[1]McMINNVILLE, Ore. (BP)–Quiet. Do you hear that sound? Listen carefully. Do you recognize it? It is the sound of telephones NOT ringing in Senate offices on Capitol Hill.
The upper house of Congress is currently debating the merits of SJR 30, better known as the Senate’s version of a federal marriage amendment. However, as they begin their deliberation, senators are still reporting a mostly muted response from their constituents on the issue.
Polls indicate strong support for a federal marriage amendment throughout the United States. That being the case, one has to wonder why senators are hearing little more than the sound of silence from those they represent.
One reason for the lack of citizen response could be the constant harping by opponents of a marriage amendment that it is simply a “wedge issue” being pushed by conservatives during an election year.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines wedge issue as “a sharply divisive political issue, especially one that is raised by a candidate or party in hopes of attracting or disaffecting a portion of an opponent’s customary supporters.”
Those who are buying the wedge issue argument need to be reminded that it was the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court — not conservatives — that created the current situation when it mandated the legalization of same-sex “marriage” in the Bay State this past November. The Court’s ruling went into effect May 17.
[2]Numerous same-sex couples from around the country have made the trek to Massachusetts to “marry.” It is only a matter of time before many of those couples sue their respective states in order to have their “unions” recognized based on the “full faith and credit” clause in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution. The article states, in part: “Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State.”
If there is any doubt concerning the intent of same-sex couples to sue, seven states — California, Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Washington — are facing lawsuits that would change the traditional definition of marriage and legalize same-sex “marriage.”
The federal marriage amendment as a wedge issue was further driven into place in the spring when elected officials in San Francisco and Portland, Ore., ignored their states’ laws and issued same-sex “marriage” licenses.
If a federal marriage amendment is a wedge issue, it is due to the blatant disregard for the democratic process by homosexual activists and those sympathetic to their cause and not conservatives. If same-sex couples want to redefine the traditional definition of marriage they should do so via the ballot box, or by lobbying for legislation, not by judicial fiat.
Another reason that senators’ phones in D.C. are not ringing could be that there are those who sincerely believe the definition of marriage should be a states’ rights issue. With all due respect to those who hold this opinion, it is simply an impractical solution.
We cannot have a country where there are a dozen or more denotations of marriage. It would be utter chaos. It would be problematic even to have two or three different definitions. Envision a scenario where a couple is married in Nevada but their union is not valid in Wisconsin or Nebraska. In addition, federal courts could well prevent it from being a state issue by ruling for same-sex “marriage” and legalizing it nationwide. A federal marriage amendment is the only way to ensure this will not happen.
Yet another explanation for the lack of response to the Senate’s current debate on a federal marriage amendment is a lack of a sense of urgency. Many people are simply not aware of the consequences that America will eventually face if same-sex “marriage” is allowed to occur.
Space will not allow a recitation of all the effects homosexual “marriage” would likely have on the future of the United States, but one of the most chilling is the eroding of First Amendment rights.
Countries that have recognized same-sex “marriage” have in short order made it illegal to voice public opposition to homosexual behavior. Consider the recent month-long prison sentence given to a Pentecostal preacher in Sweden who, in a sermon, described homosexuality as “abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society.”
Irish statesmen Edmund Burke is credited for saying, “The only thing that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
The silence of senators’ phones regarding a federal marriage amendment indicates that a lot of good people are doing absolutely nothing. It’s a deafening silence that could mean the triumph of same-sex “marriage.”
Unless phones start ringing in offices of United States senators, and ringing soon, homosexual “marriage,” and all of its consequences, could well become reality in America.
–30–