Posted on 05/10/2011 5:30:06 PM PDT by AustralianConservative
It's outlandish to call same-sex marriage a 'civil right.'
[...]
The issue before the Minnesota Legislature is not whether same-sex marriage should be allowed in Minnesota. It is whether the people of Minnesota should have the right to vote on the issue, just as voters in 31 other states have already done.
The paper is out on a ledge with its "no vote of the people" position. Seventy-four percent of Minnesotans believe voters, not the courts or the Legislature, should decide this issue.
Even some homosexual-marriage activists apparently believe that voters should be able to decide, since same-sex marriage groups in both California and Oregon are both actively exploring taking their position to the voters.
The editorial rails against enshrining "bigotry" in the state Constitution. Interestingly, the paper appears to concede that the amendment will pass, as this is the only way it could be "enshrined" in the Constitution. On that point we can agree.
But there's nothing bigoted about preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Marriage is a unique institution that brings men and women together. Only the sexual union of men and women can produce children. Whatever one thinks about homosexual relationships, none of them can produce children. It is in the state's interest to channel the unique sexual energy of men and women into marriage so that any children produced by those sexual relationships have the best opportunity to be raised by a married mother and father.
African-Americans might have some ideas about bigotry. Seventy percent of African-Americans supported traditional marriage in California, according to exit surveys. So did 56 percent of Latinos.
Prominent civil-rights leaders like Walter Fauntroy and Alveda King do as well.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
The fundamental question isn’t whether same-sex couples should be allowed to call themselves “married”, but rather whether other people should be compelled to acknowledge them as such. I wish those who want to protect the institution of marriage would point that out. The “gay rights” advocates aren’t seeking to expand the rights so much as they’re seeking to restrict the right of other people to decide what unions they will choose to acknowledge.
This exactly the real issue. Should the People be deprived of there ‘Right to Representation’ on an issue of how sexuality is dealt with publically?
It is the left-wing that is anti-civil rights on this issue. They want to dictate their perverted morality to the people and deprive them of the right to disagreea at all even.
The left-wing not onloy want to deprive the People the Right to Representation on this issue but also want to criminalize all disgreement at all.
Companies are to be punished if they disagree under left-wing rule. Citizens are as well to be punished, fired, sued, etc.... if they simply do not agree.
The left-wing perversion rights movement is the most dictatorial oppressive movement that I have ever seen. They want to own your children even and continually march their perverted fascism into public schools.
The left-wing seek to PERVERT our Rights. The battle against same-sex perversion is a battle for freedom against the fascist left-wing.
Exactly right. The left-wing seeks to restrict rights and to dictate their own perverted morality. They are using the Courts and the media to try and overthrow the entire concept of our ‘right to representation’.
Well said. I hadn’t thought of it quite that way before.
The point of government recognized and rewarded marriage is to encourage continuation of the population, and to encourage both natural parents to raise their offspring.
Where the concept of natural procreation is ludicrous, the notion of marriage is ludicrous.
Exactly my thoughts. Call yourself whatever you want, but don’t coerce me to play along with your delusion.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Some excellent comments on the thread. Interesting - the article says same sex marriage aka legalized perverted fake marriage - advocates in OR and CA want the people to be allowed to vote. Maybe they figured they're indoctrinated enough of the youth vote? And in OR, enough California liberals moved in? And didn't CA have two - not one, but two - referenda, and both times the people of CA said "NO" to pervert fake marriage?
The homo-agenda is about TOTAL DOMINANCE and tyranny - 2% or less of the population want their jackboot in the face of the rest of the population. It's that simple.
Jeff Davis is a moron. Poorly written, poorly argued (i.e., that sodomites cannot reproduce when they’re allowed to adopt children left and right). Stop using words like “interestingly” to try to make an argument.
It's the basis for one of the arguments in the ruling against CA Prop 8: maintaining separate but equal institutions under different terms inherently means one is second class. Obviously "marriage" has more prestige than "domestic partnership" since the second is literally defined, in law, in terms of the first.
It was the camel's nose under the tent which brought us where we are now.
This is true. It’s about forcing others to accept perversion by attempting to equate it with God-ordained marriage.
Marriage = One Man and One Woman
As long as each is HETEROSEXUAL!
Yup. Folks have been conditioned to think that marriage is defined by the state, that a piece of paper from the gov’t determines if one is married or not. So they easily accept any impossibility the state puts forth as “marriage”, after all it’s just another lousy gubberment contract.
Pope Leo XIII saw this coming over a hundred years ago.
Freegards
Marriage predates government and religion. Many of the privileges of marriage stem not from government, but from voluntary association. Members of a society may be far more keen to dispense charity to a married couple than to single individuals; part of the reason they are willing to do so is that they believe marriage means something.
That’s a good point you raise – and I’ve heard others raise it on conservative media. I guess the “mainstream media” is censoring the best conservative arguments.
Yes, it sounds like some people use the word “equality” as a means to obtain more power, and censor others. Just like abortion.
Heterosexual marriage is a pre-political institution which is why Leftists hate it. But if it is just a “piece of paper” tell gay activists that.
It sounds like you’re a victim of a public education history lesson. The state has conditioned you well.
“But if it is just a “piece of paper” tell gay activists that.”
The homosexualists love that the state regulates and defines marriage for many, else they would not be able to punish when state sanctioned impossibilities like “gay marriage” are rejected.
“It sounds like you’re a victim of a public education history lesson. The state has conditioned you well.”
The state doesn’t define marriage in my faith. Does it in yours?
Freegards
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.