too important to change
By Diogenes (articles ) | Nov 09, 2006
John McAdams brings to our attention a heart-warming election day story that will make you shake your heads in admiration of gay activists and their campaign for recognition as honorable fellow citizens. Wisconsin had a ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage by amending the state constitution. A YES-vote on the measure was a vote against same-sex marriage; a NO vote was a note in favor of same-sex marriage. Clear enough?
OK, so take a look at the computer-dialed phone message the gay marriage gang had up and running last Tuesday (you can listen to it here):
This is Sue. Today is election day. As you go to vote, I urge you to remember our children.
We urge you to vote NO on the Constitutional Amendment on gay marriage.
Vote NO to send a message that some things are too important to change.
In Wisconsin marriage is a man and a woman. Vote NO to make sure activist judges don't get involved and determine what marriage might mean like they have in in other states.
Vote NO to protect our children, our families and our way of life.
Vote NO on the gay marriage amendment.
"In Wisconsin marriage is a man and a woman ... Vote NO to send a message that some things are too important to change." Now is that a marvelous display of political honesty or what?
In order to scam a few unwary householders into voting against their own intentions and in favor of the gay marriage cause, these gay activists are willing to play into the very attitudes of resistance they otherwise condemn as bigotry. It's odd, but gays have had an uphill struggle in convincing the majority that they are persons of integrity. Can't think why.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: Fr. William -
Nov. 09, 2006 3:46 PM ET USA
Many of the "vote no" crowd were nasty and vitriolic in their words/actions in the days leading up to the vote. Not surprising. And many said, "voting 'no' does not change the constitution," which does already state that marriage is between a man and a woman, but leaves open the possibility for other "unions." My response to them was that the amendment ensures that not only the word marriage, but the institution of marriage would be protected: one man, one woman, for life, open to life.
Posted by: Laity1 -
Nov. 09, 2006 2:09 PM ET USA
Like the wording on the Missouri ballot initiative - a direct and intentional deception. Could it be they have no regard for the 8th commandment too?