"Americans are tolerant, generous, and kind people. We all oppose bigotry and disparagement, and we all wish to avoid hurtful disregard of the feelings of others. But the debate over same-sex marriage is not a debate over tolerance. It is a debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage.
Attaching the word marriage to the association of same-sex individuals mistakenly presumes that marriage is principally a matter of adult benefits and adult rights. In fact, marriage is principally about the nurturing and development of children. And the successful development of children is critical to the preservation and success of our nation.
Some argue that our principles of federalism and local control require us to leave the issue of same sex marriage to the states—which means, as a practical matter, to state courts. Such an argument denies the realities of modern life and would create a chaotic patchwork of inconsistent laws throughout the country. Marriage is not just an activity or practice which is confined to the border of any one state. It is a status that is carried from state to state. Because of this, and because Americans conduct their financial and legal lives in a united country bound by interstate institutions, a national definition of marriage is necessary.
Your vote on this amendment should not be guided by a concern for adult rights. This matter goes to the development and well-being of children. I hope that you will make your vote heard on their behalf."
Maggie Gallager, President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, and prominent national figure on this vital issue said nearly two years ago (in this article) the following:
“Mitt Romney is a brave man. While the GOP glitterocracy attended the first gay wedding of one of their own, Gov. Romney was in Washington, D.C., making the single most eloquent and articulate defense of our traditional understanding of marriage I have heard from an American politician."
Unfortunately, thanks to a lack of unity among Republican senators (especially McCain and our own Grassley who do not support it) the MPA has little, if any, chance of passing. Part of the problem is the lack of true leadership on this issue and the cop-out of "states rights" (I know I'm being conned when my other state Senator, Harkin, a Democrat, writes his standard letter back to me that he feels strongly in supporting states rights).
Governor Romney stands head an shoulders among GOP presidential frontrunners on this issue and could provide the true leadership that is necessary to get the MPA through on the next time around.
Discuss your opinions below, or over at this Red State link that I posted (and if you like the message "recommend" the diary so that it gets more views and comments.