BreakPoint
The gay-rights movement is advancing like, as one gay activist put it, a juggernaut. First, Canada by judicial fiat legalized same-sex "marriage," and gay couples rushed to Canada to get "married." Second, in the Lawrence decision two weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court by judicial fiat struck down the Texas law prohibiting sodomy that makes consensual sex a protected right and sets the precedent for gay "marriage." And third, the Massachusetts Supreme Court by judicial fiat will likely legalize same-sex unions in that state -- a ruling that could lead to a domino effect nationwide.
For centuries civilizations worldwide protected heterosexual families because sex, in the natural order of things, is for procreation. But since the sexual revolution, we've treated sex as recreation, and now people are demanding it like a civil right, and they are succeeding. Gay "marriage" is on the horizon.
And some Christians believe that the battle is lost. There was hardly a protest over the Supreme Court case, one friend told me. And he said, "Face it, Chuck. You can't stop this juggernaut."
Oh, yeah? I'm reminded of the Battle of the Bulge in World War II. The Allied troops were surrounded, and their situation seemed hopeless. The Germans sent a message to the American general Anthony McAuliffe, asking him to surrender and save lives. His answer lives on in American folklore: "Us, surrender? Nuts."
Well, I say we do not rub our hands in despair. I say "nuts" to those who want to give up. Let's roll up our sleeves and get busy.
There is one thing left that could stop the gay "marriage" steamroller. It's a Constitutional amendment. And there's one prepared that says: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."
I've been a little bit lukewarm to this idea because it's such a huge task to get a Constitutional amendment passed, but recent events have changed my mind. This is our last, best option.
The purpose of the Federal Marriage Amendment, according to Dr. Robert George of Princeton University who helped draft it, is to take the decision about same-sex "marriage" out of the hands of the courts. The amendment will force the fight over marriage into legislatures and the democratic process.
And we can succeed, if Christians and others who value marriage refuse to lay down their arms and go to work.
Obviously, you need to talk to your senators and congressman about getting them to support the amendment. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has already announced his support. There's no reason this can't pass in this Congress. Then it will go to the states for ratification where our work will be cut out for us.
I don't want you just to make phone calls, however. I want you to start educating yourselves and your neighbors as to why heterosexual marriage is distinct. No society in history has ever tried this kind of radical social experiment. It's madness.
And we can make an intelligent case, but only if BreakPoint listeners are equipped with the worldview arguments to present it prudentially to their neighbors. So please call us here at BreakPoint (1-877-3-CALLBP). We'd like to send you information you can use. Then, let's go to work. I know it sounds extreme, but I believe nothing less than the survival of our culture is at stake.
>Take action:
Urge your two senators and representative to support the Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution. The Capitol switchboard is 202-224-3121. Or visit http://www.congress.org to find e-mail and mailing addresses.
For further reading and information:
BreakPoint Commentary No. 030630, "'Majestic' Foolishness: The Supreme Court Legislates Again."
BreakPoint Commentary No. 030612, "Oh, Canada!: Marriage Gets a New Definition."
BreakPoint Commentary No. 021204, "Family Matters: Staving Off the Latest Attack on the Family."
See Alliance for Marriage's chart illustrating the Federal Marriage Amendment's legal impact.
John O'Sullivan, "Marriage -- American Style," National Review Online, 10 July 2003.
Sheryl Gay Stolberg, "Move to ban marriage by gays debated," International Herald Tribune, 2 July 2003.
Al Knight, "We need the Marriage Amendment," Denver Post, 2 July 2003.
Charles Krauthammer, "Courting a Crisis of Legitimacy," Washington Post, 4 July 2003, A23.
William J. Bennett, "Gay Marriage: Not a Very Good Idea," Washington Post, May 21, 1996.
William J. Bennett, The Broken Hearth: Reversing the Moral Collapse of the American Family (Doubleday, 2001).
"Why the Laissez-Faire Family Doesn't Work" -- At the April 4-6, 2003, BreakPoint conference, "Christians in the Marketplace," held in Colorado Springs, CO, Jennifer Roback Morse spoke about the "laissez-faire family" and the new definition of freedom: "To be free is to be unencumbered by human relationships."
Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially (Doubleday, 2000).
Robert George, The Clash of Orthodoxies: Law, Religion, and Morality in Crisis (ISI Books, 2001).
