Posted on 09/14/2012 6:55:45 PM PDT by scottjewell
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney emphasized his anti-abortion rights and anti-gay marriage positions in a videotaped message to the Values Voter summit Friday in Washington.
"We need a president who shares our commitment to conservative principles and our respect for traditional values," Romney said. "We will uphold the sanctity of life, not abandoned or ignore it and we will defend marriage, not try to redefine it."
Romney went on to argue that "culture matters," pointing to a Brookings Institution survey often cited by former rival Rick Santorum on the campaign trail that found families who waited to have children after they got married were less likely to be poor.
"In short, culture matters and this president will protect her culture and preserve the values of hard work, personal responsibility, family and faith," Romney said. Above all, we must preserve the American spirit of one nation, under god, as president, all support the expression of religious faith in the public square."
Taking a swipe at a comment made by President Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign, Romney also spoke of meeting voters who "are proud to cling to their religion and to the constitution , the american dream and the principles our nation was founded on."
Earlier in the day Romney's running mate, Paul Ryan, addressed the convention in person. Romney was campaigning Friday in Ohio.
While the event was billed as a celebration of conservative social values, Romney tied social issues to the economic messaging that has dominated his campaign.
"We need a president who understands we will not have a stronger economy unless we have strong communities and strong families," Romney said.
The GOP hopeful said that while the economy might be "the best the Obama Administration can do," it was not "the best America can do."
That was wrong in more ways than you know. NM Constitution:
Art II, Sec. 11. [Freedom of religion.]
Every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and no person shall ever be molested or denied any civil or political right or privilege on account of his religious opinion or mode of religious worship. No person shall be required to attend any place of worship or support any religious sect or denomination; nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.
I count at least three violations of the state constitution by that incident.
It’s no sacrileg, for government marriage has not the pretence of sacredness. Marriage has been a civil institution, too, for millennia. It’s not exactly a chicken and egg situation, since religion predates politics. The religion I assume you’re talking about doesn’t, obviously. But that’s another matter. Suffice to say the two marriages, contract/special legal status and sacrament, can live side by side. They have, for thousands of years, without priests seeming too bent out of shape by it. And there is a compelling state interest in bonding men and women together.
Your argument is inapt for the basic reason that even were marriage redefined to include any old combination that popped into the government’s mind, it wouldn’t redefine marriage religiously. The sacrement would remain, if not the special status of the contract.
About the that which it defines it can redefine nonsense, I wonder if you’ve thought that through. Not that it’s nonsense that they can redefine the marriage status they’ve set up, but that that’s some sort of argument against legal marriage. You could say the same thing about criminal law. The wrongness of murderer is a religious concept. Does that mean the state shouldn’t outlaw murder for fear they may legalize it and thereby corrupt the ten commandments? No, that’s nutty.
You are being unresponsive. What historical assertion? That marriage was religious first? Well, yeah, since religion, again, predates civil society. So what?
Yes, you do have a problem with civil contracts, like marriage, which you just argued shouldn’t be legal due to the law’s profanity.
As for the photographer, I assume that’s to do with some variety of “discrimination” law, and is neither here nor there.
“Well, yeah, since religion predates civil society”
Or, more to the point, various Christian churches, whose sacrament you’re presumably worried about, predate American law.
The only relevant context is US law which supported a form of marriage tacitly compatible with Christianity which has since been “redefined” as something incompatible with Christianity.
“Suffice to say the two marriages” are not living side by side.
>> About the that which it defines it can redefine nonsense
Not only is the assertion independently accurate, in the statement context, it demonstrates an undeniable fact.
>> but that that’s some sort of argument against legal marriage.
How is the opposition to the definition of marriage something that can be considered an opposition to “legal marriage”? You made a false rendering of my statement.
>> The wrongness of murderer is a religious concept. Does that mean the state shouldn’t outlaw murder for fear they may legalize it and thereby corrupt the ten commandments? No, that’s nutty.
Are you suggesting marriage is a crime?
The “law” redefined the value of Life.
Abortion is now the legal killing of nascent human life. In religious circles, it’s considered murder. I call it legal killing. By granting govt the authority to define human life, did we not give it the authority to redefine it; thereby granting it the authority to legally kill it?
Law is not intrinsically good; it is merely the growing necessity of a weakening society.
>> Yes, you do have a problem with civil contracts, like marriage, which you just argued shouldn’t be legal due to the law’s profanity.
>> which you just argued shouldn’t be legal
Did I say it should be illegal?
Yes you are - by cowardly proxy...
LMAO
You are free to say that, and I am free to think you a horrible, terrible person for endorsing more socialists in our society and governance.
Further, your argument boils down to an admission that my votes are worthless unless I spend them on "a major candidate", and if that be the case then it follows that there cannot ever be any meaningful reform for the two parties because no candidate not of them can win, thus ensuring that the current choices are all that will remain: Democrats, who are honest in their goals, but whose goals are distasteful; and Republicans, who have good sounding goals but do not act towards them.
I'm through voting "against" someone, I'm only voting to vote "for" someone, and I am not for Romney. If you don't like it, tough; at least my conscience will not condemn me.
Well said, and bears repeating!
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.