|
"Protecting" marriage Reading Between His LinesBy Rick Horowitz [The president, protecting marriage -- an early draft.] Thank you all. Please be seated. Good afternoon, and welcome to the White House. Actually, welcome to the building just across from the White House. It's not that we don't want the actual White House associated with this kind of event. It's just that we thought -- well, never mind what we thought. Thank you all for being here. You come from many backgrounds and faith traditions, yet united in this common belief: Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization -- it rates even higher than hypocrisy -- and it should not be redefined by activist judges. You are here because you strongly support a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman, and I am here because I need you to be in a good mood this November.
The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution. In fact, if you leave out the half of all marriages in this country that split up, most marriages last a lifetime, and that is as it should be, no matter what activist judges may try to do. The institution of marriage is vital to a vibrant society, and never more so than in even-numbered years, which is why I'm speaking up now after nearly two years of silence on the subject. As vital as this issue was to me in 2002, and in 2004, that's how vital it is to me again this year. And if I can sell you this same line three times in a row, believe me -- you have only yourselves to blame. For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, marriage is also critical to the health of society. So if I really wanted to protect families and protect society, instead of supporting a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in a certain way, why don't I just propose a constitutional amendment that bans divorce? After all, many of our states once made divorce almost impossible, until activist judges and activist legislatures changed the rules. If protecting marriage is truly our goal, why don't I support a constitutional amendment that simply puts things back the way they were? For that matter, why don't I propose a constitutional amendment that requires all marriages to produce children? That way, there would be a guaranteed supply of new people to receive those values we value so highly, and new characters to shape the way they ought to be shaped. For that matter, since having both a man and a woman in the house is so important to a child's proper development, why don't I propose a constitutional amendment that would remove a child from any home where either the mother or the father has died, unless the surviving parent got married again within 60 days? Why don't I support any of these other measures I've just mentioned? Because that's not where the votes are. Where your votes are. Where your votes are is in saying words like "Massachusetts" and "San Francisco." You people in this room know what I'm talking about when I say words like "Massachusetts" and "San Francisco," even if you've never been to Massachusetts or San Francisco yourselves. Even if you don't think you even know anybody who'd ever want to go to Massachusetts or San Francisco. You know that Massachusetts and San Francisco are where activist judges and activist mayors live, and the kinds of people who encourage activist judges and activist mayors to do activist things. But the amendment you support will make sure that those activist judges and activist mayors won't be able to thwart the will of the people -- your kind of people -- ever again. And let's treat everyone with tolerance. God bless. Posted 6/6/06. Get
award-winning commentary right here from syndicated columnist Rick Horowitz!
|
  |
Rick Horowitz
