Posted on 10/23/2009 6:39:37 AM PDT by davidlachnicht
Video of Philip Spooner, an 86-year-old D-Day veteran who spoke at a Maine Judiciary Committee meeting in favour of gay marriage.
He said: I am here because of a conversation I had last June, when I was voting.
The woman at my polling place asked me, do I believe in equality for gay and lesbian people.
I was pretty surprised to be asked a question like that. It made no sense to me.
Finally I asked her: what do you think I fought for in Omaha Beach?
He says that he and his late wife of 54 years had four sons together, one of whom was gay, and all four of whom joined the services.
I was raised to believe all men are created equal, he says, and I have never forgotten that.
I served from 1942 to 1945 as a medic and an ambulance driver. I worked with every outfit over there including Pattons Third Army.
I saw action in all five major battles in Europe, including the Battle of the Bulge.
He goes on: It makes no sense that some people who love each other can marry and others cant, just because of who they are.
My wife and I did not raise four sons with the idea that three of them would have certain rights and that the fourth of them would be left out.
His voice cracking, he says that he saw too much suffering and sacrifice for equality during the Second World War.
Citing the ovens at Buchenwald and Dachau, he says: I have seen with my own eyes the consequence of a caste system and of making some people less than others or second class. Never again. We must have equal rights for everyone.
Its what this country was started for.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
I've always wondered why gay people are fighting for big brother to keep lists of who they are.
Makes as much sense as marrying your sibling or parent. I can recall a time when the same people ridiculed those who married cousins, now the ancient practice seems tame by comparison to today’s standards of queer marriage. Next up, homosexual males marrying little boys.
Exactly, which is why Government should not be legislating morality by attempting to impose Gay marriage on the majority just to appease a hyper strident minority.
Few Americans object to civil unions except the radical gay activist lobby, they demand they be allowed to impose their morality on the rest of us by legalizing gay marriage.
Personally, I’d prefer the Govt to be blind to marriage for a variety of reasons, including married and single folks differently.
Oops.
“Personally, I’d prefer the Govt to be blind to marriage for a variety of reasons, including TREATING married and single folks differently.”
"Finally I asked her: what do you think I fought for in Omaha Beach?I suspect that it is guaranteed that for 99.99999% of those guys on Omaha Beach...or anywhere else in World War II..."gay rights" was the last issue on their minds. For the vast majority of those guys would have been mortified at the very suggestion of "gay marriage" or "equal rights for gays."
"Right is right, even if everyone is against it; and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it.
Gives a new meaning to butt buddies!
I want to marry my truck.
Your truck may be a better candidate than many. :O
If society truly decides that “it makes no sense that some people can love each other can marry and others can’t,” then we are in for a whole lot of changes in addition to same-sex “marriage.”
I think pushing this issue may indeed set the gay rights movement back. If people are told that gays can’t be treated as full and equal members of society unless gay “marriage” is sanctioned by the state, and many people recoil from that concept, then the idea that gays are indeed “outside the mainstream” or whatever is actually strengthened.
I happen to think that people advocating same-sex “marriage” have a problem with our Creator and basic biology, not the legal system. But that’s just one person’s opinion.
Yes, they may reject God (or, maybe not). Your religious rites are your own, and as long as you don’t violate the law when practicing. Govt needs to get out of the ‘marriage-business’ altogether.
bookmark
The author of this thread obviously does not believe in the people’s right to have representation on issues of public behavior regarding sexuality. Of course if “We the People” do not have a right to define aspects of sexuality in regards to our society then of course this thread creator is also setting the stage to tell us that “We the People” do not have a right to define the age of consent, polygamy, etc…
Marriage is not purely a religious ceremony but is and has always been a secular aspect of society as well. We the People have a right to define aspects of sexuality as to what is acceptable to society and what is not.
This thread is based upon liberal misconceptions that seek to deprive “We the People” of our right to representation on issues of sexuality in society.
If the government is representative of the people then why should the people not get to have a say on the issue of homosexuality in public? Why should the government be in the business of trying to force the acceptance of homosexuality on people?
