Marriage under assault in VT…will another state be Lost?

siren

Protect marriage! Help Get the word out on the Vermont Vote!  We have until 3pm today!

—Beetle Blogger

EMERGENCY ACTION ALERT:

VT Senate Votes Today on SSM Bill! March 23, 2009

Marriage in Vermont is in jeopardy TODAY!

This afternoon, the Vermont Senate is holding a rare special session to vote on a handful of bills including S.115, the same-sex marriage bill. A vote on the SSM bill is likely to take place sometime after 3:00pm. Unless we take decisive action now, it looks increasingly likely that the bill may pass.

Please take action before 3pm today! Send emails to every member of the Vermont Senate to let them know how important protecting marriage is.

Even if you’re from out of state, help us send a message to the Vermont Senate.

And especially if you live in Vermont — TAKE ACTION NOW!

1. TAKE ACTION! Use this hyperlink to send a message to all 30 members of the Vermont Senate, urging them to respect marriage and the voices of their constituents by voting NO on S.115.

2. FORWARD TO A FRIEND! Then, click here to forward this email to five friends, especially anyone who lives in Vermont. We must get this email into the hands of as many Vermonters as possible before 3pm today!

Even if you sent a message to the members of the Judiciary Committee last week, please take action today!
Brian Brown

God bless,

Brian S. Brown
Executive Director
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542
nom
bbrown@nationformarriage.org

Advertisements

15 Comments

  1. beetlebabee said,

    March 23, 2009 at 4:50 pm

    Spread the word as far as you can get it! There isn’t much time. The Senate vote is today, the house later this week. This is a big deal.

  2. morsec0de said,

    March 23, 2009 at 5:13 pm

    “Marriage in Vermont is in jeopardy TODAY!”

    So…certain people will not be allowed to get married if this passes?

    Will men be forced to marry other men?

    Will straight couples be forced to divorce?

    What is it you actually think is going to happen?

  3. beetlebabee said,

    March 23, 2009 at 5:22 pm

    Hi Morsecode, good to see you again. The issue is the essence of marriage. Your comment implies that you do not think changing the definition of marriage will have any consequences of concern. I would have to strongly disagree with that implication.

    Marriage is a very specific institution with a specific purpose. Marriage between a man and a woman, dedicated for life to each other and their children, provides children with the healthiest environment possible to grow up as stable, productive adults. Changing the definition endangers families, society and the stability of the next generation….and that is only the tip of the iceberg.

    Every child is born to this earth with a mom and a dad, no government should be able to take that right away from a child. What about the schools? In California and Massachusetts they’re teaching homosexuality in classrooms as young as Kindergarten. What else can you expect for children locked in a school system promoting a morally bankrupt genderless society?

    If this legislation goes through, it will create mountains of legal implications that endanger freedom and democracy. The situation in other nations where these laws have been accepted and implemented are extreme. It’s not a small change, or an issue to take lightly.

    The citizens of Vermont have the right and responsibility to be able to weigh in on this issue because their children, their freedoms are what are at stake here.

  4. morsec0de said,

    March 23, 2009 at 5:27 pm

    If you could demonstrate any of these consequences, I could be convinced. But no one, to date, has been able to.

  5. morsec0de said,

    March 23, 2009 at 5:42 pm

    “dedicated for life to each other and their children, provides children with the healthiest environment possible for growing up to be stable, productive adults.”

    Legally, (not including custody) children have nothing to do with marriage.
    People with no intention, or no ability, to have children have no legal reason to be denied the right to get married if they want.

    “the healthiest environment possible”

    And yet all studies, to date, have shown that there is no appreciable difference between children brought up by straight or gay couples of similar economic backgrounds.

    So you can keep saying that it’s going to cause a problem. But the evidence is against you.

    “mountains of legal implications that endanger freedom and democracy.”

    How. This is so vague a claim that it is almost laughable. Give specifics. I will not buy into the fear mongering of ‘this will endanger freedom’, particularly when there is every appearance that homosexual people will be gaining freedom if allowed to marry, unless you give good examples and evidence.

    “because their children, their freedoms are what are at stake here.”

    Again, what children are endangered?

    Is there some law that says your children will be taken from you and given to homosexuals?

    What freedoms are at stake?

    Will you no longer be allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex?

  6. beetlebabee said,

    March 23, 2009 at 6:06 pm

    Morsecode, if you don’t see the consequences of challenging the importance of marriage as it pertains to family, it is only because you are not looking. Here’s one from just this last week:

    Lesbian couples are more likely to be poor than married heterosexuals, and children of same-sex parents are twice as likely to live in poverty as those of traditional married couples, a new report shows. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-03-20-gay-poverty_N.htm

    legal implications: http://www.takeittothepeople.org/Beckett_Fund_IOWA_amicus.pdf

    Further examples are documented abundantly on this site.

  7. beetlebabee said,

    March 23, 2009 at 6:27 pm

    I noticed you quit the conversation when you were challenged on your interesting view on logic earlier on this site. Most of your assertions are presented and answered already here: https://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/what-about-equality-the-rhetorical-twist-list/

    Did you decide not to defend your position after all?

