Posted on 03/03/2013 8:10:25 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Libertarians are not conservative, that is why they call themselves libertarian, to show that they are half lefty.
Clint Eastwood, Bill Maher, Eastwood’s hero, Noam Chomsky, all libertarians, even Mitt Romney is very libertarian.
If people were wondering how the Republican Party will finally split up for good, it will be over this issue. I would suspect virtually all “moderate” Republicans support homosexual marriage. Unfortunately, Dick Cheney has chosen to follow the dictates of his feelings for his homosexual daughter rather than do what a real conservative would do. True conservatives simply cannot support homosexual “marriage.” You don’t pass a law on the basis of that not approving of some act will make certain people unhappy. Homosexuality is a disorder and can never be considered the same as heterosexuality.
The other day there was discussion on radio about a 6 year old boy that felt he was a girl and the kid wanted to use the girls bathroom at school.
Well Mommy and Daddy tumbled, and called him Susie.
The school tumbled and called him Suzie.
The Judges tumbled and called him Suzie.
And access to the girls room was granted.
Meanwhile.. on Planet WTF, Susie,Jane,Nancy and even Billy Joe And Junior pinched their nose.
Since when does the 98% capitulate to the 2%?
Then some fellow called in that said his 7 year old anglo daughter informed him that she felt that she was black, born in a white body LOL
Let us take it to the courts!
I am sure that all the Congressional Black Caucasians will agree that this is a travesty that Must be addressed LOL
Libtards, Feh.
Who needs them?
And I am The King of Mars LOL
Mr Faber will not like this, Rowdy.
Furthermore, any Republican who supports homosexual marriage will not get one dime from me. I will not support the national party candidate if that candidate endorses homosexual marriage. Or if my state party, Wisconsin, passes a resolution endorsing it, that is the end of my support. That is one issue where I refuse to compromise.
Prop. 8 passed by 52% in 2008.
The reason they haven’t used another popular vote to repeal it is because they are hoping for a broad opinion from the courts that will reach farther than CA, in my opinion.
If the guys in black robes fail them, then look for another popular vote. As far as the state is concerned, 50% +1 of the popular vote defines what a marriage can be. It was always a danger.
Freegards
His convention talk was uninteresting to me and obviously did not help any. He is part of the establishment and probably still craves popular acclaim.
RE: And access to the girls room was granted.
What if the kid PRETENDS to feel like a girl and only want to go to the girl’s room to get the chance to peep?
RE: Prop. 8 passed by 52% in 2008.
Notice that a mere 8 years earlier, Proposition 22 passed by 61% ( in 2000 ).
The trend in California is not the friend of supporters of traditional marriage.
Something seems to be happening to the population of California in the past decade....
Who knows what is going on in a 6 year olds mind?
It is the so called adults that worry me.
Libertarianism is the opposite of statism distinguishing the force of law. It’s not a measure of morality and tradition as defined by conservatism and liberalism.
The Libertarian party represents libertarianism as well as the Democrat party represents democracy, and the Republican party represents republicanism.
Conservative libertarianism does not put minors at risk, nor does it pass law that forces citizens to service and support homosexual behavior. It’s about smaller govt and deregulation. The statists disagree.
Statism is not good whether it’s servicing conservatives or liberals.
The lack of critical thinking on this subject typically yields brazen misrepresentations that cite pedophilia, prostitution, and retail heroin — pedantic forgeries not worth legitimizing.
RE: It is the so called adults that worry me.
Here’s my point — kid or adult, you can never know what goes on in a person’s mind because He or She can always use his gender and feeling to PRETEND.
For instance, we have laws here in the USA that gives special privileges to foreign spouses of citizens so that they can be LEGAL RESIDENTS ( call that fast track to citizenship ).
So, if an American who marries say a Mexican, the Mexican spouse quickly bypasses most of the immigration line and soon becomes a LEGAL resident.
