Save Texas Marriage !!!

On Tuesday November 8th, 2005, Texas voters will decide nine 'State' issues on the ballot. The issues range from a silly (Bigger Government) proposal to add more commissioners to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct (prop. 6) when there are already 2 county Judge ad litem members assigned to the Commission, to an issue of monumental importance in Prop 2, which seeks to ban gay marriage. It is the latter issue I wish to discuss.


Traditional Christian marriage is a blood covenant
Gay marriage has no Biblical basis and is not recognized by God. So if the state was to adopt gay marriage, the only after-effect would be the dilution of traditional marriage, and the further break down of the family.
Traditional marriage is not only a way for couples to get benefits from the government. If that were the case then civil unions would be all that is required for healthy marriage and home life. But marriage, to a Christian couple, is more than a State recognized union; it is a sacred covenant between the betrothed and God. In Mathew 19:6 the Bible says of a man and a woman who has been married.... "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." In a Christian marriage it is Jehovah God who joins a man and a woman together. They are bound for reasons relating to family and achievement of life's goals, not just tax breaks and his & hers bath towels.

When a man or a woman is single, they set themselves to accomplish their own goals. Yet when they are bound by marriage, something miraculous happens. They become a completely new creature, a single creature with two parts. This new creature is then focused on what is best for the family as a whole. This covenant with God is the very fiber that holds together the American family, and it is the American family that keeps our Capitalist society moving forward. We have all read about and discussed the way families that are broken or dysfunctional produce children who are poor and more likely to end up in jail or worse. Surely everyone reading this knows of a person who could have succeeded had they had a more stable home life. It is adherence to the covenant of marriage that best resolves this problem. Sure, not every marriage is perfect, no one thinks that. However, any couple who works together and promotes morality in their children's lives offers their children a better start in life than those who see morality as relative and promote a Godless, laissez-faire approach to life.

Liberals seek to pave the way for Communism
The Liberals in America adopted the Gay rights agenda years ago as a means to further their attack on the Conservative Christian foundation of our fine nation. If a gay couple decides they want to commit to each other and enter into an agreement that binds them in the eyes of the State (God is not an issue here), they could lobby to adopt civil unions and all privileges would be afforded them. This however would not serve the Liberal agenda to decimate traditional marriage and further erode the covenant recognized by the state, involving God and the man and woman to be wed. The Gay marriage activists' agenda is not to champion a suppressed demographic, religion, race or ethnicity that would qualify it as a human rights lobby. They are seeking to promote a type of person or persons based on a propensity to act in a certain way that is out of the mainstream, in order to change what is considered the mainstream or acceptable behavior.
Many morally sound people have been confronted by this favorite question of Liberals who support Gay marriage. "How does Gay marriage erode and make of none effect the traditional marriage covenant?" At first, you can't find the answer and so it looks as if you are the bigoted homophobe they say you are. You know it's so, but you have trouble putting it into words. Let's see if I can help you understand.

