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

Skip to comments.

Some Conservatives Backing Gay Marriage
Yahoo ^ | Feb 14th 2004 | Justin Pope

Posted on 02/14/2004 1:43:51 PM PST by gawd

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last
To: Abcdefg
There are no, repeat, NO conservatives backing gay marriage.

The're probably some of the same ones who support open borders, unlimited government spending, campaign finance reform, sucking up to the Kennedy cabal, etc. Or are those just leftist nuts who have infiltrated the conservative ranks and run as Republicans.

21 posted on 02/14/2004 3:05:13 PM PST by FreePaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tahiti
Excellent post.

22 posted on 02/14/2004 3:05:19 PM PST by AnnaZ ("And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God..." ~Romans 8:28a~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: angkor
...gay spouses would happily adopt children no one else wanted.

Probably applies equally to pedophiles. But then that is next on the agenda.

23 posted on 02/14/2004 3:07:16 PM PST by FreePaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: johnmorris886
NOPE, because the very people that wrote the Constitution made Sodomy a crime in their own states. EXPLAIN that. If the people that wrote the Constitution thought that homosexuality was a guarenteed right then I don't think they would have been so quick to make it illegal. Keep in mind they also banned: Adultery, Sex outside of marriage, Blasphemy, and Pornography. All of these things are libertarian "rights".

However, the founding father acknowledged that they might not have everything right. If they thought their philosophy was perfect, they wouldn't have included either the means to amend the constitution or the 9th Amendment.

24 posted on 02/14/2004 3:07:56 PM PST by Celtjew Libertarian (Shake Hands with the Serpent: Poetry by Charles Lipsig aka Celtjew http://books.lulu.com/lipsig)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: gawd
Neither Andrew Sullivan nor David Brooks are right wingers. Maybe to a liberal news man in Boston they are but not in the real world.
25 posted on 02/14/2004 3:21:06 PM PST by u-89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Mucking around with the constitution will solve nothing at all. The judges are rapidly reaching the point where they can successfully declare parts of the constitution itself unconstitutional because judges are the ultimate lawgivers in our society. The 2nd amendment will probably be the first part to be stricken in this formal way in addition to being contradicted by interpretation as has been occurring to greater and greater extent.

We have abjured impeachment of judges for anything more than simple venality and react to any legal atrocity by solemnly declaring that it is the law of the land and though we might not like it we must obey it. Earlier presidents did not tremble before judges. Modern presidents and the Congress rule only as permitted by the judges. When the Republic depends for its survival on electing the right man as president in order that the right men may be chosen as judges, then the basis for the Republic has ceased to exist. The illusion of the Republic exists only insofar as judges choose to allow it.

26 posted on 02/14/2004 3:26:01 PM PST by arthurus (fighting them OVER THERE is better than fighting them OVER HERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Abcdefg
There are no, repeat, NO conservatives backing gay marriage.

The concept is, in fact, oxymoronic, self-contradictory, and just plain insensible. Anyone- no exceptions- who backs homosexual union to be defined as marriage is NOT conservative.

27 posted on 02/14/2004 3:29:40 PM PST by arthurus (fighting them OVER THERE is better than fighting them OVER HERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tahiti
"Free people make their own choices and government has no business, jurisdiction, or power to the contrary."


Your argument contains an implicit assumption: That a society grows out from a state of nature as, well, a natural thing. It doesn't

A society is a group of people who get together and draw up a covenant to govern the group. The covanant is necessary for the same reason that the "group" is desired ie: nature ATTACKS all things.

Necessary to the covenent IS AGREEMENT on matters of FUNDAMENTAL morality. Political disagreement can only occur down to THAT level.

The Libertarian idea that anyone can do anything they want is at best childish. Its pure wishful thinking. The FABRIC of a society relates to the STRENGTH of the society. The strength of the society is the direct measurment of its ability to PROTECT each individual in the group.

And THAT is the FIRST point in having a society to begin with.

Or, more simply put: gays will marry over my dead frickin' body. I'm not backing up over that line.

Presumably gays (and perhaps libertarians) have the same feeling with respect to what they believe.

The revolution will be televised.

28 posted on 02/14/2004 3:31:22 PM PST by TalBlack ("Tal, no song means anything without someone else....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
>The concept of homosexual marriage is delusional.

We live in a day when there is no longer anything considered a "self evident truth." Under such circumstances how can one make a logical case against anything? When there are no common values, no common culture, no time honored traditions held, only specious arguments and moral relevance all things are possible.

