On the Issue of Marriage: A Wash for Santorum?

One of the reasons why social conservatives are choosing Santorum over Paul in this Presidential primary is because of the marriage issue.  But most have failed to look carefully at the records of the two candidates and to take into consideration the Constitutional role of the President. 

Both Ron Paul and Rick Santorum support the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  DOMA does two things.  It limits the use of the word “marriage” in the United States Code to one man, one woman marriage.  Secondly, it prevents any state, which issues marriage licenses to gay couples, from forcing another state to recognize these licenses as valid.  Evidence of the support of DOMA by both candidates is very clear.  Santorum voted for it.  Ron Paul, though not in congress at the time it was voted on, said that he would have voted for it and he voted for the Marriage Protection Act (MPA)--a bill which would have protected DOMA from being struck down as unconstitutional by the federal courts by stripping the jurisdiction of the federal courts over that issue.

MPA was introduced into the House of Representatives by Congressman John Hostettler (R-IN) in 2003 and passed the House in September of 2004.  With the President (Bush) up for election that year, MPA had a real chance of becoming law.  But after passing the House, MPA was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee and no further action was taken.  One reason why MPA may never have gotten out of committee was because one of it’s most powerful members was Arlen Specter, a gay marriage supporter.   Rick Santorum  endorsed and campaigned for Specter over a more conservative challenger, Pat Toomey.  But Ron Paul continued to cosponsor the Marriage Protection Act in every subsequent session of Congress, but no Senator, including Rick Santorum, ever introduced a companion bill.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.03313:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.01100:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00724:

Ron Paul is also the author of the We the People Act, which is even stronger than MPA, making it an impeachable offense for any judge to strike down a state’s laws against gay marriage.  But Santorum has never supported anything like this.

Please take a minute to read Article V of the Constitution:

http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm#con5

The usual manner in which Constitutional Amendments are ratified is by passing with a 2/3 majority in both the House and Senate and ratification by ¾ of the state legislatures or conventions.  Another option is a Constitutional Convention, which has never been used except when the Constitution itself was created in the beginning.  But in no situation does the President have any power in the process of the adoption of a Constitutional Amendment. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Proposal

Why I am I saying all this?  What does this have to do with comparing Santorum and Paul on marriage?  Santorum voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) and Ron Paul voted against it.  Ron Paul sees no need to change the Constitution--the Framers, in his view, put everything in it that was needed in the beginning.  But from a practical standpoint, for this particular election, this does not matter--since it is not at all up to the President whether a Constitutional Amendment, such as FMA, is passed.  Similarly, the possible support of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich of the FMA is basically a non-issue.  Gingrich actually missed the vote on both DOMA and FMA and Romney has flip-flopped on the issue of marriage.  Another important point is that, in contrast to legislation like DOMA and MPA, the adoption of a Constitutional Amendment is a real long shot.  It’s easy to support something (for political reasons only) that you know will probably not pass.  There is a question also in my mind about whether the FMA would actually even do any good--since the essential components of marriage could placed into legislation and called by a different name (such as civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc).  They are doing this already in Ohio, despite the fact that we passed a state marriage amendment just a few years ago.

And far as endorsements go, Ron Paul did endorse gay marriage supporter John Dennis.  But this is clearly no worse than Santorum’s endorsement of Specter.  At least Dennis was a fiscal conservative, but Specter was not conservative on any issue.

Conclusion

Though not perfect, Ron Paul is actually the best GOP candidate on the issue of marriage from the standpoint of a typical, “one man, one woman only” social conservative.  It is somewhat close, but even on his best issue, Santorum does not win.

An Episcopal pot calls Christian kettle black

ANAHEIM, CA (AP) "Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori says it's "heresy" to believe that an individual can be saved through a sinner's prayer of repentance.

"In her opening address to the church's General Conference in California, Jefferts Schori called that "the great Western heresy: that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God . . ."

We conservative Christians have been referred to as “special interests” and “terrorists” by our godless government. And now even a wayward mainline liberal denominational leader and blind Pharisee, Katharine Jefferts Schori, has accused us of being “heretics” because of our belief in the exclusivity of the gospel of Jesus Christ, that He, and only He, provides the way of escape from the wrath and ultimate judgment of God.

Yes, this false shepherd, herself a heretical minion of Satan, the great deceiver, has declared simple faith in Jesus to be heresy. What blasphemy, what pride, what arrogance, what foolishness this woman dressed in sheep’s clothing dares to declare.

