Disappearing Marriage Issue (05.09.08 Briefing)

By Steve Elliott (Grassfire) | May 9, 2008 09:48 AM

Printer Friendly Comments (8)
Login to Bookmark Email to a Friend
Rating Number of Ratings: 1

Login to Rate
 
*The disappearing marriage issue
*How marriage dominated the 2004 elections
*How the Left is avoiding/downplaying the marriage issue
*Flushing your tax dollars down a Carbon Hole

05.09.08 Briefing • Steve Elliott, Grassfire.org • Subscribe hereRSS


The disappearing marriage issue

One of the big unasked questions of the 2008 presidential race is, "Whatever happened to the marriage issue?" It would be an easy question to answer if there was no controversy and nothing to talk about. But that is not the case.

Vermont Strategy working for homosexual activists.
For example, ever so steadily, the "Vermont" strategy is in full swing for the homosexual agenda. Simply put, the plan is to use Vermont as a foot in the door to other states by forcing other states to recognize same-sex marriages legalized in Vermont.

This week, a New York court of appeals ruled that the state would recognize same-sex marriages from other states and countries (in this case, Canada) -- despite the fact that same-sex unions are outlawed in New York. This comes while the Supreme Courts in Vermont and Virginia are engaged in a legal tug-of-war that hinges on whether Virginia must recognize a Vermont same-sex union. That case is likely headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition, the California Supreme Court is currently deciding a case to determine whether traditional marriage is constitutional in that state.

Why is this not a political issue in 2008?
So with all this legal buzz, why is this not one of the leading news stories in the 2008 election cycle as it was four years ago? It can be argued that in 2004 marriage -- not the war, not the economy -- proved to be the decisive issue in the presidential race. That year, Massachusetts recognized same-sex unions and a major controversy erupted when the mayor of San Francisco decided to issue marriage license to homosexuals and lesbians despite that state's ban. The "attacks on marriage" dominated the news for months. On election day 2004, 11 states overwhelmingly passed marriage referenda. Ohio was one of those states and this is important to note since the Bush-Kerry race pivoted on Ohio. In Ohio, Bush won 16% of the black vote (up from 11% nationally) and two-thirds of the church-going vote. The marriage referendum proved to be a key "get-out-the-vote" motivator and Bush was the beneficiary.

Fast forward to 2008. Ironically, the same issue that ignited the marriage debate in 2004 -- the San Francisco mayor's push to issue marriage licenses -- is still at the center of the legal controversy surrounding marriage. The California Supreme Court case I mentioned earlier will decide that original 2004 legal dispute involving the San Francisco mayor.

So, why is this not a political issue in the 2008 race for the presidency? First, the Left got smarter. Marriage is a losing issue for the Left because their ideology and their base supports homosexual marriage. So the Left has gone silent. Homosexual activists are relatively quiet and political leaders try to support "marriage" and the "rights" of homosexuals at the same time. Second, this is not a key issue for John McCain. In fact, he opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment although his position on the issue does line up with marriage advocates on most other points. Third, the media is barely taking notice. And if the media does not bring the issue front-and-center on a regular basis, the candidates do not feel the need to address the issue. In the case of the disappearing marriage issue, the Left clearly has the advantage.

$126,600,000 of your tax dollars flushed down the "Carbon Hole"
This week the Department of Energy awarded grants totalling over $126 million for "carbon sequestration" projects. Basically, our tax dollars are being wasted on projects to pump CO2 into the earth and hopefully slow down Al Gore's "planetary emergency." This comes after Al Gore blamed the tragic cyclone in Myanmar on global warming: "We’re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming.” Of course, scientists rebuffed Gore's ridiculous claim and we, as taxpayers, should rebuff these grants and the coming $1.2 trillion carbon tax. The vote on the Carbon Tax is next month. Go here to sign our petition.

On the Web today:

Obama open to Clinton "Dream Ticket"
Stay-at-home moms worth $117k
Obama can't shake Wright's and church's wrongs
Are we in recession? No. Check the real definition here (WTimes)
Obama: McCain "losing his bearings"
Hillary's run to the Left too late?
Wikipornia?


 

Disappearing Marriage Issue (05.09.08 Briefing)
Started May 9, 2008 - First 2 of 8 comment(s)   View all comments
May 10, 2008 12:20 AM
Member Since:
January 16, 2008

The Federal Marriage Amendment is not a conservative position.  Prior to the adoption of the US Constitution, family and personal relationships were a state issue.  This was true at the time of the adoption of the constitution.  Some states allowed women to own property or inherit property, others did not.  Some allowed Freed slaves to own property, others restricted.  The founding fathers left these items to the states.  It is for this reason that the Tenth Amendment exists.

A federal marriage amendment would overturn this constitutional history and involve the federal government in family relationships.  Soon Child Protection, Spousal abuse, divorce and property would all become federal issues.  I can't think of any thing so contrary to the position of the founding fathers. 

 A federal marriage amendment may be a lot of things, but conservative is not one of them.

May 23, 2008 03:01 PM
Member Since:
May 23, 2008
Can we as FireSociety members help protect marriage by keeping the CBS show, Swingtown, from airing?  Someone, please help stop this!  Thank you.

Post New Comment to the Discussion

You must login to discuss this item.