Reactions from the Religious Right to the Vermont marriage vote are starting to roll in and I am going to post them here and will keep adding them to this post as I find them:
“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.
“The marriage amendment movement has been many times more successful than the same-sex ‘marriage’ movement,” Perkins said. “FRC will continue to stand with those states which are seeking to pass marriage protection amendments and other measures in order to protect our most fundamental and essential social institution.”
Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: “It is a sad day in America when elected officials are clueless about the definition of marriage. If they cannot understand this basic human relationship between a man and a woman, then they are not competent to for public office. Marriage laws regulate a social institution upon which society has been built and the future of society rests. By redefining marriage, the Vermont legislature removed the cornerstone of society and the foundation of government. The consequences will rest on their shoulders and upon those passive objectors who know what to do but lack the courage to stand against this form of tyranny.”
“Vermont was the first state to create civil unions, an arrangement allowing same-sex couples all the government-bestowed benefits of marriage. But as pro-family leaders warned, and despite claims by homosexual activists, this debate is not about benefits. That was merely the wedge to demand more, to require that everyone in society accept what cannot — by nature — be, that marriage can be something other than one man and one woman.
“Marriage is the unique relationship between a man and a woman who together provide children with the benefits of the two sexes, male and female. A marriage cannot be complete without both sexes. While government officials may change definitions, they cannot change nature. The first human relationship was between one man and one woman, and it became the foundation of all society. Vermont legislators’ futile attempt to replace God by vainly redefining marriage eerily follows how that first man and woman acted on the first temptation — and the root of all temptations — to act as if they were gods. That one decision by Adam and Eve to believe that they could ‘be like God’ separated them from God, destroyed the peace that they had experienced, and ushered in what some would call ‘unintended consequences’ of pain and destruction.
“The decision by Vermont legislators to attempt to redefine marriage creates an urgency for other states and officials to protect marriage.”
Catholic League (from an email):
Which state has less religious men and women than any other? Vermont.
Which is the only state to have a socialist senator? Vermont.
Which state has the second lowest birth rate in the nation? Vermont
Which state has the second highest proportion of whites? Vermont.
Which state legislature was the first to legalize gay marriage? Vermont.In other words, Vermont is a lily-white state populated by left-wingers who are anti-traditional marriage and anti-family. Exactly what we would expect of a population where more people believe in nothing than anywhere else in the nation.
“With its enactment, the Vermont legislature made a profound social policy statement that mothers and fathers are not necessary for the family, and that the sex of a parent doesn’t matter” Austin R. Nimocks, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, told Baptist Press. The religious liberty organization opposed the bill. “It’s unfortunate any time you see a court or a legislature say that children are not entitled to both a mother and a father. And it should never be the intent of any policy or law to intentionally deprive children of what they need, and that’s both a mom and a dad.”
…
“Just because the legislature makes an enactment doesn’t make it true,” Nimmocks, the attorney, said of the legislature’s passage of the “gay marriage” bill. “If the Vermont legislature passed a resolution that the earth was flat, does that make it true? Of course not. And the simple fact is that marriage predated the Vermont legislature — just like my mother predated me. I don’t get to redefine who my mother is. It’s just a simple fact of common sense. The institution of marriage has predated the legislature and government and the United States, and it’s not the prerogative of anybody to redefine it. It is the prerogative of every state and U.S. citizen to uphold the institution as it has always been defined, as one man and one woman.”
Nimmocks also said he does not think “gay marriage” legalization nationwide is imminent.
“I don’t believe for a second that same-sex marriage is going to become the policy of the United States or a majority of states,” he said. “And the fact that there are 30 constitutional amendments amongst our 50 states upholding marriage as the union of one man and one woman — plus several other constitutional amendment efforts in other states — only bolsters that fact.”
“The vote change reflects the triumph of a short-term view of political persuasion and correctness over a long-term view of the needs of future generations of Vermont’s children,” said Jenny Tyree, marriage analyst at Focus on the Family Action.
“Marriage is larger than any judge or legislator. It’s the only social institution with the purpose of giving a mother and a father to every child, and lawmakers ignore that purpose to the detriment of society.”