Even the concept of civil unions should be left up to the People to decide through their representatives. There is no intrinsic right to force others to accept your homosexuality.
You are correct - I completely disagree.
What rights come with having sex?
I suppose we’re only a few . . . IMHO, it’s a way for the government to insert themselves into religion. Watch for tax exempt status to be tied with their definition of marriage.
No thanks. Everyone likes to quote, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars . . .” but fail to continue “and unto God that which is God’s.” Marriage is God’s and Caesar should stay out of it.
There is an institution called “marriage”. It is a covenant between a man and a woman. Only. This is because only a man and a woman may procreate. Other arrangements are different, and not marriage.
Any man may marry any woman. Thus, there is no inequality in the institution, only in outcome.
All the particulars of marriage may be imitated except the ability to procreate. Thus, same sex unions will never attain to marriage.
I do understand people who feel that way. I also understand those who find it not only appropriate but essential that society recognize that, all things being equal, a child is best raised by its biological parents and recognize and support the unions likely to produce future generations.
Then again, the concepts of childbirth and marriage have been fairly separated from each other for at least a generation already. Not to society’s benefit, I’d say. Maybe recognizing same-sex “marriages” - or stopping the practice of recognizing marriage altogether - will just complete the trend, whether people consider it positive or negative.
What is wrong with you keeping your homosexuality to yourself? Why do you want to use government to force the rest of society to accept it as being normal when it is not?
That depends on what you mean by "in public." "We the People" are limited as to what laws we can pass, since we are all given rights by our creator that are *not* violable by a majority, or even a super-majority. If by "in public" you mean holding hands, etc. and you do not limit the same activities by normal people, then I think you are pushing the limits. That sword cuts both ways. If we can't put up nasty signs and trot around naked in parades, neither can they.
Why should the government be in the business of trying to force the acceptance of homosexuality on people?
Why should the government be in the business of trying to force the rejection of homosexuality in people?
I'm sorry if I don't fit into the "Democrat liberal vs. Republican religious right" narrative, but I'd prefer to let people have freedom, *even* when I disagree with their choices.
Is calling an apple an orange freedom?
There already are equal rights. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I do.
Islam exists. Muslims aren’t required to hide their love of Allah. If a Muslim breaks the law, they go to jail. Government doesn’t say that Islam is better than any other.
(Note for those not following: sub Homosexual for Islam/Muslim)
Let's see . . .
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Yep. People are constitutionally allowed to be idiots. I'd rather not have a commission headed by anyone, Republicans or Democrats, telling me what is and isn't "true" or "smart" about my beliefs.
Didn't we have arguments about this at a constitutional convention some time ago?
. . . and I’m not saying that the government should call whatever their “relationship” is *anything at all.*
Freedom isn't just for the minorities.
“Finally I asked her: what do you think I fought for in Omaha Beach?
I suspect that it is guaranteed that for 99.99999% of those guys on Omaha Beach...or anywhere else in World War II...”gay rights” was the last issue on their minds. For the vast majority of those guys would have been mortified at the very suggestion of “gay marriage” or “equal rights for gays.”
It was an abomination to them and it remains so today. That which was an abomination in the past remains so even if everyone else is inclined to embrace it...or as William Penn put it...
“Right is right, even if everyone is against it; and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it.””
Good summary on a bogus post. Nobody in WWII was thinking about fighting for the fecal eaters.
“To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision) is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser number. . . . If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority in order that something may be done must conform to the view of the minority . . . .” Alexander Hamilton
First off I am not religious so your b.s. about the religious right is just that… b.s.
Secondly, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that homosexuality has to be treated as being equal to heterosexuality.
Third… homosexuality is a type of behavior and not a type of person. There is no doctor who announces the birth of a homosexual and no one knows until a person acts out as to this type of behavior. You do believe that we have a right to regulate behavior in society or do you think that it should be dictated to us what behavior we have to treat as equal to other behavior?
“No matter how abandoned may be a man’s principles, or how vicious his practice, provided he keeps his wickedness to himself, and does not violate public decency, he is out of the reach of human laws. But if he makes his vices public, then they become by his bad example, of pernicious effect to society, and it is the business of human laws to correct them.” Sir William Blackstone.
