Skip to comments.When preaching small government, stay out of marriage
Posted on 12/01/2011 11:18:07 AM PST by Retro Llama
If the Republican presidential contenders wish to remain truthful to their rhetoric of decentralization of power in Washington, they should take a break from wooing social conservatives and stand for states' rights in regard to gay marriage.
Because many likely Iowa caucus-goers describe themselves as very conservative on social issues such as gay marriage and abortion, many candidates feel they need to reach out to the far-right if they plan to get the presidential nod. However, a staunch, conservative position on social issues will likely hurt them in the long run, because it undermines their more-appealing small-government policies....
The three Republican candidates who seem to understand the states' rights concept are U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, and, surprisingly, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. At the Family Leader Forum, Paul said to the large crowd, "The family dealt with marriages... We have deferred to the federal government. We have too much government. We should go in the other direction."....
...In 2004, [Paul] said to then-Speaker of the House Denny Hastert, "Mr. Speaker, while I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman, I do not believe a Constitutional amendment is either a necessary or proper way to defend marriage."
He has the decency to oppose same-sex marriage personally for religious purposes and support it politically for legal reasons.
Johnson and Romney, while not in attendance at the forum, opposed the Marriage Vow Pact that was developed by the Iowa Family Forum in July. Johnson called the pledge "offensive and un-Republican," while Romney's campaign has said, "Mitt Romney strongly supports traditional marriage. But he felt this pledge contained references and provisions that were undignified and inappropriate for a presidential campaign."...
(Excerpt) Read more at dailyiowan.com ...
Within the orthodox Christian tradition, freemen are men who are not enslaved by their base passions, impulses, and compulsions. It is when man is the slave of his base passions that he commits suicide so to speak.
As Augustine observed of the natural men of his time, every man, from king to slave has as many masters as he has vices.
The homosexual lobby swings both ways when it comes to states rights and limited government. If they win with federal law, they go that way. If they win with state law they go that way. Ignore their self-serving arguments, and do what is necessary to stop the gay agenda.
religion has nothing to do with the law of marriage.
you have to have legal issues dealt with particularly marriage because of inheritance, property, paternity, children, and the continuation of society.
For all intents and purposes homosexual conduct is a dead end for society. it offers and provides nothing.
even a childless normal married couple promotes society by reaffirming the norm and even by the legal creation of adoption promote society. (a child of adoption need never know the parents did not produce them, with homoseuxals it is a single parent who denies a mother or father in exchange for a recreational sex partner.)
religion is a red herring in this legal debate.
I agree. It shows who the real extremists are. Most conservatives I know, even ones who oppose same sex marriage (myself included), are not looking to turn marriage into a federal issue. They (and I) just want to stop the Libs from forcing it on every state by un-democratic means. If Libs in Rhode Island want to be a gay haven and have gay marriage, let them if they can get the votes. But don't force it on other states.
I’d love to see how many of those who want ‘small government’ gay marriage would also be for eliminating all government grants for AIDs research, etc.
"I KNOW BUT ONE CODE OF MORALITY FOR MEN WHETHER ACTING SINGLY OR COLLECTIVELY"
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
There would be no need for a Constitutional Amendment if sick perverts and their leftist/RINO/Libertarian assistants had stopped the homo-agenda years ago. The "heroes" opposing the Constitutional Amendment are all either Libertarian nutcases or socially liberal RINOs.
And then there is the issue of education. Your children's public school textbooks are written for CA, TX, FL and NY by liberals, if not leftists. They will learn gay marriage is better than straight marriage.
If you decide to stop fighting this issue, we will be talking about pets as spouses in a generation.
Someone posted this yesterday, very beautifully written by Saint John the Solitary. People have forgotten the simple truth (or turned their backs to it, or never heard it) that we're not our mind's desires, and that we should fight against evil thoughts and desires. Now so many people identify with every mental desire, no matter how degraded, perverse or cruel, and become literally insane. And anyone saying differently are considered evil!
Be attentive to the thoughts of the mind. If some evil thought passes through you, do not get upset, for it is not the transient thoughts of your mind that the knowledge of the Lord of all observes, rather He looks at the depths of the mind to see if you take pleasure in that evil thought which resides there; for hateful thoughts float over the surface of the mind, but it is the senses that are lower down which can chase away hateful thoughts, which the Lord of all examines. He does not judge what just passes over the mind, but rather the thoughts that are lower down than those hateful ones, namely those which appear in the depths of the mind, which can drive them away with its hidden hand. For He does not pardon the thoughts which spring up from the depth of the mind, for it is they which should be chasing away those which pass over the surface of the mind; He judges those thoughts which have a passage into the heart.-
If you decide to stop fighting this issue, we will be talking about pets as spouses in a generation.
Senate Poised to Legalize Sodomy and Bestiality in U.S. Military
Cybercast News Service ^ | 12/1/11 | Pete Winn
Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2011 6:39:58 PM by Nachum
The Senate this evening is poised to vote on a defense authorization bill that includes a provision which not only repeals the military law on sodomy, but also repeals the military ban on sex with animals—or bestiality. On Nov. 15, the Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously approved S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes a provision to repeal Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Article 125 of the UCMJ makes it illegal to engage in both sodomy with humans and sex with animals.
