CommunityPam's House Blend

'Protecting marriage' is not about homosexuality

Father Jonathan Morris is a blogger/commentator for FauxNews.com, and he’s slapped up an outrageous post, Marriage Act Debate: It’s Not About Homosexuality, clearly meant to educate folks on how to lobby their senators about the federal amendment.

As polls are showing that voters don’t see an amendment as a priority, and opposition to same sex marriage is dropping (51% oppose it now, vs. 63% in 2004), the new spin is that the amendment is not about homosexuality at all.

Gee, I guess we’ve all been barking up the wrong tree, eh? Read the wisdom of Father Jonathan:

Our founding fathers would have bristled at the thought of defining the obvious — A union between one man and one woman? Polygamy and homosexuality are not new phenomena — George Washington saw that and a whole lot more. What is new is saying marriage has more to do with sexual rights than having children and benefiting society with the unique stability of the traditional family. Supreme Courts in New Jersey, New York, and Washington (among others) are poised to change the definition of marriage this year in their respective states. As the courts continue their social activism, the Defense of Marriage Act is losing its bite.

Polls conducted by both political parties, and even homosexual activist groups, show a majority of voters support an amendment designed to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Our senators, however, are human beings, and they listen most to those who shout.

The best way to shout, in my opinion, is to do it quietly. Remind your senators, kindly and insistently, the Federal Marriage Act is about the family, not sex. It is not homophobic. It doesn’t bash gays. It is a pragmatic recognition of the changing times and circumstances. Ten years ago, President Clinton signed a good bill to protect the family. Today, President Bush wants to do the same, and together with members of Congress proposes a Constitutional amendment.

It may be the only way to protect the definition of what used to be obvious.

God bless, Father Jonathan

What? How does this amendment NOT bash gays? Those 1,138 federal rights and protections granted to married heterosexual couples are meaningless to Father Jonathan, because, in his eyes we don’t have relationships worth acknowledging. Watch for more condescending spin like this.

Hat tip, Holly.

Previous post

Knuckleheads

Next post

Pam Spaulding

Pam Spaulding