.~Javier Plumey~.|Fatih, Technology, Politics, Whatever.

When I say “they” here, I’m talking about gay marriage advocates who want to force their own demands over the will of the people.  This November, three states, Florida, Arizona, and California, passed amendments that legally define marriage as a union between a man and woman. These were grassroots campaigns. Every citizen eligible to vote in these states had a choice to say “yes” or “no”. The constituents chose to keep the traditional definition of marriage.

Now we’re hearing that groups like the ACLU and others are putting legal changes to these changes. It’s too late, folks! I know you want to run to your favorite liberal judges, but the people have spoken. Let it be. Drop it. Move on.

Even as the last votes were being counted, the American Civil Liberties
Union and other opponents of Proposition 8 filed a challenge
with the state Supreme Court. They contended that it cannot be
used to undermine one group’s access to rights enjoyed by other
citizens. (Read earlier story: ”Major pro-family victory in California“)
From: One News Now

I am in the midst of corresponding with Mr. Robert Wexler, Congressman from Florida regarding the proposed constitutional amendment H.J. RES. 89 that would define marriage on a FEDERAL LEVEL. Here’s the dialog, I’ll update as often as we (me and whomever is sending back these replies) continue. The formatting of this looks weird, but it’s all there:

My Original Fax:

RE: Support H.J. RES. 89!

The American people want to protect marriage from activist judges!

I am very disappointed that the Democratic Party has endorsed homosexual marriage. I
urge you to co-sponsor H.J. RES. 89, the Marriage Protection Amendment of 2008,
which would make marriage legal only between a man and a woman. Our families and children need this constitutional amendment to protect marriage.

I realize that there are some minority factions of our country that desire the
status of marriage between same-sex couples. However, it is the OVERWHELMING
opinion of Americans that marriage is between a man and a woman. Do not bow to
the special interests of a minority. This is NOT a civil rights issue, but
rather one of choice. Please side with the MAJORITY of Americans and co-sponsor
this bill.

Here is the reply I got via email:

Dear Mr. Plumey:

Thank you for expressing your thoughts about the proposed constitutional
amendment that would define marriage on a federal level, H.J. Res. 89 in this
Congress.

This amendment has been debated numerous times in the past few years. As you may know, on June 7, 2006, the Senate soundly rejected the amendment in a procedural vote, which received only 49 of the 60 votes needed to end debate on the issue. Sixty-seven votes would have been necessary to approve the constitutional amendment. On July 18, 2006, the House then voted on this amendment (H.J.Res. 88) in spite of the Senate’s prior defeat of the measure.

H.J.Res. 88 failed to receive the requisite two-thirds majority by a vote of
236 to 187. The House had already gone on record this session opposing such a proposal; on September 30, 2005 the House voted on H.J.Res. 106, a prior version of the marriage amendment. As with H.J.Res. 88, H.J. Res 106 failed, receiving 227 votes, nearly 50 fewer than needed.

Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution states,

“Full faith and credit shall
be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.” HOWEVER, in 1996, 104th Congress passed the   “Defense of Marriage Act,” which modifies Article IV, Section 1 such     that no state is required to recognize the same sex marriages of any other state. The Defense of Marriage Act became Public Law 104-199 and currently stands under Chapter 115 of title 28 in US Code.

For your reference, I have included the most relevant portion of the act below:

Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

“No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian
tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial
proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a
relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage
under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right
or claim arising from such relationship.”

This provision has allowed each state to decide for its citizens how to define marriage and does not require any other state to recognize its marital unions.

On an issue that is so divisive for America and since each state is able to make this determination based on the will of the state, I do not see a need to make a change at the present time.

Rest assured that I will continue to monitor this important issue. Thank you
again for taking the time to write. Please feel free to contact me anytime
if I may be of help to you.

Interesting, and while I would normally agree with this position, the fact is that the people who are voting in these states are not having their voices heard. Case in point: the recent decision by the California Supreme Court to overrule the majority of the people who want to keep marriage between a man and a woman.

Here’s my followup response:

RE: Your email response to my fax inquiry re: Support H.J. RES. 89!

Thank you for the prompt and courteous reply to my inquiry regarding this proposed
amendment. I understand that under The Defense of Marriage Act no state is
required to give effect to another’s state’s definition of marriage. However, I
feel that there is one very important aspect that is not being discussed: a
federal amendment to the Constitution is the only way to guarantee and protect
the status of marriage so that activist judges cannot overrule the desires of
the voters. The courts in many states want to force this lifestyle on voters and citizens who do not want it. Take, for example, the recent actions of the California Supreme Court.

Nothing short of a Constitutional amendment can protect the will of the people, which
throughout the entire United States, is a positive affirmation of the
sanctity of marriage between a man and woman.

Your responsibility as a representative of the citizens of South Florida is to ensure that our opinions are not overruled by activist judges who have their own agenda, outside of the scope of the will of the people.

Furthermore, we must also consider the considerable and unnecessary misuse of millions of dollars in litigation it will cost states to have to continually defend the will of the people.

This amendment is the right choice for America because it will protect the right of every citizen to have a say in the way our country is run.

Again, I implore you to support H.J. RES. 89. Supporting this amendment is to support the
will of the people. Thank you for listening.

From http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9142SUG1&show_article=1

The hoopla here is that a lesbian couple was asked to stop kissing because it made another fan uncomfortable. I can sympathize with the fan because I’ve seen from experience that lesbian and gay couples often have displays of affection that are, shall we say, a little more intense than the average straight couple.

Sibrina Guerrero complained that there was another couple there making out just a few rows up front. She claims she was singled out because of her sexual orientation. I wasn’t there, of course, but I’m sure it must have been one heck of a smooch fest for it to make another fan uncomfortable.

The gay and lesbian lifestyle is carnivorous in its approach to sexuality. I mean think about it, their sole reason for claiming their minority status is the fact that they have a different sexual drive than others. Plus, in this case specifically, it seems like Guerrero may just be a little more than enthusiastic about her sexuality:

Since the incident, Guerrero’s job and her
past have come under scrutiny. She works at a bar known for scantily
clad women and was a contestant on the MTV reality show “A Shot at Love
With Tila Tequila,” in which women and men compete for the affection of
a bisexual Internet celebrity.

Face the facts, the lives of gay and lesbian couples are diven by sex, why should we expect them to act prudish in public? It seems like it’s part of the coat of arms for the GBLT movement that you need to come under public scrutiny at some point in your life. Why is every GBL-or-T person I’ve ever met so obsessed with sex?