Big Setback for Gay Marriage

ABC News ^ | 8 November 2006 | MARCUS BARAM and LAURA MARQUEZ

[YaYa123]

Nov. 8, 2006 — Voters may have put the Democrats back in control of the House, but that doesn't mean they're embracing liberal values.

Amendments to ban gay marriage passed easily in seven of the eight states where they were on the ballot. The states include Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin.

[Albion Wilde]

Liberalism and class warefare are not dead, and I dread what the next few years might bring. Yet some people are more concerned about gay people than the future of our country.

From most conservatives' points of view, preserving the natural structure of the family is the last bastion of freedom in an increasingly socialist/fascist society. Without the natural family, children do become the property of the state and the ultimate dumbing-down occurs, certainly including strict imposition of the secular religion, with its worship of decadent sexualities and the oppressive systems of the same foreign nations our immigrant nation struggled to get free of.

[Albion Wilde]

At least those states were given the chance to vote on it. In MA after collecting the number of signatures required to be able to put it on the ballot for a vote, the Donkeys in office didn't even give the public a chance for the right to vote on it.

Same thing in Maryland, where the Donkey leader closed the legislature at noon rather than hold a vote on the ballot issue in the afternoon of the last day of the session.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

What do you suggest we do about the homosexual agenda forcing itself down our throats via courts and legislation? Just lie back and take it? Or wait for thousands of years for the libertarian utopia to happen?

I would for once like a straight answer on what "the homosexual agenda" is. It's one of the most rediculous things I've ever heard. As far as force goes, if allowing gay marriage is forcing an agenda, how is only allowing straight marraige not an agenda? How is making sodomy illegal not an agenda? That's truly forcing an agenda. I don't see how allowing other people to do what they want with their personal lives has any effect on you. That's the same logic as saying that because smoking is legal, we're forcing a smoking agenda on people. It's the same ignorant mentality - the nanny-state mentality, something any real conservative is against. Nobody is forcing you to do anything, but you are indeed attempting to force others to live thier lives as YOU see fit, and thus many homosexuals find themselves pondering the same question - are they supposed to just lie back and take it?

[Albion Wilde]

There's a big difference between approving something and not outlawing it. Should we also outlaw smoking, drinking, sexual promiscuity, etc? After all, allowing them to be legal is the same is approving them by your logic. So what, we should have laws regualting every possible personal decision we can make? Sounds pretty scary to me.

The reason people object to gay marriage laws is that they correctly sense that the majority of gay men do not want marriage and monogamy, and have not taken advantage of the legal ability to marry where it has been legalized. People correctly sense that "gay marriage" is a Trojan Horse for the legalization of homosexual behaviors, which will require extensive affirmative actions like lowering the age of consent for sexual relations with minors and demanding sexual-orientation curricula in schools, which is already a huge source of contention in many states. It is the State imposing secular sexual religion on traditional families, who want to be left alone.

What could be more libertarian than leaving traditional Christians and Jews alone to teach their children the same natural, God-honoring sexual morality they have been upholding for the past 2000 years?

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

From most conservatives' points of view

Stop right there. What qualifies you to speak for "most conservatives"? Furthermore, the father of modern conservatism, Barry Goldwater, felt that conservatism meant smaller government, in ALL areas. People who think otherwise are attempting to change the use of the word. They're trying to change political conservatism into social conservatism.

an increasingly socialist/fascist society

Because of nanny-staters like you!

strict imposition of the secular religion

Seems to me like plenty of people practice non-secular religions, and nobody tries to stop them.

its worship of decadent sexualities

Right, the "pray to the gay" crowd. I forgot about them. Where do you people come up this crap?

the oppressive systems of the same foreign nations our immigrant nation struggled to get free of

And that so many of us seem willing and ready to re-create here at home.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

The reason people object to gay marriage laws is that they correctly sense that the majority of gay men do not want marriage and monogamy

Well thanks for making that pesky decision for them. Freedom is overrated anyway.

have not taken advantage of the legal ability to marry where it has been legalized

That would be in one state, where the marriage is only valid in that state. Hardly a fair chance.

People correctly sense that "gay marriage" is a Trojan Horse for the legalization of homosexual behaviors

Case in point. Why on Earth should "homosexual behaviors" be illegal? Is the government going to start micromanaging every decision people make?

like lowering the age of consent for sexual relations with minors

Only fringe groups are advocating that.

sexual-orientation curricula in schools, which is already a huge source of contention in many states. It is the State imposing secular sexual religion on traditional families, who want to be left alone.

Nobody's forcing anyone to send their kids to public school.

What could be more libertarian than leaving traditional Christians and Jews alone to teach their children the same natural, God-honoring sexual morality they have been upholding for the past 2000 years?

