Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Don't confuse FMA with Marriage

The Republicans are doing a good job of making the Federal Marriage Amendment synonamous with marriage. In other words, if you're against the FMA, you're against marriage.

The the comments section of Pete Ashdown's blog, "Mike" tries to do it.

The best reply ever on the subject came from an expert on Pete Ashdown's views on the subject, probably even more an expert than Pete himself.

It was his wife, Robin.

It is important not to confuse the “Marriage Amendment” with marriage. Mike is correct in stating that marriage is very important to our society. Strong marriages and families make for a strong country. I am very thankful for familial support and also for the support and strength my marriage gives me and our 3 children.

I think all of us agree that strong families benefit every aspect of society. Where we disagree is on HOW to strengthen the family unit. Families who have economic stability, whose children are adaquately educated, whose health care needs are met, who are free to worship as they see fit, and who have hope for the future are vastly better off than those who do not have such opportunities. The “Marriage Amendment” does nothing to strengthen families in a real way, instead it was created as a smoke screen to divert good people who believe in strong families from focusing on how we, as a society, can truly support the family unit. Meanwhile corporate chronies of legislators continue to enrich themselves while the rest of us are distracted in a fight over gay marriage.

“Limited, small government” to me means that the government stays out of my personal life, allowing me my free agency. Instead of Congress wasting time and resources debating what a marriage certificate should look like, I would like them to work on strengthning the country in real ways, promoting health, economic stability, and protection to our families.

I am lucky, my husband’s company has been successful and has given our little family the financial resources to buy a house, put food on the table each day, and pay for our health care (including dental). Some of my brothers, sisters, friends, and neighbors have not been so lucky. In fact,our neighborhood school, two blocks from our house, has one of the highest homeless rates in the state. The “Marriage Amendment” would do nothing to move these children and their families out of poverty and on the road to stability. My husband, Pete Ashdown, is pro-family and when people realize that he puts the interests and well-being of families before that of mega-corporations, they will elect him as Utah’s next Senator. That’s when they will have true protection for their families.

By the way, the vote to condinue discussion on the amendment failed, 48-49.



pramahaphil said...

I would agree that this should be left up to state rights if I felt confident that it would be left up to the states, howvere it has been seen often that people with social agenda's like this have found the Federal courts to be a great ally in legislating around the elected lawmakers we the people choose. I (personally feel) this is going to be coming up again and again, and (I just can't get around it)either our elected officials will answer the issue or the courts will. To me the issue isn't about relgion, it is simply the need to say that we as Americans will hold, at least, marriage sacred.

Having said that, I'm glad that Congress can move onto more important issues.

Having said all that

That One Guy said...

The thing is, it will keep coming up again and again until they get what some perceive to be "the right answer".

It's like asking the question in school, over and over again, until it gets the answer the teacher is looking for. Beuler, Beuler, anyone, anyone, anyone....

This has come up at least twice on the national stage so far, with the same answer. Obviously, it is not the answer they are looking for.