Posted on 07/18/2008 7:35:24 AM PDT by SmithL
Society has always defined marriage and family and will continue to do so regardless of government. By advocating removing government policy from these issues, I’m actually taking a position favorable to social conservatives, but they’re too bent out of shape to recognize it. If you don’t want some activist’s version of marriage to become the governmental definition, you have to accept that your religious-based definition can’t be the governmental definition either.
Frankly , I wish California would leave the union and
it can become one big happy queer nation and not bring the
rest of us down with them.
Good point, Ant. If the libertarians are so concerned about government wasting valuable time and resources on a "petty" issue like same-sex fake marriage in California, then they should have the foresight to look down the road at the herculean task of getting a NATIONAL Defense of Marriage Amendment passed. The effort in California is minuscule in comparison, and failure in this state will almost guarantee the need for a Federal Amendment when the assault on the DOMA begins. I say, nipping an assault closer to its inception is very prudent and fiscally responsible.
Jim Kolbe is a liberal; and became more so after he came out of the closet. He is a turncoat; did not support the Republican who was nominated to replace his sorry a$$
Then why did the Club for Growth support him against a primary challenge in 2004?
I think you need to read what I said more carefully. I said that society will define morals, not government. Even if the government says something is moral, like gay marriage, that doesn’t mean people will accept it. Similarly, if they say homosexuality is immoral, that doesn’t mean people will accept that either. The will of the people always ultimately prevails.
See my previous examples of Prohibition and Reconstruction. You can pass all the law you want; if people aren’t willing to enforce them and/or people violate them too widespread to keep up, there’s not much government can do.
The bottom line is, if people are okay with homosexuality, there’s nothing you can do about it. Similarly, if they’re not, no government policy can force them to be.
As for the “pride” parades, not every gay person goes. In fact, a lot of people who show up to those parades aren’t even gay. I don’t feel that a bunch of drunken buffoons wearing green hats on St. Patrick’s Day represent me as an Irish-American.
I may or may not read your agitprop later; I’m at work right now, so I may not want to open something with “graphic contents”.
The Club for Growth is for open borders, as was Kolbe.
Also, if we're talking about moral decay, I submit that divorce and feminism have had a much larger negative effect that homosexuality ever will. However, I still feel that family and religious issues are best handled just there; within the family and the church. Not by government, government-run schools, etc.
Antoninus: Your liberaltarian ideas are too benighted for words. Western societies are built upon the institution of the traditional marriage and family.
How does that respond to his comment? For instance, in my state, there were still people who were not required to get a marriage license as late as 1940. My state recognized common law marriages into the 1960s, and I think that there are still some states that do.
I know it's remarkable, but my state managed to hold western civilization intact for a long time without requiring marriage licenses.
I question the figures. I think Californians STILL support a ban on same sex marriages.
Welcome to my world. I get in trouble on these forums for suggesting that government should not be involved in family planning, and that if you give them that power than can do things with it that you don’t like. However, most have such an unhealthy hatred/obsession with homosexuality that they can’t see that.
One doesn't have freedom of association without the power to exclude. If I choose to live among a community of those who want straight relationships, your plan precludes that option. Thus, you have canceled my right of free association.
QED, tyrant.
You don’t have your head on straight at all.
You don't know how to think.
By your definition, we already don't have free association, so I guess I'm not too sure what you're worried about. That ship has sailed.
My head hurts. How is your right to live in a community of straight people being violated? If you want to start your own little private club that doesn’t allow gay members, that’s your right. I think it’s stupid, but have at it. You don’t have to associate with anybody you don’t want to. I’ve never said anything to the contrary.
I’m not a big fan myself. But, nevertheless, I think there are worse evils, including, perhaps, giving government control over religious institutions like marriage.
Yep, it sailed with the 14th Amendment. We're still reaping that whirlwind.
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.