Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

George Will: “Opposition to Gay Marriage is Dying—It’s Old People”
Cybercast News Service ^ | December 10, 2012 | Pete Winn

Posted on 12/10/2012 5:39:44 PM PST by Olog-hai

Syndicated columnist George Will, appearing Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” said opposition to same-sex marriage is “quite literally” dying, because opponents tend to be older Americans.

“There is something like an emerging consensus. Quite literally, the opposition to gay marriage is dying. It’s old people,” Will said. …

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: culturewar; gaymarriage; georgefwill; georgewill; homonaziagenda; homosexualagenda; lavendermafia; libertarians; medicalmarijuana; pinkjournalism; prodeath
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-138 last
To: NormsRevenge

with age comes wisdom. except when it comes to pundits.


I have a placard on my office wall that states”

Good judgement comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgement.

Nothing more true in life.


121 posted on 12/11/2012 4:26:52 AM PST by DH (Once the tainted finger of government touches anything the rot begins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

Marriage licensing is a relative modern concept.


122 posted on 12/11/2012 7:04:43 AM PST by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
A man and a woman have a baby. The woman runs off with the child. Should the state step in? If the man refuses to support the woman and child, should the state step in? The list of potential injustices is endless.

The only reason the state steps in is because for every dollar of child support exthorted from the non custodial parent they get a matching dollar from the feds.

I say that they should only mediate and make sure that some type of payment is made but not to the child support enforcement who then gets their matching dollar and gives it to the non custodial parent.

Remove the financial rewards and you will see more women trying harder to make things work.

123 posted on 12/11/2012 8:16:56 AM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

Check out what deviant marriage has done to Scandanavia.


124 posted on 12/11/2012 8:20:49 AM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

beltway disease.

with a serious NYC stupidity infection.

George Will should stick to writing insignificant books about about baseball.


125 posted on 12/11/2012 8:47:25 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: svcw

Marriage has rarely been a self-defined situation, even in Roman times there were laws related to marriage, and the Catholic church used to be a form of law.


126 posted on 12/11/2012 10:02:59 AM PST by ansel12 (A.Coulter2005(truncated)Romney will never recover from his Court's create of a right to gay marriage)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: svcw

“Marriage licensing is a relative modern concept.”

Perhaps the word “licensing” is?

But laws throughout cultures and history acknowledge the marriage relationship, as one man and one woman, and impact inheritance, bigamy, taxation, adultery, adoption, legal testimony, rape and sexual assault, power of attorney whether it is called that or not, visitation rights even as to prison and so forth, child provision responsibilities, etc.

It is a HUGE civil partnership that is unique. It is not spiritual only.


127 posted on 12/11/2012 11:09:06 AM PST by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: svcw; Persevero; little jeremiah; xzins; P-Marlowe; trisham; Coleus; narses; metmom
Marriage licensing is a relative modern concept.

That's utter nonsense.

The Catholic Church began requiring banns of marriage in the early 13th century, it was done in many areas even before this. Banns were explicitly kept as a requirement by Protestants during the reformation.

So, I would hardly call eight hundred years "relatively modern" as it predates nearly all other forms of English Common Law on which American laws were based.

Moreover, prior to VERY RECENTLY, NOBODY would have ever thought to define marriage as anything other than between a man and woman. Even cultures that practiced polygamy never defined marriage as between two members of the same gender.

The whole "government shouldn't be involved in marriage licensing" is simply the latest libertarian attempt to support the left's agenda while pretending not to.

128 posted on 12/11/2012 11:21:01 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Ok, the Catholic church was the government.


129 posted on 12/11/2012 1:07:27 PM PST by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

I have no problem with churches defining marriage, I have a problem with governments defining marriage.
If the government can define it as between one man and one woman, they are then permitted to define it as anything they want.
The civil union part needs to be separated from the spiritual part called marriage.


130 posted on 12/11/2012 1:24:45 PM PST by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I have no problem with churches defining marriage, I have a problem with governments defining marriage.
If the government can define it as between one man and one woman, they are then permitted to define it as anything they want.
The civil union part needs to be separated from the spiritual part called marriage.


131 posted on 12/11/2012 1:25:25 PM PST by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

I have no problem with churches defining marriage, I have a problem with governments defining marriage.
If the government can define it as between one man and one woman, they are then permitted to define it as anything they want.
The civil union part needs to be separated from the spiritual part called marriage.


132 posted on 12/11/2012 1:26:15 PM PST by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
The whole "government shouldn't be involved in marriage licensing" is simply the latest libertarian attempt to support the left's agenda while pretending not to.

***********************

Exactly right.

133 posted on 12/11/2012 1:29:58 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Charles Martel

The point is that the government does have the power to regularize and solemnize marriage. Has, at least under the Common law (which the US is a part of), the state has had this authority for at least 500 years.

Hence the references to Habeaus Corpus and to trial by jury. Marriage is included among this. This is why the state should retain this power to protect the definition of marriage. Given that marriage predates the common law, the common law cannot change marriage, it can only protect the definition of one man and one woman.

The second concern is immigration. Insofar as the state issues spousal visas, the state has the power to regulate marriage. Removing state control of marriage is in effect, unrestricted immigration into the US or elimination of spousal visas. Is that really what you want?


134 posted on 12/11/2012 2:37:19 PM PST by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind. - John Steinbeck :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

Maine, Maryland, and Washington all legalized agay marriage by popular referenda this past November.


135 posted on 12/12/2012 4:57:45 PM PST by Clemenza ("History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil governm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza

Cake lovers


136 posted on 12/13/2012 11:37:49 AM PST by wardaddy (wanna know how my kin felt during Reconstruction in Mississippi, you fixin to find out firsthand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

Yep.


137 posted on 12/13/2012 12:41:28 PM PST by Clemenza ("History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil governm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

George Will: The Ellsworth Toohey of the Chardonnay Conservation crowd.


138 posted on 01/07/2013 9:32:10 AM PST by AdaGray (squi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-138 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson