Wednesday, November 08, 2006

54% of the Country Say "NO" to Gay "Marriage"

Voters have approved "defense of marriage" amendments in Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin. But it appears Arizona is the first of more than two dozen states that have considered such measures to defeat a move to constitutionally define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

On Election Day two years ago, ballot measures amending state constitutions to protect traditional marriage made a clean sweep, passing in 11 states. That brought to 20 the total number of states taking it upon themselves to define marriage as a heterosexual relationship, effectively banning same-sex "marriage" in those states. Seven of the eight states considering similar initiatives on Election Day 2006 followed suit, with victories ranging from a 80-20 margin in Tennessee to a relatively close 52-48 margin in South Dakota. But with practically all precincts counted, the amendment in Arizona appears to have suffered a narrow defeat (49 percent to 51 percent).
(for - against)
1. Arizona 49% - 51%
2. Colorado 56% - 44%
3. Idaho 63% - 37%
4. South Carolina 78% - 22%
5. South Dakota 52% - 48%
6. Tennessee 80% - 20%
7. Virginia 57% - 43%
8. Wisconsin 59% - 41%
On an election day in which voters may have been sending any number of messages to President Bush or to the Republican-controlled Congress, their message to homosexual activists was clear and overwhelmingly unified.
"Americans believe overwhelmingly that marriage is the union of one man and one woman," says Jim Pfaff with Colorado-based Focus on the Family, where the marriage amendment passed comfortably with 56 percent of that tally. "They know it's a vital institution to our country and to our government despite its faults," he adds.
Voters in Colorado also turned away a measure that would have granted domestic-partnership rights to same-sex couples, effectively establishing "civil unions." Pfaff calls the outcome of the two measures a reflection of voters -- Christians and non-Christians alike -- who "believe in the value of marriage."
Slightly more than 2.3 million Virginians cast their vote on that state's marriage amendment issue, with approximately 1.3 million of those (~57 percent) saying yes to traditional marriage. Chris Freund with VA4marriage.com is convinced Virginians made a real difference in the outcome.
"Virginians have made it very clear that they do not want marriage redefined ...," says Freund. "We're just very pleased that Virginians -- and in particular, the Church in Virginia -- really stepped up to the plate and sent a very clear message."
In South Carolina, some opponents of traditional marriage are being accused of resorting to illegal tactics in their attempts to defeat the constitutional amendment measure. But Oran Smith with the Palmetto Family Council says voters in his state were not fooled.
"We were very distraught about all the work we put into putting signs at the key precincts and such that were just absolutely stolen, because they were replaced in the wee hours of the morning with signs from the opposition," says Smith. Despite those attempts, the South Carolina amendment won with an overwhelming 78 percent of the vote.
Though marriage in the majority of U.S. states is now constitutionally defined as the legal union of only one man and one woman, Focus on the Family's Pfaff says the work for pro-family activists is far from over.
"What we need to do now is to continue to press forward to protect marriage nationwide, and then thereafter we need to strengthen marriage," Pfaff urges. He believes that one way to do that is by reforming the nation's no-fault divorce laws.
The people have voiced their vote. This is part of the democratic process that makes laws in this country. So lets all vote on marriage and put this issue to rest shall we.
I will keep you informed of the results of the Constitutional Convention at the State House tomorrow. A second formal session of the convention is to take place around 1pm and dirty tricks to prevent the voters of Massachusetts their right to vote on marriage are expected to swing into action.
Flood the phone lines to the State House and call your representative and senator now to tell them to...

LET THE PEOPLE VOTE!!

19 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like God isn't listeing to you. Of course hate is not his thing.

12:20 AM, November 10, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

I shoulden't be the one worried about if God is listening.

Thanks for stopping by.

Scia

10:34 AM, November 10, 2006  
Anonymous The truth said...

7 0f 8 recent marriage amendments were passed two days ago (virtually ignored by the MSM) (now 27 out of 28 states have passed similar amendments) and Arizona where it failed 51% to 49% already has statues on the book protecting traditional marriage.

"civil unions" also was rejected in somewhat liberal Colorado.

Had conservatives run on these types of values (protecting traditional marriage) and others that brought "values voters" to the polls in 2000, 2002, and 2004 in record numbers, Republicans would not have lost control of Congress. When you stand up for what you believe instead of ignoring the issues voters elected you to advance, the votes will take care of themselves. Perhaps Republicans will remembre their base next time around or we will get Hillary and Comapny-and we will deserve it.

10:48 AM, November 10, 2006  
Anonymous Danny said...

I hope you will finally let people live in peace now that the gays killed the anti-gay marriage amendment. Let yourself focus on loving your kids, your wife, your friends and extended family. Give people you disagree with a break from the continual assault on their lives. This is after all the holiday season, be a little more like Christ and a little less judgmental. You'll be better for it, and your world will be too. Compassion is a big part of the religion you claim to be a part of. If all you ever focus on is the bad in the world, that's all you'll ever see. That's how people turn the blessing of life into a curse.

6:34 AM, November 11, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Danny,

You said:

"I hope you will finally let people live in peace now that the gays killed the anti-gay marriage amendment."

If you would follow the marriage amendment issue a little closer your statements would be factual. The marriage amendment is NOT killed. Our "un-representative" representatives did not adjourn the constitutional convention, they just recessed it.

You said:

"Give people you disagree with a break from the continual assault on their lives."

I am not providing any sort of assault, I am simply providing facts that you wish to translate as an assault. I simply disagree on an issue and am labeled the "bad guy". I just don't understand your closed mindedness.

You said:

"...be a little more like Christ and a little less judgmental."

Where do you read that I am judging people that Christ has already judged. If a homosexual does not repent from his behavior then he will not enter the gates of heaven. It is that simple and in which is stated repeatedly in scripture.

You said:

"If all you ever focus on is the bad in the world, that's all you'll ever see. That's how people turn the blessing of life into a curse."

What makes you think that I just focus on the "bad" in the world? If you are suggesting that same-sex "marriages" are "bad" than how is it a "curse" to help turn someone's life to the words of Christ by denying them the chance to redefine a sacred institution such as marriage?

You are the one who is focusing on the "bad" in the world by suggesting that my works are a "curse".

Please come to my site with irrefuteable statements if you wish to make a VALID point.

Thanks for stopping by Danny, you make some interesting statements that can be disscussed further if you wish.

Scia

5:46 PM, November 11, 2006  
Anonymous Danny said...

" If a homosexual does not repent from his behavior then he will not enter the gates of heaven."

It also says that touching the dead skin of a pig will send you to Hell. Are you suggesting that the NFL is damned? You can't pick and choose passages in the Bible to support your discrimination.

"I am not providing any sort of assault, I am simply providing facts that you wish to translate as an assault. I simply disagree on an issue and am labeled the "bad guy". I just don't understand your closed mindedness."

A well worded man can attack a subject without having to be overtly rude about it, can't he? What else do you talk about here besides being critical of the gay community and gay marriage? That constitutes an attack, no one is going to be convinced otherwise simply because you deny it.

"...how is it a "curse" to help turn someone's life to the words of Christ..."

Your words are of revulsion instead of love. No one has ever been turned to Christ by the coldness of another.

The fact that you cannot follow God's law to love your neighbor brings you your suffering. Until you can deal with the fact that people have the right to choose their own path you will forever be at the mercy of your hate. I'll pray for your well being.

Try to let it go, the anti-gay marriage petition is dead. Precedent is as powerful in Massachusetts as a law, and this has been done before. Kris Mineau is barking at the moon, and emperor Romney has no clothes on.

7:05 AM, November 12, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Danny,

You said:

"It also says that touching the dead skin of a pig will send you to Hell. Are you suggesting that the NFL is damned? You can't pick and choose passages in the Bible to support your discrimination."

Show me the passage that talks about the dead skin of a pig. I am sure there is a translating issue here.

Not being sarcastic, I will help you translate it if you show me the passage. Yes, the Bible is a little tricky to translate. Good issue to talk about Danny.

Read 1 Corinthians 6:9. It CLEARLY states how homosexual offenders will not inherit the kingdom of God. Read this passage and I can provide you more that are clear and to the point.

You said:

"A well worded man can attack a subject without having to be overtly rude about it, can't he? What else do you talk about here besides being critical of the gay community and gay marriage?"

I am sometimes sarcastic with my presentation of facts about the dangerousness of homosexuality. That I do appologize for and need to STOP doing this. I do not however appologize for how my statements are factual.

You said:

"Until you can deal with the fact that people have the right to choose their own path..."

But you do not have a right to FORCE your path onto others. This is being done to those who believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage where homosexuality is not recognized.

We are simply asking for a vote on the definition of common law marriages not to take AWAY "rights" or "equal access". If the commonwealth votes NO on traditional marriage, then so be it, the people spoke.

Good topics, keep it up.

Were you there at the State House on Thursday??

SCIA

3:52 PM, November 12, 2006  
Anonymous Danny said...

Leviticus 11:7 states:

"And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you."

Leviticus 11:26 states:

26 "Every animal that has a split hoof not completely divided or that does not chew the cud is unclean for you; whoever touches the carcass of any of them will be unclean."

You can justify just about anything in the Bible if you look for a reason. Why would you want to look for a reason to hate in a book that calls for love so prominantly? If you want to take the Bible literally, why lesbians are not mentioned? Is God cool with that?

"But you do not have a right to FORCE your path onto others."

Can you explain to me how gay people living their lives forces anything upon you, because this is an argument I don't understand at all. In fact it seems to me that it is your side of this argument that is forcing their opinions on the gays.

For the record, I'm not gay, my brother is. I have always stuck up for him, he's a great guy and doesn't deserve to be treated like he did something wrong for being in love. His boyfriend is very good to him and the family approves. Are there no gays worthy of respect in your eyes?

You are more civil than I would have expected. Thank you for your courtesy. Some people prefer to throw insults at one another, and I don't think we learn well that way.

7:49 PM, November 12, 2006  
Blogger Ryan Charisma said...

Funny,

Most of the states that voted out gay marriage (and will be deemed unconstitutional eventually) alos voted to keep slavery pre Civil War.

hmmmmmm, interesting.

3:20 PM, November 13, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Danny,

You said:

"You can justify just about anything in the Bible if you look for a reason. Why would you want to look for a reason to hate in a book that calls for love so prominantly? If you want to take the Bible literally, why lesbians are not mentioned? Is God cool with that?"

Danny, you may want to read Romans chapter 1 verse 26 regarding "unnatural relations b/w women" (i.e. unnatural sexual relations.) Bottom line is that lesbians are mentioned. Why didn't you know that?

Have you ever read the entire Bible you claim to be so proficient in?

Also, what are you refering to regarding your claim that I hate gays? What specifc proof justifies your means? What are you talking about?

You said:

"Can you explain to me how gay people living their lives forces anything upon you, because this is an argument I don't understand at all. In fact it seems to me that it is your side of this argument that is forcing their opinions on the gays."

Danny, read my post on June 5th titled - "Question: How does same-sex marriage harm our understanding of humanity?"

Good questions.

Scia

4:54 PM, November 13, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ryan,

You said:

"Most of the states that voted out gay marriage (and will be deemed unconstitutional eventually) alos voted to keep slavery pre Civil War."

Are you comparing the marriage issue with slavery?

4:56 PM, November 13, 2006  
Anonymous Danny said...

"Have you ever read the entire Bible you claim to be so proficient in?"

I never made such a claim. There is a fleeting mention of women also having unnatural relations with other women, but it does not condemn them the way it condemns men. If we are taking everything in the Bible literally then lesbians are good to go. Is there another passage I missed aside from the one?

"I am not providing any sort of assault..." Then you later say, "what are you refering to regarding your claim that I hate gays?"

Your website is full of criticisms towards the gays, but you do seem to fall short of saying that you hate them, I'll give you that. You don't need to say you hate them, you can do it through action. Actions speak more loudly than words.

I took your advice and read your post on June 5. It did not leave me with any better understanding. I am not intersted in hearing what other people have to say on the matter, I want your input. What changes in your life have you had to make to accomodate the gays getting married? Surely after two years of marriage you must be able to cite what trouble this has caused you personally if you want people to believe you have a valid point, right?

I suspect by the tone of aggravation you are starting to take you know you can't answer the question, so I won't expect one. I will return to see if you give one though, as I like hearing what you have to say. We do not have to agree in order to have a productive conversation.

6:44 PM, November 13, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Danny,

You said:

"Your website is full of criticisms towards the gays, but you do seem to fall short of saying that you hate them, I'll give you that. You don't need to say you hate them, you can do it through action. Actions speak more loudly than words."

Where is my criticisms? Name one. What actions have I taken that says that I "hate" gays?

You just said through my words on my blog that I 'fall short' of engaging in hate speach. Where are you going with this?