Let's consider morality TV. In the '50s, seeing a man and a woman in the same bed, whether married or not, was virtually unheard of. The first couple to be seen on TV in the same bed were Johnny and Mary Kay Stearns ,on Tuesday, November 18th 1947. It was a 15-minute program entitled 'Mary Kay and Johnny'. It was also TV's first sitcom and made its debut on the Dumont network. Soon, came the 'I love Lucy show', 'Ozzie and Harriet', ' The Brady Bunch' and more. Soon, no one paid attention to seeing a man and a woman in the same bed. Then came the first nude exposure on TV in a May 4th 1973 PBS (go figure) adaptation of the play 'Steambath'. Former Vegas showgirl Valerie Perrine starred in the scene that saw several women in a steam bath. In true Liberal fashion, the towel boy was twistedly portrayed as God. In this scene, Valerie takes a shower in full view of the camera. Then came Jane Curtain's tirade on Saturday night live in 1976. But it was the expectedly acceptable viewing of African women's breasts on Roots in 1977 that did the most to promote the acceptability of TV nudity. In 1987 we saw Playtex advertise Lingerie, while Madonna strolled across the screen in her 'nighty' coupled with a provocative song and dance. By this time, it was just as taboo to comment on the raciness of the actors on TV as it was in the 50's to advocate bed sharing. So do you see how TV came to it's current state of soft porn from the collective gasps during Elvis' pelvis display on the Ed Sullivan show? They did it by making one minor but bold act, then continued to push the envelope a little further overtime. It's the frog in a beaker over a Bunsen burner allegory. That is what Liberals are doing to the Christian element in American society. Slowly, fighting to remove all that is accepted by replacing it with things that are not as widely accepted. When Gay marriage is adopted, soon we will hear from the polygamists, bigamists, the bestiality crowd and so on. Later we will see groups like N.A.M.B.L.A express how they are excluded from marriage. If we do it for Gays, then marriage must not have a moral basis, so therefore a man and a house plant should have the right to be wed! Where does that leave marriage? It leaves it as a tired formality that will soon be counted useless. So what will suffer most from the dilution and desolation of marriage? The family! When all is said and done we will not be able to convince our children that moral principals, or virtuousness holds any value. Morality will become as the Leftists view it, relative and subjective. Nothing short of a Godless society can result from such an outcome.
They are seeking to implement this in other ways too. Look at last week's 9th Circuit Court's ruling in the
Fields v. Palmdale School Dist. case

This is from TownHall.com "On Wednesday, a three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit Court dismissed the appeal filed by parents who had sued the Palmdale School District over a sex survey handed to students in the 1st, 3rd and 5th grades. The court, in upholding a lower court decision, ruled that "there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children." Furthermore, parents have no fundamental right to influence their children on sexual matters "in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs," the court stated.
The survey, handed out to the pre-pubescent students in 2002, asked questions pertaining to sex, including the frequency of "having sex feelings in my body," "touching my private parts too much," and "washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside." Parents sued the school district because the parental consent form did not mention that questions would pertain to sex and they didn't want the school teaching their children about sexual issues."

If you think for one minute that the Leftists will give up before espousing Christianity in any form is considered hate-speech and condemnable, you are naive. You see, the only way Liberals can adequately prepare America for a switch to moral relativism and ultimately Communism is to remove Christ and Christianity from it's structure. The best way to accomplish this is to erode the moral backbone that is strengthened by the traditional and contemporary Christian family.

Save Texas Marriage.com

I am sure you have heard that some Gay activists in Texas are trying to trick voters into thinking that if they vote for Proposition 2 on November 8th, they will be endangering all marriages. They say that faulty language in the amendment to the Texas Constitution would put an end to all marriage.
They began this campaign by building a misleading website named www.savetexasmarriage.com . Then the phone calls began. A man on a recording, claiming to be a minister, announced that Gov. Perry had made a mistake, that there is a hidden liberal agenda in the marriage amendment and that they need to vote against Prop 2. He even ended the call with, "God bless you". Reports have poured into the Free Market Foundation by the thousands. Early voters could not believe that they had been deceived in to voting for a cause they do not support.

Do not be so deceived, the arguments made by this gay rights advocacy group are fraudulent. Prop. 2 simply defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, putting into the Constitution what is already a part of Texas law. It's passage would reduce the likelihood of a successful constitutional challenge to Texas' 2003 "Defense of Marriage Act." Rest assured that this Act is the only way to insure that Marriage in Texas remains sound and secure! Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott called the arguments "Baseless and Frivolous" ! On October 26, Liberty Legal Institute filed a lawsuit against Rev. Tom Heger and Save Texas Marriage. The complaints filed with the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Election Commission and Federal Trade Commission accuse the group of violating federal law by deceiving voters and inhibiting them from exercising their constitutional right to vote.

Here are the 9 'State' issues Texans will be faced with. Please make all of your choices only after considerable contemplation.


PROPOSITION 1: Texas Rail Relocation and Improvement Fund What it would do: Allow up to $1 billion in bonds to be issued to pay for right-of-way acquisitions and moving freight train tracks. The cost to the state is expected to be $87.5 million annually, beginning in 2007, for interest on the bonds.