In addition, six other bishop in this decadent and demon-driven denomination is urging the Episcopal church to adapt a set of deviant unbiblical same-sex ‘marriage’ rituals. This particular demonination, like many other so-called mainline protestant church organizations, which have lost its way, is no more Christian than the alleged occupier of the oval office, Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama. Jesus said, “You shall know they are My disciples (true Christians) by their fruit.”
.
Sorry, Dr. Schori, you are dead wrong - spiritually and intellectually. Jesus Christ died to give us an opportunity, individually, to come to God and to be made whole, to be restored, to be justified, to be made right in His eyes. The movie, Passion of the Christ, portrays the sacrifice that God permitted His Son to endure, in order for all mankind to have this opportunity. God offers us eternal life, freedom from the power and penalty of sin, if but we confess our sins and sinful condition apart from Him and to acknowledge Jesus to be the only means, the only way to get to God. Most conclusively, Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father, except through Me." Dr. Schori, how much more clear can God make it for us?

www.NationForMarriage.org

Like the 'legalization" of the unethical, immoral, and atrocious practice of abortion, two more states, Iowa and Vermont, made the unconscionable decision to ‘legalize’ the misnomer, same-sex ‘marriage.’ In one case it was the legislature that overrode the Governor's veto, in the other it was another activist judicial renegade who declared wrong to be right.

Hat tip goes to Secular Heretic for posting the video embedded below on his blog, News. It was there where I first saw the video. The video is a campaign ad advocating traditional and exclusive one-man, one-woman marriage. All other sexual relationships are offensive and are aberrations.

Analyizing California’s Prop 8 Victory

I would like to briefly recap what was the most important election last Tuesday. It was not the Presidential election, though that was important. It was the marriage issue in California. Proposition 8 was passed. Its passage assured that marriage in California continues to mean what it has always meant for thousand of years, the exclusive relationship between one-man and one-woman.

It did not permit the sanctioning or perversion of the definition of marriage. It did not allow one of the foundations of any civilized, moral society to be revised to include a relationship between one man and one man, one woman and one woman, one man and two women, one man and one child, one man and his horse, etc. State or church sanctioning of any sexual relationship other than the relationship between one-man and one-woman is unnatural, unhealthy, abnormal, immoral and destructive to a society.

The majority of Americans realize this. Unfortunately, it is a minuscule, but moneyed minority that wants to normalized the abnormal. It is with that group we wage war on this one key battlefront of the culture war.

THE CAMPAIGN

In 2000 the people of California voted to make it a state law that marriage is between one-man and one-woman. Then along came an activist court and out of thin air declared that law unconstitutional. The California Supreme Court agreed with that horrible ruling by a equally thin 4-3 decision. So the another initiative, Prop 8, was placed on the ballot to be voted on November 4, 2008.

The homosexual and lesbian activists were outraged and declared war on any supporter of the that constitutional amendment. They stole or defaced signs, they damaged property of supporters of Prop 8, they beat up supporters, they damaged cars, homes, etc. When the dust settled both the supporters of Prop 8 and the opponent of traditional one-man and one-woman marriage each spent $40 million each in advertising their side of the issue.

Supporters included Mormon, Catholic, Protestant and Evangelical pastors, priests, churches and organizations, who joined forces within the state and from across the nation. Opponents included teachers unions, a rainbow assortment of same-sex radical activist groups, assorted Hollywood deviates, radical liberal politicians etc. The race was close on Election Eve.

THE CONTEST

When the votes were counted Proposition 8 as well as similar issues in Florida and Arizona passed. There attempted perversion of the California Constitution was foiled. All told 30 states now have constitution amendments protect the sacred institution of marriage. Thank God.

THE CONSEQUENCES

Despite the victory at the polls, the perverts keep on their relentless attempt to destroy marriage, and ultimately the nation.

According to an email article that I received which contained a link to this article, “(Homosexuals) Call for Violence Against Christian Supporters of Prop 8” written by Matt Barber the day after the election here are some of the vicious comments he found on various homosexual blogs:

In a blog entry titled “You’ll Want to Punch them” on Queerty.com, poster “BillyBob Thornton” wrote, “… I have never considered being a violent radical extremist for our Equal Rights, But now I think maybe I should consider becoming one.” “Stenar” asked, “Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I mean seriously. DO IT.” “Angelo Ventura,” said, “… hope they all rot in hell, those servants of a lying, corrupt devil!

BAN RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM!” And, “Jonathan,” warned, “I’m going to give them something to be f – ing scared of. … I’m a radical who is now on a mission to make them all pay for what they’ve done.”

Meanwhile, over at JoeMyGod.blogspot.com, “World O Jeff,” said, “Burn their f–ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers.” While, “Tread,” wrote, “I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives.” “Joe,” stated, “I swear, I’d murder people with my bare hands this morning.”