It seems that just because I have a different opinion than you that I am labeled a hate monger. I don't get that.

You said:

"What changes in your life have you had to make to accomodate the gays getting married?"

For starters I have taken my daughter out of the public school system due to the over the top indoctrination that is being taught in her schools regarding the "benefits" of homosexuality. This represents the obvious breakdown of morals and parenting and gender roles that we as parents must teach our children in order for them to grow up to be healthy participants in this crazy world.

(I will appologize in advance for my sarcasm...)The government run indoctrination camps (AKA public schools) go on the false premise that it is O.K. to teach about homosexuality to children because same-sex marriage is legal in MA. I have blogged about this issue many times so please feel free to research my site.

Second off I have taken it upon myself to blog without identifying myself as I have had and have friends who have been physically and verbally abused because of their 'different opinions' on this issue of the sacred institution of marriage.

My family has been threatened and people have been put away for their actions. I am only trying to preserver something that is important to me and society not engage in hate speach or gay bashing in any...any way shape or form. This is an obvious breakdown of free speech and the essence of the purpose of the constitution which is also exemplified by the actions of the State legeslator last week.

One good thing, and this goes for many people across not only Massachusetts but across the world is that I have gotten closer to Christ.

I have said in the past that I would not mention religion on this site because the marriage amendment has nothing to do with religion and it still doesen't. But we all need to get closer to Christ and his word if we all want to get along. No one is bashing anyone over the head and DEMANDING they convert to God's way of life, but what benefits are there Danny to engage in the sinful behaviors of homosexuality? Who am I to say with that question that I do not sin? I can't say that...I do sin and I ask God for forgiveness and then I DO NOT REPEAT the same offense again.

In a nutshell, God loves us all but he does not love our sin. Ask for his forgivness but do not use that forgivness as a license to repeat and continue in the same sinfull lifestyles/actions.

God bless Danny, great question.

Scia

8:06 AM, November 15, 2006  
Anonymous Danny said...

With all do respect Scia, you exercising your right to pull your child from school because you don't agree with what the school is teaching is hardly a good enough reason to curtail your nieghbor's civil rights. Don't you have a better example that people can understand clearly that you have a clear need to prevent gay marriage?

8:14 PM, November 15, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Danny,

Sorry for not getting back to you. We had a busy Thanksgiving at our house.

How was your Thanksgiving? Hope everything, including the turkey, turned out the way you wanted.

I don't think I can eat for a week!!

Danny, you said:

"With all do respect Scia, you exercising your right to pull your child from school because you don't agree with what the school is teaching is hardly a good enough reason to curtail your nieghbor's civil rights."

Can you proove to me with documented facts that marriage is a civil right?

You also said:

"Don't you have a better example that people can understand clearly that you have a clear need to prevent gay marriage?"

If you read just 5 or 6 of ANY of my posts,especially the most recent one about Newton Public Schools, you can get an idea of why gay marriage should be prevented.

I don't need to elaborate on something allready stated.

Thanks for stopping by Danny, I need to take some Peptobismol...Oh boy!!

5:56 PM, November 24, 2006  
Anonymous Danny said...

"I don't need to elaborate on something allready stated."

The responsibility of communication lies upon the communicator. In other words, if I don't understand what you mean, try explaining yourself better. Don't tell me to listen better, or to read this and that in order to dismiss the point I am making.

It seems to be a real battle of religious thoughts here. You think gays are sinful, and other people don't. What is it that you think you are going to accomplish by stomping out gay marriage? I don't see it because you are not trying to defend your argument. I am not interested in reading volumes of your work trying to figure out what you mean. Either say it or tell me you don't want to talk anymore. What imposition is gay marriage on your life?

I thought about what you had to say with taking your kid out of school. It doesn't pass the test. People will still have to talk about gays even if there is no gay marriage. Gays are a part of our world. How do you suggest we deal with that reality? I would really like to hear your answer to this.

I would like to continue this after finals if you don't mind. If I can get back earlier I will. I seriously don't understand how you arrive at the conclusions you do. If you took the time to explain yourself better you might have other people understanding you too.

I would really prefer to see us have a realistic discussion about where you see our society going and what we should do about it. I see the value of conversative thought. I also see the value of liberals. Lay out your plan that involves your compromises and let's see what interest it brings. Best wishes.