We are going to Gommorah and conservatives lack the intelligence, values, or intellectual beliefs to challange the "rights based" arguments.
We’re on the brink of the precipice. And a lot of people did see this coming years ago, and but too few people had either an intact and functioning moral compass or guts. I saw it in the late 80s but who am I? Just a nobody.
I pinged this out today, from almost 10 years ago, too bad more Republicans (of course Dems are part of the aggressors pushing the fag agenda) didn’t pay attention. Or any Rs.
WND ExclusiveReport: Pedophilia more common among ‘gays’
World Net Daily ^ | April 29, 2002 | By Jon Dougherty
Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2011 5:16:50 PM by little jeremiah
WND Exclusive Report: Pedophilia more common among ‘gays’ Research purports to reveal ‘dark side’ of homosexual culture Posted: April 29, 2002 1:00 am Eastern
By Jon Dougherty © 2011 WND
Child molestation and pedophilia occur far more commonly among homosexuals than among heterosexuals on a per capita basis, according to a new study.
“Overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture,” wrote Steve Baldwin....
Excellent and learned reply—T’anks
So how do you reconcile the historic fact that from 1774—recent redefinition of “marriage “ by the state of Mass. the
national government was smaller (especially so 1774-1905 as compared to post WWII America) Yet “marriage” was defined in all States reflective of the Christian Moral ethic (at least until we tolerated that damned divisive Wall be erected in 1947 to divide the nation.The size of our national Govt.seems tied to the “marriage” issue only with respect to the fact when we had smaller Govt. we also had greater respect for Christianity and for Christian Morals.
essentialy what was attempted with DOMA-the Law our Reprobate
anti-American Pretend President wants to repeal.
Laws reflect the morals of society. A Christian society will have laws reflecting Christian morality, in this case monogamy, with difficult divorce. The laws did not define marriage, but reflected what it is. Certainly there is no direct tie between the state’s approach to marriage and the size of government measured in number of employees or size of expenditures. There is, however, a tie between marriage and the size of government measured in its pervasiveness: precisely the one I pointed to in my post.
Prior to the Massachusetts decision, government did not presume to define marriage, but promulgated laws for its support and regulation. Now various government bodies presume that the state is competent to define the nature of pre-existing non-state social institutions. That is an expansion of state-power and contrary to small government ideals.
If we are no longer a Christian society, the small government approach to the desire of sodomites to marry each other (which has actually been around since Roman pagan times — I think it was Virgil who lampooned the desire of homosexual men to “play the blushing bride”), is not to redefine marriage by judicial fiat, but for the legislatures of the several states to decide that the state no longer has an interest in supporting and regulating marriage, to stop registering or officiating marriages, and to oblige those seeking the common-property rights, rights of inheritance, and the like now associated with marriage to enter into contracts to establish them.
I suppose you are right. In 1878 the US supreme Court decided Reynolds v. the United States 98 U.S. 145-165 (1878 —see
America’s God and country :Encyclopedia of Quotations ,Wm.Federer editor,pp596-97 note 5 (where later Courts found justification for citing Jeffersons private letter to the Danbury Baptists) the note that the state legislature in VA “substantially enacted the ... death penalty ...[for polygamy] 1885 Murphy v. Ramsey & Others,144 U.S.15,45 (1885) p.597 note 7 1889 Davis v. Beason 133 U.S> 333,341-343,348 (1890 )ibid pp597-599 note8 “Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries.They are crimes by the laws of the United States ,and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho...
....such freedom shall not be construed to excuse acts of licentiousness...” 1890 The church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. the United States 136 U.S. 1 (1890) forbade
the practice of polygamy in the US stating “It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and civilizations which Christianity has produced in the Western world.” ibid note 9 p.599.I seem to recall legal opine involving No fault
divorce. And I think in the 70’s the Court defined “marriage “ as a union that could receive benefits including property rights. (I seem to recollect the same year the Gay Activist Steve Warren was published in the Advocate demanding the “surrender” of Orthodox Jews and
Christians . Or they would find themselves the target of the
most sustained program of Hatred and vilification in recent memory.— Warning to the Homophobes The Advocate p.29
Sept.1974) None of these legal opinions defined “marriage”
per se—but it seems in my lifetime the National Government has acted to declare interracial marriage an item the states could not prohibit. and closely followed by the legal opine concerning no fault divorce. Then calling
“marriage a “union” that could receive benefits including property rights, to the demands for every State to recognize
same sex marriage. And through it all the Government has grown not only in numbers of Federal employees -but in terms of power.I surmise the lust for power to control our lives will never abate until “We the people insist our Government once again recognize Governments are instituted among men to secure our God given rights.And ought be small
and bound by the enumerated powers declared in our Constitution.Any thing else is “unconstitutional”
This is just a backdoor attempt by the perverted homosexuals. To force America to accept the perversion of homosexual marriage.
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.