to the love and forgiveness of Jesus Christ.

Ken Connor, Family Research Council, June 23

Election 2004: Bush Will Have to Defend Marriage

Marriage will be a major issue in next year's presidential election. Howard Dean, former Vermont governor and Democratic presidential hopeful, said yesterday he supports so-called same-sex marriage. Vermont was the first state to enact "civil unions" for homosexual and lesbian couples. Dean praised the legalization of gay marriage in Canada and said he would urge all states to recognize the legality of same-sex unions. Other Democratic candidates, pandering to the politically powerful homosexual lobby, have endorsed domestic partner benefits and civil union schemes.

Marriage is under attack across the board. The California Assembly passed a bill, pending in the state Senate, to legalize gay marriage. Gay Americans are flocking to Canada to get "married" in hopes of forcing states in the U.S. to recognize their marital contracts. Major American corporations are undermining marriage by offering spousal benefits to cohabiting gays and heterosexuals. The Massachusetts Supreme Court is expected to rule any day on a gay marriage case.

And the U.S. Supreme Court most likely will rule this week on the constitutionality of Texas' anti-sodomy law. Should the court strike down the Texas law, overturning the 1986 precedent Bowers v. Hardwick, a major obstacle to the legal recognition of gay marriage will have been swept away. As Sen. Rick Santorum accurately noted in his widely criticized remarks last month, if the Texas law is overturned, then little stands in the way of the legalization of same-sex marriage, polygamy, plural and group marriage, and consensual incest.

So marriage is emerging as a major issue in the 2004 campaign. With the Democrats lining up to support various counterfeits, it will fall to President Bush to offer a spirited, unequivocal defense of marriage--with no waffling, no spinning or clever parsing of this issue. Too much is at stake.

Gary Bauer, Campaign for Working Families, June 26

Losing the Culture War

Today's Supreme Court decision striking down the Texas law banning sodomy is a disaster for the pro-family side of America's culture war. The Texas legislature passed the law in order to promote the institution of marriage and the family and argued that communities have a right to choose their own standards. Six Supreme Court Justices said that a "right to privacy" in the Constitution is grounds to overrule Texas and 13 other states with similar laws.

Justice Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, brought cheer to the radical homosexual rights movement by saying that men engaging in sodomy "are entitled to respect for their private lives." He added, "The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime." Really?

Consider the precedent the Court has now set. Every argument can be applied with equal force to strike down state laws against prostitution, bestiality, and every other form of adult sexual activity. Once the highest court of the land says that "privacy" outweighs the compelling interest a society has in promoting family, and reliable standards of right and wrong, there is no place to draw a line.

Justice Scalia wrote the dissenting opinion and was joined by Justices Thomas and Rehnquist. He could barely contain his outrage and chose to take the unusual step of reading the dissent out loud from the bench. He mocked the majority, accusing them of taking sides in America's culture war and wondering why the majority was too cowardly to declare "a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy," since that is what the decision guarantees.

Of the six Justice majority, four of the Justices--O'Connor, Souter, Kennedy and Stevens were appointed by Republican Presidents! The White House did not even bother to file a brief in the case, even though it was the President's own home State of Texas that was under attack.

So let's review the country that our federal courts have been constructing for us. It is a place where unborn children can be destroyed on a whim, a nation that requires parental permission for a tattoo, but not an abortion. It is a country where a copy of the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn is a threat to our liberty and the words "Under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance is a violation of the separation of Church and state. And soon it may be a place that allows men to marry men, effectively destroying 2,000 years of Judeo-Christian tradition on the meaning of marriage.

For all of these reasons, and more, we cannot afford one more mistake in a Supreme Court appointment. The President, if there is a vacancy, must appoint a Scalia or a Thomas type of candidate. We must fight back, and the politicians we are electing must have the courage to help us.

Ken Connor, Family Research Council, June 26

Muddled Court Decision Undermines Marriage

The Supreme Court's decision is a direct attack on the sanctity of marriage. By extending legal protections to homosexual behavior, the court also demolished the legal foundation of marriage. As Justice Antonin Scalia noted in his scathing opinion in dissent, "State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of ... laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision."

Rather than root its opinions in the text of the Constitution and the intent of the Framers, the majority simply raises a dampened finger to see which way the cultural breezes are blowing. Justice Kennedy, for example, referred to an "emerging awareness" regarding sexual morality. But isn't this what legislatures are for in a republican form of government? It's the role of the people's elected representatives, not unelected and unaccountable judges, to address emerging issues. This ruling is an example of breathtaking judicial activism. The majority simply imposed its own private opinions and political desires on the law.

Nothing less than the people's right to self-government is at stake. Will we rule ourselves, or be ruled by black-robed oligarchs who disregard the law and the Constitution to impose their own political agenda on the country?

Continued on page 2: »