Our Last, Best Option
The gay-rights movement is advancing like, as one gay activist put it, a juggernaut. First, Canada by judicial fiat legalized same-sex "marriage," and gay couples rushed to Canada to get "married." Second, in the Lawrence decision two weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court by judicial fiat struck down the Texas law prohibiting sodomy that makes consensual sex a protected right and sets the precedent for gay "marriage." And third, the Massachusetts Supreme Court by judicial fiat will likely legalize same-sex unions in that state -- a ruling that could lead to a domino effect nationwide.
For centuries civilizations worldwide protected heterosexual families because sex, in the natural order of things, is for procreation. But since the sexual revolution, we've treated sex as recreation, and now people are demanding it like a civil right, and they are succeeding. Gay "marriage" is on the horizon.
And some Christians believe that the battle is lost. There was hardly a protest over the Supreme Court case, one friend told me. And he said, "Face it, Chuck. You can't stop this juggernaut."
Oh, yeah? I'm reminded of the Battle of the Bulge in World War II. The Allied troops were surrounded, and their situation seemed hopeless. The Germans sent a message to the American general Anthony McAuliffe, asking him to surrender and save lives. His answer lives on in American folklore: "Us, surrender? Nuts."
Well, I say we do not rub our hands in despair. I say "nuts" to those who want to give up. Let's roll up our sleeves and get busy.
There is one thing left that could stop the gay "marriage" steamroller. It's a Constitutional amendment. And there's one prepared that says: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."
I've been a little bit lukewarm to this idea because it's such a huge task to get a Constitutional amendment passed, but recent events have changed my mind. This is our last, best option.
The purpose of the Federal Marriage Amendment, according to Dr. Robert George of Princeton University who helped draft it, is to take the decision about same-sex "marriage" out of the hands of the courts. The amendment will force the fight over marriage into legislatures and the democratic process.
And we can succeed, if Christians and others who value marriage refuse to lay down their arms and go to work.
Obviously, you need to talk to your senators and congressman about getting them to support the amendment. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has already announced his support. There's no reason this can't pass in this Congress. Then it will go to the states for ratification where our work will be cut out for us.
I don't want you just to make phone calls, however. I want you to start educating yourselves and your neighbors as to why heterosexual marriage is distinct. No society in history has ever tried this kind of radical social experiment. It's madness.
And we can make an intelligent case, but only if BreakPoint listeners are equipped with the worldview arguments to present it prudentially to their neighbors. So please call us here at BreakPoint (1-877-3-CALLBP). We'd like to send you information you can use. Then, let's go to work. I know it sounds extreme, but I believe nothing less than the survival of our culture is at stake.
>Take action:
Urge your two senators and representative to support the Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution. The Capitol switchboard is 202-224-3121. Or visit http://www.congress.org to find e-mail and mailing addresses.
For further reading and information:
BreakPoint Commentary No. 030630, "'Majestic' Foolishness: The Supreme Court Legislates Again."
BreakPoint Commentary No. 030612, "Oh, Canada!: Marriage Gets a New Definition."
BreakPoint Commentary No. 021204, "Family Matters: Staving Off the Latest Attack on the Family."
See Alliance for Marriage's chart illustrating the Federal Marriage Amendment's legal impact.
John O'Sullivan, "Marriage -- American Style," National Review Online, 10 July 2003.
Sheryl Gay Stolberg, "Move to ban marriage by gays debated," International Herald Tribune, 2 July 2003.
Al Knight, "We need the Marriage Amendment," Denver Post, 2 July 2003.
Charles Krauthammer, "Courting a Crisis of Legitimacy," Washington Post, 4 July 2003, A23.
William J. Bennett, "Gay Marriage: Not a Very Good Idea," Washington Post, May 21, 1996.
William J. Bennett, The Broken Hearth: Reversing the Moral Collapse of the American Family (Doubleday, 2001).
"Why the Laissez-Faire Family Doesn't Work" -- At the April 4-6, 2003, BreakPoint conference, "Christians in the Marketplace," held in Colorado Springs, CO, Jennifer Roback Morse spoke about the "laissez-faire family" and the new definition of freedom: "To be free is to be unencumbered by human relationships."
Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially (Doubleday, 2000).
Robert George, The Clash of Orthodoxies: Law, Religion, and Morality in Crisis (ISI Books, 2001).
- Budziszewski, What We Can't Not Know: A Guide(Spence, 2003).
07/11/03
