Family Research Council Responds To Vermont Vote To Recognize Gay Marriages

Ken AshfordGodstuff, Sex/Morality/Family Values1 Comment

Tony Perkins:

Family Research Council (FRC) President Tony Perkins today condemned the vote of the Vermont State Legislature to overturn the Governor’s veto on same-sex “marriage” as well as the vote by the District of Columbia City Council to recognize same-sex marriages performed in the 50 states.

“Same-sex ‘marriage’ is a movement driven by wealthy homosexual activists and a liberal elite determined to destroy not only the institution of marriage, but democracy as well. Time and again, we see when citizens have the opportunity to vote at the ballot box, they consistently opt to support traditional marriage,” said Perkins.

“The vote today by the D.C. City Council was a direct affront to the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The radical Left wants to destroy the traditional union of one man and one woman across the country and they will not rest until they do so.

For the record, I support gay marriage equality.  That said:

  1. I am not wealthy.
  2. I am not homosexual.
  3. I am not an activist other than I support some things, and don't support other things.  All I have is a blog, and half the time, I don't even know why I bother.
  4. I am not a member of the "liberal elite".  Again, I'm just a guy with a blog.
  5. I have no intention of destroying the institution of marriage, nor would I know how to even if I did.  I think it's a great institution, which is why I favor people of all sexual persuasions to marry (unlike Tony Perkins).
  6. I have no intention of destroying democracy. (Odd comment coming from Perkins, by the way.  Weren't the passage of those laws in Vermont and D.C. democratic?)
  7. I am not aware of any one in my personal sphere, or in the public sphere, who meets all, or even most, of the criteria listed above.  Who is Tony Perkins talking about?
  8. I don't want to destroy the traditional union of one man and one woman.  In fact, I have a personal vested interest in "one man-one woman unions".  (And one man-two woman "unions", depending on my mood).

And the social conservative community can't understand why their popularity is dwindling.