So CNN is Giving Airtime to Focus on the Family Now...

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by iGary, Jun 28, 2006.

  1. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #1
    :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

    COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado (CNN) -- On June 7, the U.S. Senate voted for a second time on an amendment to define marriage in the U.S. Constitution as being exclusively between one man and one woman.

    Again this year, the amendment failed to pass by a wide margin, falling 18 votes shy of a required two-thirds majority. The final tally was 49 in favor, 48 opposed.

    Rarely has there been a greater disconnect between members of the Senate and the American people who put them in power. With the help of the media, which laid down "cover" by claiming voters didn't care about marriage, 40 Democrats, one Independent and seven Republicans turned their backs on this most basic social institution.

    Let's examine the claim that traditional marriage lacks support in the court of public opinion. As it always does when conservative issues are being debated, the liberal press produced a series of trumped-up polls indicating the issue was of no interest nationally. However, there was another "poll" that the media completely ignored. In fact, there were 19 of them. They represented the 19 states in which voters overwhelmingly defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.

    Not one state has chosen by popular vote to permit marriages between homosexuals. Support for the family has been affirmed in every instance.

    In Mississippi, traditional marriage was approved by a whopping 86 percent majority. Other state votes registered similar wide margins: Nevada (70 percent), Arkansas (75 percent), Georgia (77 percent), Kentucky (75 percent), Louisiana (78 percent), Nebraska (70 percent), Missouri (71 percent), Montana (66 percent), North Dakota (73 percent), Ohio (62 percent), Michigan (59 percent), Oklahoma (76 percent), Utah (66 percent), Kansas (70 percent) and Texas (75 percent). Even states considered to be more liberal voted for traditional marriage, including Hawaii (69 percent), Alaska (68 percent) and Oregon (57 percent).

    Indeed, on the day before 48 senators bailed on marriage, a 20th state voted on its own constitutional amendment. It was Alabama, which supported traditional marriage by 81 percent to 19 percent! A search of the database Nexis revealed that not one reference to this dramatic vote in Alabama was published in the print versions of The New York Times or Washington Post. There was virtually no mention of the story in other national newspapers. Yet, each of them devoted considerable coverage to the Senate's defeat of the Marriage Protection Amendment.

    CNN and the mainstream televised news networks uttered hardly a peep about the Alabama decision. Why was the issue buried? Because the "poll" in Alabama and 19 other states didn't match the template put forward by those who wanted the amendment to be crushed. Their bias against the family is breathtaking.

    As for the senators who voted against the amendment, the excuses they gave were pitiful. Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Michigan, Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-Rhode Island, Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minnesota, Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, Sen. Judd Gregg, R-New Hampshire, and many others thought they had the perfect alibi. They claimed that the issue should be handled at the state level. What hypocrisy!

    All of these senators are smart enough to know that, first, it would create utter chaos to have 50 different definitions of marriage in one country, where every state is required by the Constitution to support the laws of the other 49. Come on, Senator McCain and company. You and your colleagues know better than that.

    Second, senators wanting the states to define marriage are fully aware that the people will not be permitted to make their own decisions. Arrogant activist judges, most of them appointed by President Bill Clinton or President Jimmy Carter, will simply overturn the will of the electorate.

    It has already happened in Nebraska, Georgia and Louisiana. Furthermore, nearly 20 cases in 10 states are currently pending that challenge the traditional definition of marriage. For example, a federal judge in Washington state is considering a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act. And finally, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority in Lawrence v. Texas, made it clear that he and his colleagues are likely to redefine marriage when given an opportunity.

    The senators who voted against marriage this month knew exactly what they were doing. The truth is they don't give a hoot about the traditional family. The majority of them have voted repeatedly to weaken or undermine this great institution. Check the record.

    Most of them consistently supported the marriage penalty tax, which for 32 years (1969 to 2001) imposed a heavier financial burden on moms and dads struggling to feed and nurture their children. Liberal senators are still trying to re-impose that outrageous surcharge even today.

    So where does the issue go from here? Time will tell. It took William Wilberforce more than 30 years to bring about an end to Britain's slave trade in the 1800s. Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of a protracted victory.

    If the battle to protect marriage takes even five more years, liberal judges and activists will have destroyed this 5,000-year-old institution, which was designed by the Creator, Himself. Even now, they are close to achieving that coveted objective.

    I ask my fellow Americans to note the senators who did and did not defend marriage in its hour of need, and then to "vote their consciences" in 2006 and 2008. If large numbers of them do so, there could be some new faces in the Congress soon.

    The angst of voters could also result in the election of a president who will fight for the preservation of the family. That would be sweet, indeed.
     
  2. iGary thread starter Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
  3. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #3
    Just more proof that CNN is a total leftist organization like the righties tell me. Just one more cog in theliberalmedia...
     
  4. XNine macrumors 68040

    XNine

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
    #4
    Yeah, look at all of the states that have passed it so far. Nothing but inbreeding, KKK ridden, hick loving, cricket cruncher wearing, religious fanatics. Where's New York, or California, or Oregon, or many other states that have more civilized people than the ones who have passed this.

    This country has been fought for by many, including my grandfathers and my father, and it pisses me off that we cannot accept people as people and give everyone the same civil liberties. No, we have to define it because of religion. Yet, I don't see gays/lesbians paying less taxes, or a majority of them on welfare, or coming to the USA illegaly.