29 posted on 02/14/2004 3:31:37 PM PST by u-89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: johnmorris886
because the very people that wrote the Constitution made Sodomy a crime in their own states

that means nothing. to have your life dictated by 18th century wasps, some of them slave-owners, is absurd.

30 posted on 02/14/2004 3:34:52 PM PST by gawd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: wackyforwesties
How in the world did 2 white men get 2 white babies? I thought white infants were few and far between for adoption.

Well, obviously not if the parents are gay.

31 posted on 02/14/2004 3:37:30 PM PST by 3catsanadog (When anything goes, everything does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FreePaul
I can see it now - NAMBLA members marrying other NAMBLA members so they can adopt their own boys to abuse.
32 posted on 02/14/2004 3:40:54 PM PST by 3catsanadog (When anything goes, everything does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: arthurus
The 2nd amendment will probably be the first part to be stricken in this formal way in addition to being contradicted by interpretation as has been occurring to greater and greater extent.

But not before the sissies of the country decide guns should be sin-taxed like cigarettes.

33 posted on 02/14/2004 3:43:07 PM PST by 3catsanadog (When anything goes, everything does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: gawd
WARNING: I'm wearing my all-inclusive flame proof suit. Having given y'all fair warning...

A conservative CANNOT be in favor of gay marriage, civil unions, or any kind of "joining" of same sex couples, or of same sex couples where one or more of the participants didn't used to be what he/she is now.

"By birth" males and females may marry. All others need not apply. That's the way God meant it to be. Do it any other way and you'll incur his wrath, if not now then certainly eventually.

34 posted on 02/14/2004 3:46:33 PM PST by upchuck (Help Stop Animal Overpopulation - Spay/Neuter Your Pets and Any Weird Friends Too...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gawd
Have a question, where is Schwarzenneger? Does he see what is going on in California? Hello! The gays are getting "married" and not any of our Republican friends are putting a stop to it?

Why isn't Scwarzenneger stopping all this and making the "marriages" illegal? Why isn't President Bush doing something?

This is ridiculous, they are breaking the law and no one is doing anything. I dont understand!
35 posted on 02/14/2004 3:50:54 PM PST by stopem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tahiti
I present Amendment IX:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Isn't obvious that a right "retained by the people" is to be "married" and/or have a sexual relationship with the person of your choice without any government interference?

To read that amendment your way would also make prostitution legal as it is nothing more than having "a sexual relationship with the person of your choice without any government interference" would it not?

Also your interpretation would seem to not allow for laws that prohibit the use of narcotics for recreation. Is there anything that you would not consider a "right" given under the ninth?

36 posted on 02/14/2004 3:53:21 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian
However, the founding father acknowledged that they might not have everything right. If they thought their philosophy was perfect, they wouldn't have included either the means to amend the constitution or the 9th Amendment.

Thats a red herring. The issue is whether the men the wrote the Constitution intended the 9th Amendment to protect homosexual marriage.

Can you say with a straight face that was their intent?

Yes or No will suffice.

37 posted on 02/14/2004 3:58:02 PM PST by johnmorris886
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: gawd
that means nothing. to have your life dictated by 18th century wasps, some of them slave-owners, is absurd.

Another red herring. And the typical Slave argument from the libertarians.

The issue is whether the INTENT of the 9th Amendment was to protect homosexual marriage. The actions of the men who wrote it demonstrates not.

38 posted on 02/14/2004 3:59:17 PM PST by johnmorris886
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: johnmorris886
Superb answer. I salute you! The framers of the US Constitution were moralistic to a degree that nowadays we'd associate with Iranian mullahs. They didn't believe in "freedom" in the modern sense of the word, but in "ordered liberty." American society as a whole, at the time, was thoroughly moralistic -- there were laws against sundry moral offenses, obscenity, blasphemy and even sabbath-breaking and they were enforced. On top of that, there was strong social censure against those deemed guilty of moral offenses. People were not "tolerant" -- I think it safe to say that they would consider modern-day America in various ways both decadent and despotic.
39 posted on 02/14/2004 4:01:16 PM PST by Siamese Princess
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 3catsanadog
How in the world did 2 white men get 2 white babies? I thought white infants were few and far between for adoption.

It's very likely that one of those men really is the twins' father.

40 posted on 02/14/2004 4:05:18 PM PST by Salman (Mickey Akbar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next 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