Yea of course you want to substitute the concept of homosexuality with the concept of religion. We have freedom of religion (and religious expression) as a part of our Constitution. All good leftists (as I suspect you really are) want to create new Constitutional rights using un-Constitutional means for sexuality and sexual expression. Sorry if as a conservative I oppose your leftist agenda.
It is the government’s business if you are going around trying to force others to accept your homosexual marriage. Since you and other homosexual activists are trying to use governmental force against the people who disagree with you about marriage then you lose the right to make this argument.
If you want to hold some ceremony in the privacy of your home and pretend that you are married to your homosexual partner then go ahead but don’t go trying to use government to force me and others to have to accept it.
Oops I apoligise for this above post as I didn’t read though enough and misunderstood the point that was eing made. Posting from work. Sorry about that.
My question is this: What is the PURPOSE of marriage, in a societal sense.
Same-sex “marriage” mocks the purpose of this covenant.
Especially when the stated aims of proponents is not to fulfill this purpose, but rather to forcibly gain acceptance of their lifestyle.
Gay people are free to enter into any covenant they choose between them and their beloved. But to call it marriage is to unacceptably alter a fundamental word in the English language.
This is why I probably would have been against ratification of the first ten amendments. Listing specific rights makes people think that there are "Constitutional rights", and anything not in there is not a right of the people. That is so wrong. The Constitution lists what the federal government CAN do, and in some area what the states must do (which, unfortunately, includes honoring each others public acts, so if you're married in CA you're married in every other state too). We didn't need the "right" to bear arms, for example, because the Constitution never gave the fed any right to tell us we couldn't.
And I COMPLETELY agree - you put it beautifully - and as for the thread poster, I smell a LIBERTARIAN rat....go “marry” your ardvaark, nobody is stopping you....
And they DO, all the time - then they pull into a state rest stop and solicit indiscriminate sex from someone they don’t know then go home and subject their wife to a STD - think McGreevy...family values on parade...
Whether being GAY is natural or unnatural is irrelevant to the argument.
Bipolar people get married, Serial-cheaters get married, Alcoholics get married, Retarded people get married, Dumb-arses who just met in Vegas get married.
Our government passively endorses these scenarios.
Rules DO come from the people, but I’d hesitate putting to a popular vote “should women with cell phones be denied drivers licenses” or “dogs smaller than 40lbs really aren’t dogs, are they”?
Yea but none of them are demanding to redefine marraige or claiming that we need to teach our children that sexual perversion is actually good and natural.
Yes, get the Feds out.
And I don’t think States should automatically honor laws in other States.
that’s why GOV’t pulling out of marriage altogether makes sense to me.
Govt Endorsed Sacraments - that’s what it really is, and that’s scary.
Sorry I disagree. There is nothing wrong with endorsing marriage being between a man and a woman and promoting that ideal in society.
Calling an apple an orange is certainly protected free speech. It is also a perversion and untrue.
Making an apple an orange by force of law is not freedom, but bondage and tyranny.
“Making an apple an orange by force of law is not freedom, but bondage and tyranny.”
Which is precisely why I believe Govt cannot continue to “pick winners & losers” on this religious and liberty issue.
“There is nothing wrong with endorsing marriage being between a man and a woman and promoting that ideal in society.”
I bet if the gubberment had stayed out of the marriage business and left the endorsing of marriage to folks’s faiths the number willing to accept that “gay marriage” can exist because gubberment says so would be greatly reduced. I mean, the reason most Freepers know that “gay marriage” is impossible isn’t due to gubberment involvement in marriage, right?
Freegards
Oh, boo hoo, Phil. If you fought for the rights of queers to trample 4,000 years of tradition, you fought for the wrong reason. A whole lot more of those soldiers fought for GOD and country, to keep America a land of virtue, not an open-air brothel.
And your attempt to equate homos with the victims of the Holocaust is as specious as it is contemptible. Go peddle your distorted patriotism somewhere else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.