Posted on 12/22/2012 5:12:06 AM PST by Olog-hai
Former GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich reportedly said Thursday that conservatives and the Republican Party need to “accommodate and deal with (the) reality” of a “big wave of change” sweeping America—and that “gay relationships will be legal, period” in a number of states by 2014.
In an interview published Thursday by the liberal Web site, “The Huffington Post,” Gingrich reportedly said that both he and the Republican Party could accept a distinction between a “marriage in a church from a legal document issued by the state,” with the latter being acceptable, according to the Web site.
The publication indicated that Gingrich “continued to profess a belief that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman,” but that he thinks “Republicans could no longer close their eyes to the course of public opinion.” …
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
How about making the distinction between a marriage in a church and a gay marriage in a church. This guy needs to go away. He always has a reason to act liberal.
Gay relationships have been legal in practice for quite some time. What I want is to keep gay marriages from being recognized by the state as legitimate, legally binding, ad equal to true marriage. No good comes of a lie, and we cannot lie to homosexuals and tell them their unions are good and equal to real marriage.
Auguries are back ~
With all due respect to you and the Speaker, I think you are both wrong. Government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether. Why does anyone need a government stamp of approval to “recognize” what is suppose to be a joining of two people before God.
Most religious “conservatives” don’t want to hear that but as long as government is seen as the ultimate authority this is what you get.
A fathead who has been married three times (cheated on his two previous wives with the next spouse) should not be commenting on marriage.
“Why does anyone need a government stamp of approval to “recognize” what is suppose to be a joining of two people before God.”
Because in a civil society, you need some form of arbitration to settle custody and property rights, and that has fallen to government and the court system.
Folks: The state has no legitimate interest in your relationship as consenting adults. The state's interest in marriage is all about your kids. Period.
Want your relationship blessed by someone? Talk to your church. And keep in mind that the 1st Amendment prohibits the state from dictating what your church should believe.
In a rational world gays desiring such might well find their relationship "blessed" by some religious organizations (Unitarians?) but the state would be silent on such matters. But then, we no longer live in a rational world.
Start pushing for mandatory joint tax filing, thus higher joint income and higher tax rates for same sex marriage - the same as traditional marriage. Include in this partners who have lived together for more than 3 years - irrespective of marriage (including the Hollywood crowd who live together and don’t get married), and nail them with the same tax burden that the rest of us have. It’s only ‘fair’.
For generations, we have given the State the power to create artificial persons, in the form of corporations, foundations, trusts and the like. Nobody is confused by this government-defined fiction. We know that a corporation is not a real human person. Where the left has a problem is where the Supreme Court has ruled, in Citizens United, that such “persons” have the right of free speech.
Another government-defined fiction that we have allowed for generations is that the State can also define “marriage” and who is “married” and who is not. But marriage predates any State because it is God who defines and defends marriage, not the State. Indeed, any “marriage” a State defines is just as much as legal fiction as when it tells us that a corporation is a “person” that has freedom of speech.
The State attempts to force us to recognize its power. One way is to presume the power to define who is married and who is not. We cede this power in part because we allow the State to tax incomes and estates. To administer such taxing power, the State must define who it considers to be “married” and who is not. Just as when it defines a corporation to be a “person”, as silly as this would be to God, the State does not hesitate to define anyone it pleases as being “married”, totally apart from how God would define them.
Jesus, who was recognized as a prophet by all three monotheistic religions, is quoted in Matthew chapter 19 that from the beginning of humanity, it was God’s intent that marriage would only be one man and one woman. Scripture in many ways and places also tells us that God defines sexual morality and that people who refuse to practice that His morality simply do not qualify for His freely given gift of eternal life. (for example, see Ephesians chapter 5). Of course, people are free to believe whatever they want, but that does not change what God clearly said to us.
If you review the arguments advanced by supporters of same-sex marriage (like at HRC.ORG), you will find that many of them are related to taxation, inheritance and medical issues. But existing law addresses those and any defects in the law can be easily repaired apart from the issue of “marriage”.
I don’t want a government that can tell me what I may or may not do in the privacy of my own home or relationships. In a secular Constitutional Republic with a provision that prohibits Congress from making any law respecting religion, I have to allow others to have their own beliefs and morality. I can only be an advocate for the morality and beliefs that I think are true. I take my understanding of sexual morality from Scripture and that is where I learn that God considers sodomy to be an abomination to Him.