And on the Americablog.com Web site, “scottinsf” posted, “Trust me. I’ve got a big list of names of mormons and catholics that were big supporters of Prop 8. … As far as mormons and catholics ... I warn them to watch their backs.”

So much for the peace-loving, tolerance-loving homosexual movement, that whole movement is a perverse joke.

Sore losers, radicals, selfish, self-centered, disrespectful, intolerant, prideful, egotistical, and arrogant are all descriptive of those who advocate the destruction of the basic unit of society - one-man, one-woman marriage and the natural family.

.

Please read, "Of God's Law and Democracy-Homosexual Rioting In California" from Bill Wilson's Daily Jot.

What Does Obama's Election Mean?

One Internet forum blogger in response to my article, "Election 2008 Aftermath, After the Disgust Settles," which I had posted there as well, wrote in essence that America was changing and American's positions on the issues are also changing. He implied that the people who voted for Barack Hussein Obama were in concurrence with his beliefs and positions.

Here was my response to that forum reader:

I am convinced that more people that voted for Obama were not aware of the man’s core beliefs, his voting record, his nefarious past associations and activities. Two cartoons capture the secret of Obama’s success in the election . . .

I do think that this country has been shifting leftward. But to a great extent it is primarily because of the effective and deliberate undermining of this nation fundamental values by the radical left, who have infiltrated many leadership position in academia, political parties, entertainment, media, the judiciary, etc. They have worked vigorously to change this nation. President elect Obama’s victory is the capstone on this leftward activism and movement.

He and is accomplices in the media have successfully persuaded, through outlandish promises, outright fraud and deceit that he will take from the haves and give to the have-nots. By doing so will solve all of America’s and the World’s, for that matter, suffering. What those same people will soon realize is that he will simultaneously be destroying many small and large businesses and America’s middle class, too.

Obama is a Marxist and Islamic sympathizer at his core. He and his campaign and the national media have effectively hidden the real Obama from the people. There is no mandate. He just persuaded more people to follow him. Enough people were so disgusted with George W. Bush, some of it was very justified, but some of it was much exaggerated. Bush got blamed for causing Hurricanes, for crying out loud. Obama effectively tied John McCain to George W. Bush and offered a change. That change, when you get right down to it, is nothing more than returning to the failed and dangerous ideology and governance of Jimmy Carter.

You said, “The viewpoint on issues is not what it used to be.” One example of this not being the case is Tuesday’s passage of (One-Man, One-Woman) Marriage Protection Amendments in California, Florida and Arizona. A great number of the same people (blacks & Hispanics) who cast their votes for Obama, also voted FOR the protection of the only real and legitimate definition of marriage. So at least on is very critical issue, people’s views on the issues are not change.

To me this issue, protecting marriage, in the long-run is even more important that the election of a bad President. We have withstood the affects of bad Presidents before, but never such an assault on basic American values and morality as same-sex marriage . . .

Fireproof (2008)

This last weekend I joined 12 million others who saw the movie, Fireproof, during the first two weeks of its run. Tony Perkins on his Washington Watch Weekly Radio Show said that the movie has a positive message with three basic themes:
· Unconditional Love
· The Centrality of Marriage, and
· The Gospel (of Jesus Christ)’’

This powerful faith-based movie is about the Captain of a small town Fire Department, who is highly successful in his work, who encourages his men to work together as a cohesive unit, but whose own marriage is literally falling apart.

Kurt Cameron starts as the Fire Captain. He does an excellent job with the range of emotions which he is called upon to portray. The movie was produced and directed by the same group that made the movie Facing the Giants. It was not Hollywood, but a church in Albany, Georgia. It tells its story as well as any high budget Hollywood movie. It is unashamedly Christian, clearly demonstrated the simple yet proven principles of the Judeo-Christian Bible and faith.

There are a couple of suspenseful scenes as the fire fighters respond to fire calls. But the real suspense is whether the marriage of the Captain and his hospital public relations working wife could be salvaged.

RATING

I would rate the film as a ***** out of ***** for its clear message, inspiration, realism and hopefulness. It is a demonstration of the importance of the marriage relationship, as well the overarching importance of an honest forthright relationship with Jesus Christ.

The movie is not merely for “Christians,” but is for everyone. It’s a family film. There are so few family films out there these days.

I would strongly encourage everyone to make a point to see this film, especially if their marriage is on the rocks or if they are struggling with interpersonal relationships. The movie even contains a practical approach to rebuilding a marriage. The movie is God-honoring, wholesome, and entertaining. Something rarely found on the big screen or any screen today. It’s a must see movie.

This movie is especially relevant in California and Florida where marriage preservation and protection issues are on the ballot. Traditional marriage is worth saving. Marriage is worth defending.