Those in favor say: This could expedite the cleaner, more efficient use of trains; get trailer-trucks off the road; and allow urban communities to buy tracks from railroad companies for commuter services.

Those opposed say: Placing tracks has been the cost of doing business for privately owned train companies. Why should the cost now be borne by taxpayers? Plus, borrowing doesn’t create new money; it only delays the payments.

PROPOSITION 2: Gay marriage What it would do: Define marriage as only the union of a man and woman and prohibit the state and local governments from recognizing any legal status similar to marriage.

Those in favor say: It would protect against a state court ruling that would change the definition of marriage under Texas law, giving citizens, not judges, the final say. Marriage promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society.

Those opposed say: State law already defines marriage, and the amendment is so broadly worded that it could nullify common law marriages or legal agreements, such as wills and end-of-life treatment arrangements, between an unmarried couple. Same-sex relationships pose no threat to marriage.

PROPOSITION 3: Economic development What it would do: In a recent lawsuit, a state district judge found that a city near Austin couldn’t promise long-term tax rebates for a private development because that would create debt over many years that was not approved by voters or secured through a bond. This amendment would overturn the judge’s finding, and allow local entities to offer these economic incentives.

Those in favor say: Cities need the leverage to attract and compete for businesses that bring jobs and increase the tax base.

Those opposed say: This leaves no checks on giveaways to businesses and would bind future city councils to what could turn out to be bad economic decisions.

PROPOSITION 4: Denial of bail What it would do: Allow judges to deny bail to anyone who was bonded out of jail once and then violated rules of their release.

Those in favor say: Such defendants have proved they’re a risk, so judges should be able to deny their release.

Those opposed say: This would allow courts to leave a defendants languishing in jail without a determination that he or she was a threat to the community.

PROPOSITION 5: Commercial loan rates What it would do: Let the Legislature lift the ceiling on interest rates — currently at 28 percent annually — that banks can charge on business loans.

Those in favor say: Other states don’t have limits and this puts Texas banks at a disadvantage. This could allow flexible and imaginative loans, and since both parties are banks, they know what they’re getting into.

Those opposed say: The state should continue to protect commercial consumers from risky ventures at abnormally high interest rates. And not every business owner is sophisticated. Some small businesses could be coerced into a bad contract.

PROPOSITION 6: Commission on Judicial Conduct What it would do: Increase the size of the commission, which punishes judges who violate professional conduct or decorum, from 11 to 13 members, adding a county court judge and a fifth public member, and loosens rules about members coming from the same region.

Those in favor say: County judges deserve representation on the commission, and removing regional restraints will make it easier for more people to serve.

Those opposed say: It’s not broken. Enlarging the commission makes it more unwieldy, less likely to reach timely decisions and adds to the commission’s expenses.

PROPOSITION 7: Reverse mortgages What it would do: Now, people who take a reverse loan out on their homes must take the proceeds in a lump sum payment or with set payments. This would allow homeowners to take a line of credit and take the money as they wish.

Those in favor say: It would help session citizens, in particular, take only what they need when they need it.

Those opposed say: Seniors might be susceptible to rash impulses or deceptive practices, exhausting the equity in their home.

PROPOSITION 8: Land titles What it would do: “Vacant land” is a strip that fell between parcels when the land was surveyed many years ago. Recent sought to have large chunks of mineral-rich East Texas land declared “vacant.” Because of the legal challenge, some of the land titles are still tainted. This would clear those titles.

Those in favor say: This affects about 1,800 landowners and it’s only right to clear up the titles. It’s also probably a cheaper way to do it than making each of them go to court.

Those opposed say: They already won the lawsuits. Texas shouldn’t amend its constitution for such narrow interests.

PROPOSITION 9: Regional Mobility Authorities What it would do: RMAs are local boards that recommend to the Texas Department of Transportation toll road placements and highway priorities. This would stagger the terms on the RMAs and make them six years — many are currently two years.

Those in favor say: This provides stability in decision-making, especially on such long-term projects.

Those opposed say: Two-year terms are better. These are nonelected positions, and shorter terms allow some public accountability.