If a State decides that two (or more) people can marry, if that is all that happened, I could live with that because I don’t have to approve, change my beliefs or what beliefs I pass on to my children.
However, once gays and their supporters have sufficient influence with a State to redefine marriage, they don’t stop there. They use the State to forbid me from acting on my morality and beliefs. In fact, the State in some cases forces me to accommodation in their practices.
If I have children in public school, the State will insist on teaching them that gay marriage is just as normal as the God’s marriage. You will be sanctioned as a parent if you attempt to remove your child from such indoctrination.
If you run a business that could provide services to the public, you will be sanctioned if you decline to treat gays as non-gays. For example, if you run a wedding photography business, you will be sanctioned if you decline to photograph a gay wedding. This has already happened in California and New Mexico [1].
You may lose control of your own property. [2]
In short, gays will demand that non-gays accept them as moral equals, which they are not and cannot be. When the State says they are equal it is forbidden for a private citizen to dissent from that status. In doing so, they seek to force me to give them approval for something that I will never approve of. It is that last point that galls gays the most.
Curiously, when advocates of gay marriage are asked if their policy also would allow polygamy or polyandry, they recoil in horror and insist that it does not. However, logic demands that it does. I would ask how same-sex parents are going to react in the future when, for example, Utah public schools officials require that teachers instruct the children that LDS-related polygamy is just as “normal” as same-sex “marriage”. The fact that this will be an issue will show yet again that gay “marriage” is not about marriage at all it is about forcing the rest of us to approve of repugnant sexual immorality, something that LDS polygamists never demanded.
[1] Refusing To Shoot Gay Marriage Is Discrimination, Says New Mexico Appeals Court
http://www.popphoto.com/news/2012/06/refusing-to-shoot-gay-marriage-discrimination-says-new-mexico-appeals-court
[2] Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-rules-christian-facility-cannot-ban-same-sex-civil-union-ceremony-on
There is a difference between recognizing that we seem to be losing the fight, and giving up the fight because it is politically unpopular.
Gingrich is saying that we should adopt policies because they are politically popular. By that argument, if people all support abortion, we should support it, and if people all want to raise taxes on business, we should support it, and if they want to ban handguns, we should support it.
I am quite willing to recognize that in a democracy, we are at the whim of the majority for many things. But I refuse to accept the popular thing simply because it is popular.
Well said. Post of the day.
It’s called “Holy Matrimony” Mr Catholic Newt.
“Why does anyone need a government stamp of approval to “recognize” what is suppose to be a joining of two people before God.”But what is marriage in the eyes of the law? If you take the religious overtones out and squint your eyes a bit, what you have is a corporation of two people plus offspring, with the corporate purpose of raising said offspring into spinoffs. The basic Articles of Incorporation are boilerplate, so much so that they don't need to be written down, but referenced on a single piece of paper, referred to as the "marriage license." That piece of paper also brings into play a *ton* of statute law and court opinions, so much law in fact that "family law" is a recognized specialty for lawyers.Because in a civil society, you need some form of arbitration to settle custody and property rights, and that has fallen to government and the court system.
(Beyond the scope of this particular discussion, but germain to my point, is the whole subject of "palimony". Where does that fit in? With current law, it doesn't, really. But now we have precedents for payouts from such personal unions. Go figure.)
The biggest problem of them all is that the tax code is riddled with recognition of only one particular form of incorporation for the purpose of raising children, to the exclusion of all other forms. Also, it does not recognized that "family" can extend to the support of people not related to the taxpayer, but does a service to the State by keeping such people off the welfare rolls. The Census recognizes such people and counts them for voting purposes, but not the tax authorities for support costs. Such people can cost more than a child...
For example: ever tried to claim the deadbeat living with you because s/he has no job, no home, damn few other friends, and no desire to "conform" but who is not your child? (Even though, for all practical purposes, is a child and wouldn't last long on his or her own?) You provide all support, including medical care, and you don't get a dime from the government; contrast that with the unmarried welfare queen who popped out a new kid every few years just to get the additional money from the government -- from us -- to feed a drug or drinking habit.
