Objective political analysts have stated that moral values in general and opposition to same-sex “marriage” in particular were the great catalysts in the November 2004 elections.
If family and moral values were so decisive, then why would same-sex “marriage” be an unresolved issue for conservatives?
* * *
At 4:50 p.m. today, Patrick Guerriero, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, is scheduled to present his views on the Federal Marriage Amendment in one of five discussions titled “Conservative Principle and Unresolved Issues: Differences Within the Family.”
It is possible that Mr. Guerriero will limit himself to arguing that the issue of marriage is best left to the states and that we should not pursue a federal constitutional amendment. This would not reflect his position entirely, however, since the Log Cabin Republicans website characterizes the Federal Marriage Amendment as “anti-family.”1
Thanks to activist judges, same-sex “marriage” may be an unresolved legal and political issue in America today. But it is not an unresolved issue from the moral perspective. As explained in detail in the American TFP’s 2004 book Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same-Sex “Marriage” and the Homosexual Movement, same-sex “marriage” violates natural law and divine law.2
The American TFP asks:
1. Is the Federal Marriage Amendment anti-family?
2. Are the “values voters” who want federal and state constitutional amendments to protect traditional marriage and ban same-sex “marriage” anti-family?
3. Is opposition to same-sex “marriage” really an unresolved issue for American conservatives?
TFP encourages all CPAC participants to say NO to these three questions, especially during today’s 4:50 p.m. discussion on the Federal Marriage Amendment.
The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property – TFP
1. See www.logcabin.org/logcabin/defendconstitution.html.
2. Defending a Higher Law is available online at www.tfp.org/TFPForum/online_library/Defending_A_Higher_Law.pdf.