I'm Glad O'Reilly Is Around For this Important Issue

O'Reilly haters may not like this post and I'll be the first to omit that O'Reilly has a huge ego and is full of himself and I can only take so much of him but.....

I'm glad he is around during this time of the gay marriages in San Francisco issue.

Living in California there are almost leaders speaking out strongly against it. The Govenator has been a 98 pound weakling on the issue, the Attorney General must be in on it, Pres Bush is "troubled."

Every day the local S.F. Bay Area the T.V.news shows "happy stories" of more and more happy "couples" flaunting the law getting married.

For everyone living outside California, don't feel to smug, this will spread unless people rise up everywhere to challenge it.

So at least it's nice to hear someone, even if it is O'Reilly hammer on this issue almost every night that this culture war and gay marriage issue could destroy one of the strongest foundations of our country by diluting the institution of marriage and the family.

I know, I know, with 50% divorce rate it's not that stable, but just imagine how stable and well adjusted future children will be being raised in our country if marriage becomes defined as 2 men, 2 women, 3 men 1 women, 3 women and one man, a man and his dog, 2 women and duck, etc.

So while I still can't sit through an entire O'Reilly show thanks to him for keeping this issue on the forefront and continuing to point out all the cowardly politicians in hiding.

My thoughts:

Everyone has been calling them illegal gay marriages, when in fact all they are are marriage ceremonies. They don't mean a thing. Wait until they file as married with the IRS.

The real issue, if they want to pursue it, is to pass a law that makes men and women the same and subject to the same laws. Essentially there would be no such thing as sex.

If they want to do it legally now, all they have to do is have a gay man marry a lesbian. No Problem.

The irony is that if they passed a law legalizing same sex marriages, then they would have to create a new catagory for married men & women, because that is the structure of society and society must protect its continuation, as it has for centuries. All the laws that were passed in the past by legislatures would likely have been different if they thought they would apply to gay/lesbian couples.

I say let this fester. The Dems have already made a very big point for W on the judicial quality not only at the federal level but at the state level also. Liberal activist judges will be liberal activist judges whether it is county, state or federal level. To have four judges shoot down any idea that this is a blatant violation of established law where the cart has been put before the horse (issue then sue) clearly shows what part of the political spectrum they are actively working for.

President Bush has no need to jump in - this is a state issue as of now but clearly after May when Mass starts issuing gay marriage licenses the federal route towards a Constitutional Amendement will pick up steam. There are already 38 states that have ammended their constitutions to mandate that marriage is between a man and a woman - the very amount of states needed. And in Congress, many Dems are going to be cornered, slaves to opinion polls as they are.

As to Governor Arnold, he knows very well that as of now, to arrest Newsom would create a martyr. Once this is resolved, one way or another, the precedent for Arnold and future Governor's will be set - blatantly ignore a ballot initiative passed by the people who give consent to the those that govern and you WILL be arrested.

Come November, I think you are going to find a lot of State reps out of a job. Oh, and by the way, this issue and home security (we need bumper stickers like "OSAMA FOR KERRY") will ensure a huge electoral sweep come November. The Dems have managed to hang themselves.

One last point: we need to take the pro-gay-marriage proponents rhetoric and start employing it to the affirmative-action battle, particuarly. Whereas the gay activist can only point to mostly percieved on-the-street discrimination coupled with their claims of institutionalized discrimination, the clear bias at both primary and higher-education institutions towards anyone that doesn't support the liberal agenda can be clearly proved due to the enormous amount of evidence reported by students over the years, not to mention guest speaker choices, text books, course choices, periodical subscriptions, speech codes, editorials, published faculty statements etc.

OK - that's enough.

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.