Posted on 02/22/2012 12:01:42 PM PST by NoPinkos
Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.
Legalizing same-sex marriage would also be a recognition of basic American principles, and would represent the culmination of our nation's commitment to equal rights. It is, some have said, the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the goals we set for this nation at its formation.
This bedrock American principle of equality is central to the political and legal convictions of Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives alike. The dream that became America began with the revolutionary concept expressed in the Declaration of Independence in words that are among the most noble and elegant ever written: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."...
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
Yes name calling is the best defense and very mature!
Why should government encourage any type of behavior. Should government encourage for people to buy health insurance,or send their kids to public schools,or buy houses on credit?! I agree that marriage is Godly that’s why its up to Rabbis and priests to marry people. Understand, any time you think the government should encourage /discourage or force some type of behavioral. This power can be used by the Libs to force behavior which you find distasteful to yourself. Fundamentally, Government should stay out of persons affairs UNLESS it significantly effects other people. As of today marriage is just a formality, why is it so hard to understand. Take an atheist do they care to get married, NO! What changes to them if they married,or not- NOTHING. The only people who care about marriage are religious, thus its between them and G-D. If you bring Government into the Holy union they will turn it unholy,as they usually do.
It would open a can of worms, too. for instance... teens can be able to wed with their parents or guardian permission. Does that mean that teens can't be married? Or are you going to ban teen marriages?
I'm not an autority on marriage, but there's only one AUTHORITY on it ---GOD!!
“And to arbitrate, it must define the substance of the case: marriage. What it defines (and marriage is ALREADY defined by eons of societies) it has every right to license, which isn’t really a “license” in the proper use of the word, but a recording fee.”
The definition the state uses, at least in modern times, is simply whatever judges, pols or the majority think it can be at any one time, though. Many have been conditioned to think that the institution comes from the state, 40% in a recent poll. This is wonderful for statists and homosexualists. Because if folks think marriage comes from the state, they will accept whatever impossibility the state puts forth as marriage that year, and society can then be manipulated through gubbermental rewards and punishments that already exist concerning gov’t recognition of the institution.
Marriage will never be let go by the state, in my opinion. They will never give up the power to punish those who look to their faith to define the institution, intead of pieces of paper issued to folks the state claims can be married. Same thing with charity and education, in my opinion. Although I think you are right in that there is more of a case to be made for state involvement in marriage to some degree than in charity and education.
Freegards
Maybe a few quotes will explain WHY.
Government recognizing a timeless truth such as marriage, and acting accordingly: honoring the inviolate relationship between husband, wife and the children they bear; seeing the uniquely unifying nature of marriage; acknowledging how marriage is critical to the continuance of society through optimally replenishing society, recognizing the inseparable religious component of marriage by allowing clergy to activate it - none of these things constitutes "creation" by any stretch of the imagination.
Government recognition of marriage has been the norm since nearly the establishment of this nation and has never been a problematic issue in the least until the very recent interventions by anarchist usurpers enabled by a profligate government court system.
If you need to attack something, attack the anarchists, not marriage as we have known it. Your energies are much more needed there.
Even if he/she DOES oppose same-sex “marriage,” you can be he/she is a strong advocate of “civil unions.” I’ve heard enough from these types to know this for certain.
James Baker worked for Reagan as did Howard Baker. Neither was anything vaguely resembling a conservative. In James Baker's case, he was as corrupt as many Demonrat counterparts like Clark Clifford and his only observable purpose for being in politics was to facilitate the special interests which he had always represented as an attorney. Michael Deaver was another non-conservative in Reagan's administration. In fact, Reagan regularly chose his enemies to be high up in his administrations in Sacramento and in DC. It was the living embodiment of Vito Corleone's wisdom: Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
Whatever Olson may THINK Olson is, his partnership with Al Gore's lawyer David Boies in advocating that somehow the Constitution enshrines sexual perversion posing as "marriage" as an equal right which must be enforced by the states or by the fedcourts, is a suggestion either that neither is capable of reading the actual text of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause (rather unlikely) or that they are mutually attempting to pull a professional fast one and get SCOTUS to do for sexual perversion posing as "marriage" what Herod Blackmun and his SCOTUS colleagues did for baby-killing in Roe vs. Wade.
