To unsubscribe please send an email requesting removal at
ModernPatriot@hotmail.com
.
Invite your friends to receive the best political cyber-newsletter in Oklahoma. Tell them to subscribe by sending a subscription request to
Cadman12@swbell.net
or go to
www.ModernPatriot.net
and click on the email icon.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
M
odern
P
atriot
C
hronicles
An Eleventh Commandment Free Zone
Vol. 3, Issue 1
February 5, 2004
by Craig Dawkins
US Senate Poll Results
The Homosexual "M" Word
Considering a Run for State House Seat 101
Copyright@2003, All Rights Reserved.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
POLLS! POLLS! POLLS! POLLS!
Has America become the new Sodom and Gomorrah?
Yes - No - Undecided
Go to
www.ModernPatriot.net
and vote today!!!
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
US SENATE POLL RESULTS
Here are the results from the last poll. The last poll taken by Modern Patriot asked voters to choose from four Republicans for US Senator.
Tom Coburn 23%
Kirk Humphries 57%
Terry Neese 4%
Bob Anthony 16%
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
The Homosexual "M" Word
The debate about the establishment of homosexual marriage rights is simply a debate as to who gets to use the "m" word. The "m" word is marriage. The Massachusetts State Supreme Court was not considering new rights of marriage for homosexuals. They were deciding whether homosexuals could use the "m" word in describing homosexual unions.
As dissenting judge Martha B. Sosman states;
"Both sides appear to have ignored the fundamental import of the proposed legislation, namely, that same-sex couples who are civilly "united" will have literally every single right, privilege, benefit, and obligation of every sort that our State law confers on opposite-sex couples who are civilly "married." Under this proposed bill, there are no substantive differences left to dispute -- there is only, on both sides, a squabble over the name to be used. There is, from the amici on one side, an implacable determination to retain some distinction, however trivial, between the institution created for same-sex couples and the institution that is available to opposite-sex couples. And, from the amici on the other side, there is an equally implacable determination that no distinction, no matter how meaningless, be tolerated. As a result, we have a pitched battle over who gets to use the "m" word." (See dissenting opinion at:
www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/sjc_020404_dissenting?mode=PF
)
Her point begs a question. Did the Massachusetts State Supreme Court do us a favor when it ruled in favor of the word 'marriage' rather than the phrase 'civil unions?' Isn't it a truer word to explain what the Massachusetts State Senate had done in formulating legislation? And would everyone who is screeching today be upset had they ruled in favor of the phrase 'civil unions?'
In ruling in favor of the "m" word, the Massachusetts State Supreme Court has caused a torrent of resistance throughout the country. But the torrent might have never occurred if they hadn't simply recognized the legislation as what it really is: the equivocation of homosexual unions to those of heterosexual couples.
If there is a basis to restrict homosexual unions it is done so only on the basis of the "G" word. The "G" word is GOD. If you take GOD out of the equation than there is no moral justification for restricting any kind of union a human being might ensue. If two men can form a marital union, than why can't one man have 50 wives? In the absence of moral basis, what relationship between human beings could be banned? And if it could be banned, on what basis would the ban be based? If not a moral religious basis, what other basis could fill the void? Certainly the Humanist religion would not be a basis for banning the desires of rational human beings.
The only basis one can enlist to ban homosexual marriage is GOD. AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases cannot be used as justification because heterosexuals suffer the same maladies.
I am against homosexual marriage on the basis of my faith in GOD. I am not against homosexual people. They do not deserve to be killed or persecuted. They deserve to live in peace and privacy as they choose. But to ask us equate homosexual unions with heterosexual marriages is to ask us to deny the moral basis of our religious faith. That is, to deny GOD.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Considering a Run for State House Seat 101
Just to let you be aware, I am currently considering whether to run for State House District 101. Forrest Claunch is the current holder of that seat and has done a great job in representing the district over the years. I haven't made a decision to run at this time. I am in the process of evaluating the four announced Republican candidates. The announced candidates are; Gary Banz, Bobbie Freeman, Jeremy Sellers, and Todd Dealy.
Any input would be appreciated.