Now let’s talk about pretense. Let’s talk about a scenario where gay marriage is now legal in the US ( as Obama wants it to be ).
What if a Mexican is NOT GAY, but wishes to come to the USA, and has an American buddy here in the US who, in order to help him, agrees to PRETEND to be gay and they both “marry” in order for the Mexican to be fast tracked into the US? Why can’t that be the possible?
They can “marry”, live together, and (by agreement) continue to date other women.
When the Mexican finally gets his legal papers, they can “divorce” and lo and behold, the “gay” Mexican is now a LEGAL US resident with a quick path to citizenship !!!
Not only that, but NC tied prop. 22 last year with 61% of the vote and was hailed as a great victory by many. We can reasonably can project that NC is around 12 years behind CA on the issue, in my opinion. I can see an acceleration of the trend if enough states accept ‘gay marriage’ fast enough. But there are some states that passed their amendments in the 80% ranges, those will last a while. The ones that only passed theirs in the 50% ranges might be repealable by popular vote today.
I recall a time on FR when many thought a popular vote on the issue would never fail.
Freegards
Please! The convention stage was littered with social cons. Further, without the support of the LDS, Prop 8 would not have passed.
Eastwood asked for time and he got it because he's Eastwood.
Lately I get the sense around here some spend their every waking moment denigrating the conservative credentials of anything or anyone not their own reflection.
As mentioned up thread, this cultural battle was lost and only now are the shockwaves reaching some peoples' horizons. Traditional married was not upheld, was not valued my the parents of the last generation or two. If you want to know how it came to this look in the mirror. Look to your left, look to your right. That's how.
Please! The convention stage was littered with social cons. Further, without the support of the LDS, Prop 8 would not have passed.
Eastwood asked for time and he got it because he's Eastwood.
Lately I get the sense around here some spend their every waking moment denigrating the conservative credentials of anything or anyone not their own reflection.
As mentioned up thread, this cultural battle was lost and only now are the shockwaves reaching some peoples' horizons. Traditional marriage was not upheld, was not valued by the parents of the last generation or two. If you want to know how it came to this look in the mirror. Look to your left, look to your right. That's how.
The people can not be trusted one more time with something so important. Best to let the professionals handle it this time. /s
That is my point.
It is tedium unworthy of consideration.
Certainly unworthy of consideration if it erodes the wider society by being considered.
Libertarianism is all over the map, from libertinism to anti-statism. IAC, Eastwood fits somewhere in that range because he is a denizen of Movie land. On social issues, well, he made a (very good) film that justified mercy-killing.
Law that forces citizens to service homosexuality is statist by nature. It’s also anti-Conservative law. It’s an act of a leftwinger to enact law that forces the Christian photographer to service a homosexual event. That’s not libertarianism, that’s statism.
Few people live perfectly within the political jurisdiction they spout about belonging. Some are worse than others. And I’m not here to defend Eastwood’s dalliances with liberalism.
We’re not going to agree, ansel12, given our sharp disagreement on terminology. So, I have nothing else to add today, but I will read any follow-up you post.
“Traditional marriage was not upheld, was not valued by the parents of the last generation or two. If you want to know how it came to this look in the mirror. Look to your left, look to your right. That’s how.”
“Now, since the family and human society at large spring from marriage, these men will on no account allow matrimony to be the subject of the jurisdiction of the Church. Nay, they endeavor to deprive it of all holiness, and so bring it within the contracted sphere of those rights which, having been instituted by man, are ruled and administered by the civil jurisprudence of the community. Wherefore it necessarily follows that they attribute all power over marriage to civil rulers, and allow none whatever to the Church; and, when the Church exercises any such power, they think that she acts either by favor of the civil authority or to its injury. Now is the time, they say, for the heads of the State to vindicate their rights unflinchingly, and to do their best to settle all that relates to marriage according as to them seems good.”
Pope Leo XIII, 1880
He saw it coming 130 years ago, that many would be conditioned to think the state defines marriage, and how the statists would use that.
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.