Feed on Posts or Comments 21 January 2018

First things . . . Richard Falknor on 21 Feb 2012 10:32 pm

Passage of Maryland Gay Marriage Law: A Game Changer?

UPDATE FEBRUARY 24! Not unexpectedly, the Maryland Senate last evening passed the “Civil Marriage Protection Act” 25-22.  Had the opposition mounted a filibuster, 29 votes would been required to close debate.

One seasoned pro-life and pro-traditional-marriage activist told the Forum today that the likely passage of so-called gay marriage legislation – followed by its successful petition to referendum that would place it alongside the “Dream Act” on the ballot — could result in a perfect storm billowing around Maryland Democrats next November.

To make this happen, in our view,  the Maryland GOP leadership would have to shed their fear of the assaults of the legacy media deeply opposed to traditional values. And they would have to move past, respectfully, that slice of the Party that is hostile to preserving conservative social values.

The Party leadership would have to come together with a statement in support of the core values that hold our society together.

The pro-traditional-marriage advocate told the Forum that the Maryland GOP should urge conservative Democrats and independents to –

Send a message to governor O’Malley by voting against the Maryland Democrat members of the Congress, all part of the Obama Team which turns a blind eye to illegal immigration nationally and in Maryland, tries to muscle Christians into paying for “medical” procedures contrary to their beliefs, and wants to dissolve the very building blocks of our way of life.

Faithful readers will recall our detailed look last July at “Gay Marriage”: The Next Maryland Referendum?

At that time,  we drew particular attention to the National Review on Line (NRO) June 29 editorial “Unmade in New York: We were told that same-sex marriage was necessary for meeting couples’ concrete needs. Now, we’re told that that was all wrong.”

The NRO editors revealed some of the unexamined consequences of same-sex marriage —

“New Yorkers were free to form whatever private relationships they wanted. There is nothing libertarian or neutral about state-imposed moral ratification of revisionist sexual ideology, especially when dissenting citizens and business owners will be forced to comply, token protections notwithstanding. (Not that strong statutory protections would avail in the long run. There are very few limits on how our society and government fight racism—and both the new marriage laws and the movement that favors them take the bigotry of the old laws as their premise.) And as the ideals of opposite-sex parenting and permanent monogamy further erode, leaving more children to grow up without both a mother and a father, social pathologies will only deepen, especially among the poor, creating ever greater need for state intervention.” (Underscoring in original.)

We also wrote —

For those who wish to dig a little deeper than the equality slogans on ‘gay marriage’ and get a sneak preview of a possible and uncongenial future, Stanley Kurtz is your man explaining in plain words “Polygamy Versus Democracy: You can’t have both (Weekly Standard) and “The Confession” and “The Confession II” (NRO). (Click on titles).

Most important, those opposing gay marriage in Maryland should henceforth be quite blunt about the real goals of that movement and their consequences to society and to liberty.

That is why all this homework with NRO and Dr. Kurtz is so important – – so that conservative voices can explain in plain words to voters who the gay- marriage movement is and what their longer-term goals are and what the social and liberty costs are of legalizing same-sex marriage.

We’ll write more about dangers to liberty from the gay-marriage movement.  For example, readers might want to consider delegate Neil Parrott’s proposed amendment here to the House same-sex-marriage bill allowing public school children to withdraw from participation in government efforts to mainstream homosexuality. Sadly the House of Delegates rejected Mr. Parrott’s worthwhile safeguard.

Comments are closed.

Trackback This Post |