From the desk of Wisconsin Family Action president Julaine Appling:continue at Wisconsin Family Action
The debate went something like this, Attorney one: “If the people of Wisconsin want to change the definition of marriage, they can do that if they want to. But right now they’ve made a decision, and it’s a wise decision to promote both sexes, the diversity of mothers and fathers in our families. That’s not an unreasonable thing at all, recognizing that kids have mothers and fathers. That’s the decision they’ve made, and they’ve made since the beginning of their statehood; and the Supreme Court has affirmed that that is constitutional for them to do.”
Attorney 2’s response: “How long do we ask people in loving, committed relationships, raising children together already, to wait for fair treatment for recognition of their loving relationships? Do we ask the legislature, this legislature in Wisconsin which is very unlikely, to put that to the voters? Do we ask them to wait for two separate sessions of the legislature, two-year sessions of the legislature and another vote….?”
That was a virtually word-for-word repeating of the debate I listened to last week about the lawsuit that the ACLU has filed on behalf of four homosexual couples. The lawsuit was filed in Wisconsin’s Western District Federal Court and alleges that the Marriage Protection Amendment that nearly 60% of the voters approved in 2006 violates the US Constitution.
Can we change that sign to read "Natural Marriage: Yes"? Homosexualists are not interested in the traditions of men if they think they are unjust. But yes, the ACLU intends to usurp the process.
By the way(and I don't mean this sarcastically), has the WCC issued a statement? If not, wouldn't you think they would? They argument I always hear is that Church support has the opposite affect, rallying enemies against good causes. I suppose the MN Marriage Amendment maybe "proves" that, but here this is not something that is decided by popular opinion but by the judicial system.
6 comments:
Where is the Wisconsin Catholic Conference is a very good question. The possible excuse that their involvement hurts more than helps is simply lame. We don't hear that reasoning on issues that are legitimately left to prudential judgments.
Regarding what happened in Minnesota. The problem wasn't the involvement of the Bishops or the MCC. The problem was too many Catholics rejected the Bishops and the teachings of the Church and supported same sex marriages.
Well at a practical level, as pathetic as it is, they informed the exact wrong voters on the amendment, those who would go out and oppose it. Had they not known, perhaps many of the No votes would have not visited the polls. That's the terrible reality.
Another thing that happened is that if someone left the question on the ballot blank and not voted on the question; that not voting was counted as a "No" vote. During the Presidential election years the progressive left has very high voter turn out. If anything it was a bad political move to put the question on the ballot during the presidential cycle. Actually, by 2012 it was too late. They should have done it in 2010. If the issue wasn't on the ballot in 2012, the legislature wouldn't have brought it up last session. Some issues by themselves energize a constituency, interest group, etc above and beyond educating influence of those fighting the good fight. This is always an interesting and informative blog. Thank you for your efforts.
Thanks for the kind words. Right, that was an interesting quirk with the blank. I'm not saying I agree that MCC should not have championed the effort either, just that the argument is there that bishops speaking can have a negative affect. Wisconsin is blessed with Wisconsin Family Council, so even though the diocesan seats of the state had not yet been recovered(and still not completely done), their quick action should ensure marriage protection for years to come.
The entire approach to fighting gay marriage and the gay culture is misguided. It may be correct what Nienstedt attempted in defending marriage as man/woman, etc. But it is not the most effective.
The gays are clever in keeping the argument at the level of love. That appeals to sentimental types.
To fight it requires bringing front and center the graphic reality of anal sodomy (yes there are other acts, but you start there, focus on it, and refuse to move). Graphically describe the *unreasonableness* of shoving a penis into a rectum. Describe the tearing and damage to the rectal tissues. Focus, focus, focus.
Properly define Love -- "to desire the good of the other". Show that a damaging, *unnatural* act toward another is *not* loving. Attack, attack, attack.
You'll get pummeled in the press, but man up, and take it. Challenge the gay activists to do more than slander and bully people with their mantra of "hateful, hurtful, bigoted, homophobic" and *actually* offer a rational defense of shoving a penis into a rectum. Back and back to the same challenge. Ridicule the gays for refusing to offer it.
If they can't show the act is reasonable, then it is not reasonable to demand special privileges from the State. Stop talking Faith, and push reason, reason, reason.
Stop being "nice". Be blunt, graphic, *truthful*.
Go after the male voters that are going to vote more on principle than sentiment.
Pull out the CDC stats on the public health risk male gays are creating. Fight the propaganda of that any but a small number are in truly committed "relationships."
Post a Comment