Some charity gets rewarded, some punished. Thank you, Mama Government.
The law is a patchwork of quick fixes. That's why we have so much bad law right now -- someone said "we ought to do something" and what was done applied then but doesn't wear well as things change. Plus, the smart people at MIT love to game the systems, which is part of the reason we all have such thin paychecks and thick tax bills.
Which gets back to the question about a government stamp: the whole body of marriage law is a fester on jurisprudence, three hundred years of a mish-mash of hastily-cobbled statues plus ham-handed legal decisions that stare decisis propagates. The right thing to do is re-think the legal ramifications of marriage. Leave the religious aspects to the religions. Where they belong.
(Like that will ever happen.)
The only ‘reality’ I know is you are a POS Gingrich. How could we possibly exist without all you wonderful pundits telling how to think and act.
The GOP is different from the Left how?
Gingrich needs to be drummed out of the GOP, and I hope the Pope excommunicates him. I’m sorry I ever thought about voting for him.
Another secularist afraid to fight the social issues. This is why he is not a serious candidate.
Pray for America
Sorry Newt, I do not accommodate perverts.
Newt is dead to me. This is the kind of stupid acquiesce to liberalism that is destroying this culture. First gay unions are not and never been at least not in recent history been illegal. That is just a lie even though it is fully within the power of government to make them illegal as they do with polygamus and other relationships however the government not licensing gay marriage does not make it illegal. The pernicious core of the argument of “marraige equality” is an attack on reason and at its heart is the same path to big govt and bad logic that is driving this nation into the path of sure oblivion.
A gay relationship is not the same as a heterosexual one. The equality argument is one that has at its core the committment to a fictional androgenous society and a moral equivalence society where because some one feels some way that reality must be suspended for their sake. Endorsement of gay marriage by government does not stop there as we have seen in state after state. It then becomes the states purpose to promote it and to suppress any expression of negativity or noncompliance to gay propaganda. Catholic churches must adopt children to Homosexuals or stop adopting. Churches must hire gay employees or face fines. Parents must conceed to gay activism in schools or face imprisonment and the loss of their children. Students at colleges and professors already face an unbelievable level of discrimination if they dare publish or express sentiments not in line with the “marriage equality” fiction.
This is the brave new world of big PC government support of gay marriage will produce.
It doesn’t matter that homosexuality is a destructive lifestyle. It doesn’t matter that it is biologically inncorrect and is inherently damaging to the heritability of the human organism. It doesn’t matter that homosexual men in particular not only report a greater incidence of being abused as children but also have a greater incidence of being sexual abusers not just of children but of other adults than the heterosexual population. It doesn’t matter that most who experiment with homosexuality don’t ultimately choose to lead the homosexual lifestyle. Also it doesn’t matter that at the core of the homosexual lifestyle is an afront to common decency in their parades, their events of which there is an overt sexual obscenity and a tolerance for the extreme and even grooming and coercion into the lifestyle and a focus on young men.
What this is is an errosion of reason and some may think that just letting this go will be of no consequence but it most certainly will be just as the invitation of open homosexuality in the military we be. At the heart it is a turning over of the definition of family and the military to the left and they will move the needle further and further their way with new trumped up emotional distresses into the land of further politically correct irrationality to the point where they will excercise such an iron grip that you wont dare speak up to oppose them even when they move on to norm even more radical, irrational, and obscene ideas.
Newt has it wrong. He seems to believe we must throw in the towel and just let the left remake the definition of family, the definition of church, the definition of the military and that it will not further shift everything against our cause of individual liberty. A person who accepts the illogic of “marriage equality” will certainly have no problem accepting all the other tenants of the progressive left because they all have a foundation of trumping up fictional rights to transform society into one where the individual can not exist without government to tell them what they can earn, how they can live, and ultimately what is right to think. There is no room for neautrality. If you care about protecting liberty we can not surrender on “social issues” because it is the deconstruction of those social issues like the definition of family and correct behavior that is directly fueling the fiscal woes of this nation. The New Normal is a normal where no man or women can or even want to live independent of the Govt pryor which while it indulges the deviant and the broken and remakes society to serve them it will be the hard working traditional American that will suffer while being made to fit the bill.
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.