You've all heard it today, February 24, 2004 about the President's announcement backing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages. Good news for family values and morality in America. I'm glad for this resolution against this in-your-face attack by the homosexual agenda. But there may be a hidden agenda here. This may just be a ruse, a means to an end, if you will. Or, if you look at the big picture, this could be a test case that we Adventists should watch closely to see how quickly a national Sunday could be passed. The thesis is, how far can you shock the populace so that you can achieve a desired, pre-planned response such as a quick enactment of a legislation? How long did it take for Congress to fast-track from deliberation to enactment the do-not-call list legislation against telemarketers? A week--tops. While the constitutional amendment route is a slow and grinding process, if the issue is one that riles up 60 percent of the people, hitting a raw nerve, we could see it pass relatively quickly. How long did it take for 38 state legislatures to pass legislation defining marriage between a man and a woman (which is a just cause in itself)? Two or three years?

Let's watch with keen interest how long it'll take, from the President's announcement today, to amend the Constitution banning gay marriages. The Devil is a wily foe. But "we are not [or should not be] ignorant of his devices." 2 Cor. 2:11.

Here's an interesting excerpt from today's news I gleaned from Drudgereport regarding the President's announcement. I put it all in italics.

Feb. 24, 10:44 a.m., AP Newswire, by Deb Riechmann

Last week, he met with 13 Roman Catholic conservatives. They included Deal Hudson, the publisher of Crisis magazine and a friend of Bush political adviser Karl Rove; William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights; Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, former speechwriter for President Reagan; and Kathryn Jean Lopez, associate editor of National Review magazine.

Bush has indicated his support for a constitutional amendment in the past, including in a closed-door meeting with Republican lawmakers last month. At that session, according to one official in attendance, the president singled out Musgrave's proposal as one he could support, but did not endorse it.

The amendment that Musgrave and other lawmakers are backing in the House says: "Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

Did it jump at you? This is quite revealing. Who do we see behind the scenes? Imagine, he met with 13 RCs. Who's pulling the strings?

Your brother in Christ,

Dante