  8. Raytmimer said,

    March 23, 2009 at 6:56 pm

    Yes, or how about this lovely piece from this morning:

    Rep. Frank Calls Justice Scalia a ‘Homophobe’
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/23/rep-frank-calls-justice-scalia-homophobe/

    If the gay activists get what they want, not only on the marriage front but also the cultural front (and they’re all just facets of the same movement) homosexuality will continue to be held up as a “protected class” with all dissent addressed as “homophobia”, or “hate speech” rather than on merit.

    In Canada and Europe you cannot speak on a position disagreeing with homosexuality or same sex marriage without being labeled, that includes churches.

  9. beetlebabee said,

    March 23, 2009 at 7:27 pm

    Just in from the Vermont Senate: The Senate voted for gay marriage, 26-4. House vote later this week…it’s going to be closer, how close is key.

  10. Euripides said,

    March 23, 2009 at 8:02 pm

    Hi bb:

    You’d think that morsecode is the staunchest of libertarian anarchists the way he goes on about freedoms. He is incorrect in his assessment of marriage having nothing to do with children or family. If that were the case, then marriage as an institution would have gone away a very long time ago as an impractical nuisance.

  11. morsec0de said,

    March 23, 2009 at 8:56 pm

    “Lesbian couples are more likely to be poor than married heterosexuals”

    Because women are paid less than men, this is not surprising at all.

    And an interesting thing from that study: “Badgett says same-sex partners are more likely to be poor because they lack such safety nets as a spouse’s health insurance coverage and Social Security survivor benefits.”

    So the solution, it seems, is to allow them to get married.

    But again, you seem concentrated on children. Marriage is not about children. Perhaps in your universe it is, but not legally.

    As for your legal issues, I support, 100%, the right of any religious organization to not marry gay people, just like I support the right of Catholics to not marry Protestants in their churches.

    I will gladly side with you against any pro-gay marriage people who think it is okay to sue churches for not marrying them.

    The issue is the government, not the churches.

    “In Canada and Europe you cannot speak on a position disagreeing with homosexuality or same sex marriage without being labeled, that includes churches.”

    Being ‘labeled’ is a risk you run whenever you take a stance. As long as you suffer no legal ramifications, don’t expect me to feel sorry for you or any people in politics who are labeled homophobes.

    “He is incorrect in his assessment of marriage having nothing to do with children or family.”

    Marriage, as a legal contract in the United States of America, has nothing to do with children or family. It is a contract between two people in order to share certain rights and privileges.

  12. beetlebabee said,

    March 24, 2009 at 8:29 am

    morsecode, do you defend the practice of labeling those who disagree with homosexuality as homophobes?

    If marriage were a mere legal contract, there would be no issue. How then do you defend the fact that California, Connecticut and Vermont (as well as other states) all currently have legal contracts for same sex couples that provide every legal benefit the states offer married people. According to the state, there is no difference legally between these “contracts”. YET, the gay activists are unsatisfied. Why?

    If marriage is hacked, dissected, boiled down to a mere residue, then perhaps you could say that it is a mere “contract”, but the fact is that it is much more than a vehicle for doling out social benefits.

  13. morsec0de said,

    March 24, 2009 at 8:38 am

    “morsecode, do you defend the practice of labeling those who disagree with homosexuality as homophobes? ”

    I defend the practice of labeling anyone anything. It’s called free speech, and everyone has the right to do it, even if it is inaccurate.

    “all currently have legal contracts for same sex couples that provide every legal benefit the states offer married people”

    I don’t believe that is true. The last time I checked, it seemed that civil unions provided some but not all of the same legal benefits. But I could be wrong. If I am, then I have no problem, and the whole country should do the same.

    “If marriage is hacked, dissected, boiled down to a mere residue, then perhaps you could say that it is a mere “contract”, but the fact is that it is much more than a vehicle for doling out social benefits.”

    Legally it is not.

  14. beetlebabee said,

    March 24, 2009 at 10:38 am

    Feel free to examine the statutes on partner laws and the state of California. CT and VT have the same provisions. All domestic partnerships/civil unions have exactly the same rights, privileges, benefits, etc. of married couples. Proposition 8 was about the name “marriage” only, it wasn’t about rights. It’s a tool of the opposition to claim that there are “second class” marriages that have fewer rights, but it’s merely a tool of the opposition to stir up emotional responses.

    On the practice of labeling people as “homophobic”, not only is it morally shady, and rhetorically shallow, it equates one side of a position with hate speech, which indeed infringes upon free speech rights. This little connection has thrown free speech in jeopardy in Canada, Europe and other countries where gay activists have pushed the idea of gay marriage on the population. In Canada for example, certain religious radio programs have been banned because they preach against homosexuality. In Arizona wedding photographers are forced to perform services for gay couples, even if it’s against their moral convictions to do so. In Massachusetts adoption agencies are forced to provide babies for homosexual couples, even if it’s against their moral convictions to do so.

    The idea of “homophobia” as hate speech and homosexuality as a protected class tramples free speech and freedom of religion.

    Your assertion that marriage as an institution is a mere legal contract, divorced from children, family and society is simply incorrect. Though it is an convenient theory for gay activists, nothing could be further from the truth.

  15. beetlebabee said,

    March 24, 2009 at 2:00 pm

    An interesting article on freedom of speech vs. “homophobia”—Go Mr. Bean!

    “Mr. Bean” urges to protect free speech in “anti-homophobia” law
    http://www.christiantelegraph.com/issue5248.html


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: