Below are remarks by Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney yesterday in which he declares his unequivocal support for a Federal Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as exclusively restricted to the union of one man and one woman as the only way to effectively protect the institution.
While some conservatives favor a state’s rights approach to the issue coupled with appointment of non-activist judges to the U.S. Supreme Court that would uphold the Defense of marriage Act, such approaches would not prevent states from allowing gays to marry.
For most conservatives, that is unacceptable. The only way to absolutely protect the institution of marriage is a constitutional amendment. Their has been much speculation that Rudy Giuliani, who personally favors gay rights, will pledge to appoint justices like John Roberts and Samuel Alito. But it is beyond belief that he would move so far too the right as to favor the amendment Romney is advocating.
Romney is making this issue one of the defining issues of his candidacy. This has a powerful appeal to the base and could make it impossible for Giuliani to get off the ground before he even starts.
http://www.mass.gov/Agov2/docs/20061015_liberty_sunday.doc
Liberty Sunday: Defending Our First Freedom
October 15, 2006
“Welcome to this historic city. The authors of liberty recognized a Divine Creator who bequeathed to us certain inalienable rights. They affirmed freedom of religion and proscribed the establishment of any one religion. Today, there are some people would like to establish a single religion for America . . . the religion of secularism. They not only reject traditional religious values, but also the values of the founders. And they set aside the wisdom of the ages. Their allies are activist judges. Here in Massachusetts, activist judges struck a blow to the foundation of civilization, the family. They ruled that our constitution requires same sex marriage. I believe their error occurred because they focused on adult rights. If adult heterosexual couples can marry, they reasoned, then to have equal rights, adult homosexual couples must also be able to marry.
But marriage is not primarily about adults. Marriage is primarily about the nurturing and development of children. A child’s development is enhanced by the nurturing of both genders. Every child deserves a mother and a father. Of course, the principal burden of the Court’s ruling doesn’t fall on adults. It falls on children. We are asked to change the state birth certificate. To prevent “heterocentricity,” mother and father would become parent A and parent B. An elementary school teacher reads to her 2nd graders from a book titled “The King and King” about a prince who marries a prince. And a 2nd grader’s father is denied the right to have his child removed from class while that book is being read. Our state’s most difficult-to-place adoptive children may no longer be placed by Catholic charities because they favor homes where there’s a mother and a father.
The price of same sex marriage is paid by children. Our fight for marriage, then, should focus on the needs of children, not the rights of adults. In fact, as Americans, I believe that we should show an outpouring of respect and tolerance for all people, regardless of their differences or their different choices. We must vigorously reject discrimination and bigotry. We are all God’s children. He abhors none of us.
Massachusetts is the front line on marriage, but unless we adopt a federal amendment to protect marriage, what is happening here will unquestionably enter every other state. The spreading religion of secularism and its substitute values cannot be allowed to weaken the foundation of family or the faith of our fathers who more than life their freedom loved.”
www.race42008.com