5:11 PM, November 28, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

You said:

"Don't you have a better example that people can understand clearly that you have a clear need to prevent gay marriage?"

The first damage of same-sex marriages is to the institution and understanding of marriage itself. Calling same-sex unions marriage radically transforms and obscures the fundamental meaning of marriage. It makes the publicly committed union of one man and one woman merely one possible form of marriage. This obviously opens the door to polygamy and polyamory, as many proponents of the redefinition of marriage have plainly and expectantly stated. If marriage means anything four Supreme Judicial Court Justices say it means, then it in fact means nothing - or possibly everything. The law is a teacher and shows what is considered acceptable or approved. Calling same-sex relationships marriage teaches that marriage has no intrinsic need of a man and a women and furthermore undercuts the idea that procreation is intrinsically connected to marriage. This harm will affect everyone, espcially the young.

The redefinition of marriage, moreover, does not merely allow different understandings of matrimony, but forces everyone to accept this dramatically altered conception of marriage and family in schools, law and in our public language. We have already seen this in Massachuetts. Words like "husband" and "wife", "mother" and "father" have been deemed discriminatory, replaced by "Party A" and "Party B", "Parent A" and "Parent B". Our law and educational institutions are being compelled to pretend - contrary to common sense and various studies - that there is nothing special about mothers and fathers raising children together and, specifically, that children do not need a mother and a father.

One application this forced acquiescence points to another notable harm, the radical changes made necessary in adoption and foster-care work. Since the redefinition makes it legally impossible to give preference to families headed by a married father and mother, most adoption and foster-care preferences - prescribed for the benefit of at risk children - have needed to be eliminated. Institutions like Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Boston have had to give up their valuable adoption work altoghether lest they be forced to place children against religious beliefs and common sense in same-sex homes. No one can honestly argu that this is a harmless development.

The notion of parenthood is being changed to consist in any arrangement of emotionally attached people who care for kids. And anyone who opposes these harmful developments is not tolerated, but in fact is called a bigot. It happened to David Parker in Lexington, who was publicly castigated after objecting to his child's being taught about transexuals and same-sex couples in kindergarten. It happened to other parents in Newton, who protested their five-year-olds' having to read a fairy-tale about two princes kissing. And the recent story in Newton, in which I have posted about, where the teaching of transexualism and transgenderism to 8 year olds occured. This mandated acceptance of the redefinition obviously points to an allied danger to the religious freedom of those who oppose same-sex marriage. This harm, too, affects everyone.

Finally, those who care for the common good cannot ignore the economic consequences that follow from the redefinition of marriage with respect to business insurance policies, health care systems and social security programs. This fiscal impact will be in addition to the ecomnomic harms that will come from the weakening of the traditional family, the economic benefits of which are well documented.

These are just some of the possible answers to how the redefinition of marriage will result in tangible harm to others. The sky is not falling, but that does not mean that the fundamental building block of society is not being weakened.

You said:

"Gays are a part of our world. How do you suggest we deal with that reality? I would really like to hear your answer to this."

Let people do what they want but do not TEACH these dangerous behaviors as if they are beneficial. Do not manipulate the law so that children have to sit through "lessons" on homosexuality, transgenderism or transvestite lifestyles. How are these "lessons" beneficial Anonymous when it is clearly documented that they are dangerous lifestyles to engage in.

Today is AIDS awareness day. People need to be aware that of the millions of AIDS infected people in the United States alone, 46% of these people are gay and have spread it through homosexual activity. I am not saying AIDS is a gay disease, because it is NOT. HETEROsexuals are the predominent "spreaders" of this aweful disease. But in the U.S. gays are the predominant "spreaders" of this disease.

With that, Anonymous, how is it beneficial to teach about homosexuality to school aged children?

4:54 PM, December 01, 2006  
Blogger Christian said...

The Arizona initiative also would have tossed out little respective contracts between elderly people. It was poorly worded. Don't take the failure of that initiative as indicating that Arizonans support ssm. Reword the amendment more specifically so as not to alienate the elderly, and focus it on protecting marriage specifically.

7:06 PM, January 08, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Christian,

Good point. That is why Vote On Marriage.org has worded their referendum so well with "...require the state and local and county governments to license and recognize only those marriages that are between a man and a women."

Good work. Love your site.

Scia

7:24 PM, January 08, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Bravenet.com Get your Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com