Also allowing Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, athiests, etc. to practice their beliefs as well, not just Christians and Jews. That would be more libertarian.

[Albion Wilde]

Also allowing Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, athiests, etc. to practice their beliefs as well, not just Christians and Jews. That would be more libertarian.

There is a vast difference between allowing them freedom to practice within their families and imposing the teaching and approval of their practices on persons of other faiths.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

There is a vast difference between allowing them freedom to practice within their families and imposing the teaching and approval of their practices on persons of other faiths.

But it's okay for Christians to impose theirs?

[Albion Wilde]

Because of nanny-staters like you!

You could not be more wrong about me -- as a Republican, I favor local standards, not Federal micromanagement of communities, schools, etc.

Before aggressive Federal judicial social activism fueled in no small part by feminist/socialist/pansexualist lobbying, communities were free to exercise social control of extended family and community for the benefit of children; for instance, a community could fire the young elementary-school librarian who became pregnant by a male teacher with a wife and 3 kids in the same town. The wife and kids were devastated socially and thrown on the welfare of the community, not to mention the effect on the pupils when the teacher abandoned his family to go live unmarried with the librarian. This was an actual case that was brought before the Supreme Court, which affirmed the librarian's right to keep her job.

There are thousands of examples of cases that were used throughout the 70s and 80s to destroy community-based protections for children. The growth of urban anonimity has also provided safe haven for many kinds of abuses against children by various kinds of predators inside and outside their families. And what was this librarian to the pre-existing wife and children, if not a predator? Other taxpayers in the community did not wish to reward the librarian's callous unconcern for their well-being.

Do you excuse "liberty-seekers" for using the courts to hammer individual "freedoms" no matter whose defenseless children get abandoned in the process?

No political ideology is going to solve the problem of personal irresponsibility. Criminalizing Christian expression as "hate speech" is, however, going to eliminate one of the most historically effective means of empowering individuals to solve personal problems and assume personal responsibility. The homosexual movement has been aggressive in labeling Christianity "bigotry" because of its age-old teachings that utter sexual libertarianism greatly increases the risks, dangers and harms to individuals and society.

[JCEccles]

Stop right there. What qualifies you to speak for "most conservatives"? Furthermore, the father of modern conservatism, Barry Goldwater

Barry Goldwater? You need to study conservatism a little more deeply.

Libertarians tend to be poorly educated and malinformed cranks. They think reading "Atlas Shrugged" and memorizing Goldwater's "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" quote makes them deep philosophical thinkers equipped to build Libertopia on earth.

There was a gaggle of them on a thread yesterday proudly trumpeting that they don't have a clue who Russell Kirk was.

[VOA]

Voters may have put the Democrats back in control of the House, but
that doesn't mean they're embracing liberal values.

Nice soft-peddling by ABC News.
If Republicans had supplied the critical votes to pass these measures,
the headline would be
"Hateful Republican Homophobes Strip Gays of Marriage Rights".

[Ruth C]

You caught the perfect example of how the media manipulates so many people who have no idea how to analyze what they are reading.

1.conservatives were resoundingly defeated while gay marriage was merely "setback".
2. Clinton 'avoided' the draft, all the republicans who served in the reserves 'dodged' the draft.

[YaYa123]

I'm an Emmett Tyrrell fan too, always wished he got more attention.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

If it's nature's law, as you proclaim, then why do we need government law in the first place?

Because some people are just too damn stupid to figure out penis + vagina = baby.

Do I have to explaibn the "birds and bees" to you as well???

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

You chose to bring up illegal immigrants as they related to the minimum wage (completely off topic, by the way),...

No, you brought up the minimum wage, which is totally unrelated to the fetish of homosexual monogamy.

[little jeremiah]

Post more of his articles on FR, and ping me to them! Offer to start an R. Emmett Tyrrell ping list! I'll be a charter member.

He writes really well, too. It's easier to read when someone writes well in addition to making great points.

[little jeremiah]

Great comments. You should save them and bring them out again as needed. Seriously, save them. The arguments that libertarians use are evidence that pot makes you stupid.

[Albion Wilde]

Great comments. You should save them and bring them out again as needed. Seriously, save them.

I have boxes of them. It's called a master's thesis in Con Law as regards the destruction of family.

The arguments that libertarians use are evidence that pot makes you stupid.

LOL!!

[little jeremiah]

I'm glad you're on the right side with your kind of brains. You should run for office or be in public life some way or another. Or maybe you are?

[little jeremiah]

Scrip - you gotta read AW's comment. Simple, to the point, and utterly defeats the bleating of libertarian nonsense.