Gays Rights

Statement

Prior to the 1960′s, inter-racial marriages were unlawful. In many states, inter-racial marriage was criminal and was punishable by imprisonment.

Throughout the country, churches and religious groups preached against inter-racial marriage. Inter-racial marriage was against the Bible. It was a sin. It would destroy society.

Then, in 1967, in the case of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court held that laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage were unconstitutional. And what happened? Nothing!

Life went on. We all got used to it, and society did not suffer any negative consequences. Today, it is hard to imagine a time when inter-racial marriages were not possible.

The national debate over gay marriage is reminiscent of the debate over inter-racial marriage. The same arguments are being made. And the same result is inevitable.

Sadly, I have received many calls from people who oppose gay marriage and proudly claim that they are teaching their children that gays are a danger to society. These are the people Phil Roe represents.

Issues of gay rights, abortion and related issue are not even constitutionally proper for Congressional consideration -- or for discussion in a Congressional election.

The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The courts have long held that matters that are traditionally the subject of state regulation are "off limits" to Congressional action.

Matters of family law have long been recognized as being subjects that are traditionally subject to state legislation. Marriage, divorce, alimony, child support, child abuse and paternity rights have always been governed by state law -- and there is no Constitutional authority for federal interference in, or regulation of, these subjects.

Phil Roe claims that, before voting on an issue, his first question is "Is this Constitutional?" -- and if it isn't he votes against. Apparently Phil Roe makes an exception when Congress wants to legislate issues of marriage and reproductive rights.

We cannot allow federal policy to be dictated by religious beliefs -- especially in areas where the Constitution prohibits federal action.

Faith is a wonderful thing. For many, it gives comfort and provides focus and gives meaning to life. But America is a country of religious diversity.

The extremely conservative views of some religious voters does not represent the doctrine of all religions. Their views do not even represent the official position of all Christian denominations. Public policy should not, be dictated by the views of a few.

When a Congressman takes the oath of office, he places his hand on the Bible and swears to uphold the Constitution. He does not place his hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.

The extremists who oppose gay rights (as well as women's' freedoms) are the people who support Phil Roe. These are the people Phil Roe claims to represent. These are the views Phil Roe wants to write into federal law. And these are the views Phil Roe will undoubtedly emphasize during the campaign

We cannot allow the rights and freedoms of any segment of the population to be dictated by the views of a minority of extremists, no matter how politically active they may be.

Source