    SO WHY CAN'T THEY HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS?!!!!!!!!?!?!?!??!?!??!?!

    I hate where I live. iGary. You pay for the move and I'll be your roomate. (but not to Vancouver, I hate the Canucks.)
     
  5. iSaint macrumors 603

    iSaint

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    South Mississippi y'all, near the water!
    #5
    frackin' ignorant a** m***** f******!!!







    Dang, I gotta quit letting that slip out!

    Since I'm in the middle of what Oni describes, it's hard to get an intelligent convo going sometimes beyond the possiblity of rain over the next 24-48 hours. I'm having similar discussions with friends in my church about what's going on with the denomination. Acceptance goes a long way when it's done cordially and with agreement. There's no agenda to all this, it's just human rights taking its course.

    When people lose power, they become threatened and respond with anger.
     
  6. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #6
    Wow... you think you might have been a little overly (and unnecessarily) viscious here?
     
  7. iGary thread starter Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #7
    The way I see it, until people can remove their obsession with the sexual aspect of a gay relationship, gay rights will go nowhere in this country. That's the real root of peoples fear.

    I just don't get how people can honestly think this threatens the family - I mean come on, I have 8 sisters and almost 20 nieces and nephews - how is my relationship threatening them?

    It doesn't.

    People are stupid, plain and simple.
     
  8. XNine macrumors 68040

    XNine

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
    #8
    Perhaps, but I think it's warranted here. Seriously, have you been to Mississippi, or Oklahoma, or Nebraska? They're chock full of gay-haters with jesus fish and their local college football team plastered on their vehicles.
     
  9. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    You ever been to Bakersfield?
     
  10. iGary thread starter Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #10
    Or Tulare or Fresno?
     
  11. Josh macrumors 68000

    Josh

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Location:
    State College, PA
    #11
    Gay people eat children, which they in turn use for energy required for sex (something only gay people have).

    Until gay people are more effecient and kid-friendly, I can't see any changes happening.
     
  12. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #12
    Exactly.
     
  13. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #13
    perhaps you didn't hear the news, over all your shouting... ;)

    oregon voted to ban same sex marriage in 2004

    57%-43%

    pathetic. oddly enough, that's the same breakdown in the vote against medicinal marijuana there.

    ohio (certainly not a completely "hick" state) also voted to ban same sex marriage in 2004

    62-38


    gary-don't blame you for packing up your stuff..
     
  14. XNine macrumors 68040

    XNine

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
    #14
    BAH! GOOGLEYMOO @ OREGON.

    Well. Anyone see V for Vendetta? Yeah, our country is becoming the spitting image of that totalitarian neocon society.
     
  15. iSaint macrumors 603

    iSaint

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    South Mississippi y'all, near the water!
    #15
    I live here, and I'll verify that...

    You forgot the symbol of Calvin (from Calvin and Hobbes) pissing on or praying to your item of choice.

    ...and the rebel flag.

    ...and the turkey/deer outline.

    etc, etc.
     
  16. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #16
    I'm telling you, I see that stuff everyday.... and I'm in the supposedly liberal state of California. (OK, probably not as many rebel flags, but still...)

    My recent favorite? The guy with his Chevy PU with the bumper sticker that said "Fords are like tampons. Every ***** has one."
     
  17. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
  18. iSaint macrumors 603

    iSaint

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    South Mississippi y'all, near the water!
    #18
    Yeah, the hatred knows no boundaries!

    Check out the hate groups at Tolerance.
     
  19. rdowns Suspended

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #19
    Just so frackin' stupid. Who the hell cares whether you smoke pole? They cloak these frackin' wedge issues as "family values" to scare ignorant people into keeping them in power. The real threat to this country and its families (whatever makeup they may be) are ignorant and apathetic parents and lack of personal responsibility.
     
  20. eva01 macrumors 601

    eva01

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Location:
    Gah! Plymouth
    #20
    I don't see as much hate in MA, but it is still here even thou when i have conversations with people they don't even know why they hate a certain group of people.
     
  21. XNine macrumors 68040

    XNine

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
    #21
    Of course, it's everywhere. I see it all the time in Aurora and Denver and Boulder and yadda yadda yadda. But the majority speaks in those states.

    It's like syaing Compton, CA is the only place you don't wanna go at night, but there's lots of places like that. It's the emphasis on the stereotypical norm.
     
  22. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #22
    I hear ya... I'm just saying it's counterproductive to call everyone in a state uncivilized, and everyone in another state civilized.

    I'm just not big on calling people stupid. It's rarely helpful to your cause. I prefer to eviscerate with a scalpal as opposed to a broad brush...
     
  23. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #23
    OK, lets see if I understand this fully:

    THIS threatens the family and mocks the institute of marriage.
    [​IMG]

    But THIS is perfectly normal and natural and of no threat to "our oldest institution"....
    [​IMG]

    Hmm, something is rotten in the state of well, everywhere I suppose...
     
  24. XNine macrumors 68040

    XNine

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
    #24
    roflmfao... my manager just popped out to see what I was laughing at. LMAO
     
  25. iGary thread starter Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #25
    It gets scarier...here sre some responses:


     

Share This Page