Friday, January 26, 2007

AFA's Donald Wildmon Cranks Up For SJR-7

The American Family Association's Donald Wildmon is sending out e-mail action alert messages to drum up support for SJR-7, the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages and to prohibit the recognition of any legal incidents of marriage for any unmarried couples or groups. Wildmon's bigotry against gays and lesbians is on full display. He writes:

Your voice is urgently needed in the Indiana State Senate. SJR 7, the Marriage Protection Amendment is going to be debated by a Senate Committee on Jan. 31st. If SJR 7 passes the legislature without any changes, Hoosiers will be able to vote next year, to take this issue out of the hands of unelected judges, radical homosexual activists and groups like the ACLU.

Passage of SJR 7 will protect the importance of mothers and fathers by preserving Indiana’s marriage laws, which have always recognized that marriage is the bringing together of the two sexes for the benefit of children and society.

Allowing same-sex marriage or civil unions means the opening of a Pandora's box of social problems and moral chaos for America. In a world where anything goes, traditional marriage will lose meaning and be degraded to simply another
living arrangement. Sadly, in the destruction of traditional marriage, the hardest hit among us will be the children. Many may never know both a mother and a father.

In order to preserve the institution of marriage for our children and grandchildren, we must do all we can today to support Senate Joint Resolution 7. This bill must pass the legislature one more time, exactly as it did in 2005 in order to place marriage protection on the November 08 ballot and into the Indiana Constitution, just as 27 other states have already done.

Wildmon's message is quite clear. He and his bigoted allies want to do more than just deny same-sex couples the legal right to marry. Wildmon laments that children will be the hardest hit because "many may never know both a mother and father" if same-sex marriages are legally recognized. Is his head buried in the sand? Is he not aware of how many children are being brought into this world outside of marriage, or the high rate of divorce in the absence of gay marriages? I am still waiting for one of the proponents of this constitutional amendment to explain to me how it will discourage straight couples from getting divorced or prevent more children being born out of wedlock.


Anonymous said...

They won't explain it to you because they can't. Civil rights will be granted to gays eventually, but I don't think that christianity will ever recover.

Anonymous said...


Marla R. Stevens said...

Wildmon's Chicken Little argument could only hold sway in a place where the majority is so poorly traveled and educated that they are unaware that life in the growing number of nations in the world where marriage laws do not discriminate against same-sex couples has gone on without disrupting the rhythms of opposite sex love, marriage, and family life.

Pass SJR-7 and expose yourselves as rubes, Hoosiers.

Marla R. Stevens said...

9:29 --
Could you please explain the meaning and scope of the second paragraph of SJR-7? So far, not even its authors and legislative leadership backers have been able to do so. There is a requirement that "Every act and joint resolution shall be plainly worded, avoiding, as far as practicable, the use of technical terms." Can you make a successful case that SJR-7 qualifies to even be considered, given that requirement?

Anonymous said...

There goes Iowa-bound Marla again...poking fun at us from afar. Extremely helpful Marla.

Yor second post was much more helpful.

Can all of us stop the hystrionics and stick to facts?

Mr. Wildmon says Indiana has "always" defined marriage. That is not so. Until the DOMA, Indiana's stautes were largely silent or value-neutral.

So, passage of an Amendment will duplicate, in super-gllue form, the existing statutes.

If this is so important why don't we enact Amendments on everything we consider important, that's already against the law?

Murder, rape, incest, arson, fraud, theft, lying, kiddie porn...

Gary R. Welsh said...

Marla, my belief is that the second paragraph was added to foreclose the possibility of civil unions from being recognized in Indiana. Note, it applies to unmarried same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike. I've never understood why the term "groups" was thrown in as well. It arguably affects more than the right of civil unions. Clearly, public universities would be prohibited from offering domestic partner benefits--because that would be akin to the "legal incidents of marriage."

Anonymous said...

Ah.. but sadly Gary, University Reps in this state are telling Senators that the second line will NOT affect their domestic partner benefits, even though this is patently false, based on cases in Michigan!

As much as the Hershmans of the world claim "only to be out to protect traditional marriage", their groups have proven across the country that they will file cases immediately after the passage to pursue their "agenda"-- to rid America of gays and lesbians's rights.. or at least push them to some other state. To promote their own singular version of Right and Christianity -- and ensconce it in the Constitution.

Anonymous said...

It is true of universities in Ohio as well. Why would the university reps be saying that? Give us the names, they need to be educated on this matter.