In Defense of Marriage

The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, signed by President Clinton, prevents federal recognition of same-sex marriage, and allows states to ignore same-sex licenses from outside their borders. Many would feel this is enough federal involvement on this issue, but read on and find out why it's not.

I have always maintained that keeping the federal government's involvement in our daily lives to a minimum is the ideal. The problem we face by keeping the legislative and executive branches out of an issue with such a wide impact on America, is we are not keeping the federal government out of it. We are simply removing the checks and balances established to keep one of the three branches of government from making law without the influence of the other two. Without Federal legislation, the United States Supreme Court will end up creating a law defining marriage by judicial fiat and without regard to the will of the people. Your elected officials will have no say in the matter. This will happen with the very first same-sex divorce where the parties are in different states and one of those states does not recognize gay marriage.

John Kerry believes the federal government should not pursue a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman - relegating this to states who feel compelled to do so. I disagree with Kerry. But, while this may seem to be a simple disagreement between John Kerry and me, there is actually more to it. John Kerry has managed, once again, to take several contradictory positions - not just two this time - to an issue important to America.

In an interview for The Advocate, September 16, 2003, Kerry states: "I was the only elected senator up for reelection to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996. It was a tough position to take, but I took it because I thought it was outright gay bashing."

Notice Kerry states his vote was based upon his belief that DOMA (Ironically, Doma is Russian for "Home") was discriminatory. Whether it was a tough position because it was not the position of President Clinton or because, as he states in the same article, "My argument is that marriage is a union between men and women as defined through centuries. End of argument. Period." is not clear.

Later in the same article, Kerry contradicts himself when answering a question regarding the difference between same-sex marriages and mixed-race marriages, which were banned in some states many years ago. Kerry says, "I don't know if [ban against same-sex marriages] it's discrimination. I’d have to think about that. I haven't done the comparison between the two. It's worth analyzing, but my quick reaction would be that there is a distinction between them. It's really about the integrity of a certain institution rather than a form of discrimination. But I’d have to go think about that a lot harder."

So, Presidential Candidate John Kerry unequivocally states DOMA is discriminatory, but it isn't - maybe. He'll get back to us. But he personally believes Marriage is between man and woman only, but he doesn't think we should pursue legislation to ensure it stays that way. Any questions?

Mourning For Spain - Twice

Our hearts are with the Spanish People - but we should pay heed.

The Spanish People have suffered two tremendous blows in the war against terror. First was the horrific bombings in Madrid, which killed 200 and wounded an estimated 1500. In a country as small as Spain, an attack of this size proportionally eclipses the casualties America suffered on 9/11. Second is allowing Al Qaeda to affect the outcome of the national election in such a way as to weaken the cooperation between nations fighting terrorism.

The surprise election to Prime Minister of Socialist Party candidate Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who pledges to bring home Spains 1300 soldiers from Iraq, shows us what could have happened in America after 9/11. I am not certain why the pundits are suprised by this outcome in Spain. The increasingly strident attempts, and their apparent acceptance, to bring Europe under one government should have forewarned of such a possibility.

The Spanish people have mistakenly allowed themselves to believe America is the cause of their losses. They have been led to believe America, not Al Qaeda terrorists, is their enemy. They see the terror threat to Spain as incipient to their supporting America's attack and rebuilding of Iraq. On the one hand, they mistake the goal of Al Qaeda, which is punishment of infidels and assimilation of all others under 'Islamic law'. On the other hand, they make America's case that Al Qaeda and Iraq are linked in the war on terror.

We should learn from the recent events in Spain. We cannot, as Spain has, bow to terror and weaken our chances of survival. For the near future, we need a President who will not shy away from protecting America. We need a Leader much more than we need an administrator. There is no question in my mind who will stay the course and rid us of the threat to our way of life.

John Kerry will not fit the bill - his voting record does not support his foreign policy and leadership claims. He has a poor showing on defense related issues and has led next to nothing in the way of legislation. Don't take my word for it, but certainly don't take John Kerry's word for it. The Senate website will provide all the information you need on John Kerry's votes - you might be surprised at the difference between what he tells us and what his voting record tells us.