BTW, David Boies was lead counsel for Al Gore in Bush vs. Gore and is a gonzo leftist. The image presented is that Olson allegedly from the Right and Boies surely of the Left are in agreement that there is some sort of constitutional right for Adam's johnson to be roaming Steve's Hershey highway and to call it "marriage" complete with Steve sharing the perks of Adam's employment, Social Security coverage, insurance coverage, Medicare, etc. all funded by OPM as though Steve were an actual wife despite his total lack of qualifying body parts.
The next GOP administration should avoid this sort of embarrassment by naming Jay Sekulow as Solicitor General and we may rest assured that, after he has left office, Sekulow will not be joining some Leftist lawyer to advocate mandatory abortion or the equal rights of the polygamists or of sexual twelvesomes or of those seeking sex with household pets or farm animals or whatever.
Either Gingrich or Santorum, if nominated and elected, can be counted on to do what is necessary.
“What I have been stating is the absolute antithesis of saying “marriage comes from the state.”
I never thought you were. I think few if any on FR think that, although I have seen one or two.
“...none of these things constitutes “creation” by any stretch of the imagination.”
Not to you or me, but many have been conditioned to think that the institution does exist by the sufferance of Man and thus the state, 40% by a recent poll. So they accept whatever the state tells them is marriage. “Gay marriage” would never have found such acceptance if folks looked to their faith to define the institution. The same goes for most divorce and remarriage.
“Government recognition of marriage has been the norm since nearly the establishment of this nation and has never been a problematic issue in the least until the very recent interventions by anarchist usurpers enabled by a profligate government court system.”
It was always a danger, as the state’s definition of marriage is simply what judges, pols, or the majority think it can be at any one time. That works fine, up until the state’s definition departs from the actual definition, and society has become used to letting the state determine what a marriage can be.
“If you need to attack something, attack the anarchists, not marriage as we have known it.”
Anyone can look at my posts and see the only thing I have attacked are statists and homosexualists. They are the ones who are going to punish those who disagree with them about what marriage can or can’t be. That’s what all this is about.
Freegards
Typical libertarian/leftist/anarchist CRAP!
The PURPOSE of government is to protect our God-given rights, one way this is done is by encouraging some behavior and discouraging other behavior. By YOUR convoluted system, governments wouldn't even encourage people not to rape and murder.
I agree that marriage is Godly that’s why its up to Rabbis and priests to marry people.
And there are plenty of leftist ministers who are all too happy to marry sodomites and that is EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE PUSHING.
Government should stay out of persons affairs UNLESS it significantly effects other people. As of today marriage is just a formality, why is it so hard to understand.
The militant homosexual agenda DOES affect all of us, it IS NOT a "formality" no matter how much you wish it to be so.
Nothing DOMA did changed anything that wasn't already true, although the Left wants us to believe the fantasy that DOMA and like laws somehow "took away civil rights." DOMA was the law before ANY state counterfeited marriage. The homo-Left leaves that part out.
I guess the government shouldn’t recognize gravity either.
Good.
“The government action of sanctioning marriage can be seen as not the creation of prohibitions, but the preventing of usurpers from coming in to redefine and, thereby, destroy.”
The state recognition of marriage has good elements, true. And bad elements. The whole civil rights argument for “gay marriage” is completely wrong. But I can understand the argument, as many simply look at marriage a collection of benefits and strictures that can be ended and resumed between any two (or more) people as long as the state agrees. Which is a bad result of state involvement, in my opinion.
Freegards
That has to be a sentence that you really don't believe and that you want to have a chance to explain. Otherwise, it's just irrelevant in the entire world of thinking people. As a stand alone sentence, it doesn't have a leg to stand on.
alex2011 - Stupidity for $200
What is ZOT.
my turn! my turn!
NoPinkos is not red -
because he P P'd in his bed.
And it has been said -
that is why he's never wed.
(applause applause)
Now if I incur any blame
for taking on this silly game
I'll have no option but feel ashamed
and then will have to change my name.
(hurrying off to catch a plane)
Another Liberaltarian gets the ZOT!
Happy dance.....
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.