Posted on 08/07/2022 6:00:40 PM PDT by Ennis85
National Review supports GloboHomo now. It’s not a conservative outfit.
Once government turned marriage into a benefits distribution scheme, it was only natural that everybody would want to get in on the deal.
Call it whatever you want...but it’s not marriage.
The government cannot remain neutral on the definition of marriage.
If it refuses to define marriage as between one man and one woman, as is the usual, long recognized definition, it is by default defining it as anything goes, which is also a definition of marriage.
They cannot escape defining it. All they can do is choose which definition they will go with.
National Who Cares.
Bill Buckley is spinning.
Like it or not, gay marriage is now well-established. That horse is not just out of the barn. It’s out of the barn, down the pasture, and over the fence.
Opposing gay marriage is not a place to spend political capital. It’s not a hill to die on.
Trump doesn’t win in 2016 if Gay Marriage was still up in the air. He never even had to address the issue. And I am almost certain he would have come out for it, if pressed. Social Conservatives would have abandoned him in droves if he did.
It is impossible to separate government from religion. Religion teaches us about morality and government passes laws that enforce morality. It has always been so. The old saw that says you can’t legislate morality is a fallacy.
Now that the majority in the West have turned away from God and His laws, and replaced their religion with a new one that worships man, traditional religion and government are on a collision course.
He’s right about this. A marriage is the only contract under U.S. law that can be unilaterally broken by one party — even years after it has been signed.
Imagine selling a home today, and then having the buyer come back in 20 years and tell you he wants you to buy it back from him just because he doesn’t want to live there anymore.Even worse — imagine a U.S. court ruling in his favor and forcing you to buy it back from him at a price determined by the court.
Real estate law would cease to exist if such a thing happened even once — let alone in 25% to 50% of all home sales.
THAT is the farce that the government has made of “marriage” over the last 100+ years.
OK...I’ll grant you that I am an old fart. BUT...if there is truly a generational divide on this question among conservatives, it will submit that one side of that dichotomy is morally wrong, and likely morally bankrupt.
The irony is that those “marriage” agreements would have been more enduring and legally enforceable than the disaster that has become marriage laws in the U.S. today.
But that is then defining marriage as anything goes.
Its positions like “gay marriage is not a hill to die on.” is the reason why you now have this s**t like mainstreaming of gender fluidity, sex-change therapy for kids and children being handed over to sexual predators.
https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1556151934322720768
Wake up and smell the coffee. It already was “anything goes” decades ago.
The young should recall what God says.
Yes, I know.
I am not against gay marriage, I am against the supreme court making up the “right”, the same as they made up the right to an abortion.
If people want gays to marry, simply vote for people who will pass state laws to that effect. It’s that simple.
Define “Marriage”.
> mainstreaming of gender fluidity, sex-change therapy for kids and children being handed over to sexual predators <
That’s the hill to die on. That’s what we should be concentrating on.
I suppose one could argue that it all started with gay marriage. Maybe so. But that tree is too well-established. It’s not going anywhere. It just isn’t. So, let’s concentrate on keeping it pruned back.
(Poor analogy, I know.)
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.