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

Skip to comments.

Likely voters oppose marriage initiative
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 7/18/8

Posted on 07/18/2008 7:35:24 AM PDT by SmithL

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-132 next last
To: beejaa

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.


81 posted on 07/18/2008 10:31:51 AM PDT by MinnesotaLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: MinnesotaLibertarian

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.


82 posted on 07/18/2008 10:56:27 AM PDT by RED SOUTH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
...we'll take it to a Constitutional Amendment.

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.

83 posted on 07/18/2008 11:04:31 AM PDT by fwdude (If marriage can mean anything, then marriage means nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: MinnesotaLibertarian

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$$


84 posted on 07/18/2008 11:09:10 AM PDT by DLfromthedesert (Michael Steele for VP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: MinnesotaLibertarian
I’m not imposing anything on anyone. I don’t think government should be in the business of defining a religious institution to begin with, be it in favor of gay marriage or against it.

Yes you are. The gist of your post was, "Shut up and take it, you conservative neanderthals. The homos have a God-given right to get married and you're wasting your time trying to stop them." Perhaps you are content to raise your children in a homo-porno-dystopia, but I am not.

By the way, why is it your mind always goes to “butt-sex”? I think that says a lot about you.

Uh, have you been to any "gay pride" parades? For them, it is all about the butt-sex. Were it up to me, I would never discuss the disgusting antics of the coprophile crowd. They have forced their immorality on society to such an extent that good people must now stand up against it.

Read it and weep:
The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement (Caution, graphic contents)
85 posted on 07/18/2008 11:12:27 AM PDT by Antoninus (Every second spent bashing McCain is time that could be spent helping Conservatives downticket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: DLfromthedesert

Then why did the Club for Growth support him against a primary challenge in 2004?


86 posted on 07/18/2008 11:15:16 AM PDT by MinnesotaLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: MinnesotaLibertarian
I'm not in favor of same-sex marriage; I'm against government marriage, period.

Your liberaltarian ideas are too benighted for words. Western societies are built upon the institution of the traditional marriage and family. If you weaken or destroy that key institution, the society will collapse eventually and become just like every other failed society the world has produced.

Liberaltarians are either too dumb or too naive to understand that the left has been purposely trying to undermine the traditional family for decades, both in the US and Europe. In Europe, they've largely succeeded. The result is going to be Eurabia in a few decades.

If you want that to happen here, please continue on your current path of profound ignorance.
87 posted on 07/18/2008 11:17:50 AM PDT by Antoninus (Every second spent bashing McCain is time that could be spent helping Conservatives downticket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

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”.


88 posted on 07/18/2008 11:23:01 AM PDT by MinnesotaLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: MinnesotaLibertarian

The Club for Growth is for open borders, as was Kolbe.


89 posted on 07/18/2008 11:26:22 AM PDT by DLfromthedesert (Michael Steele for VP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Western societies also used to have an official state church, so the church's definition of marriage prevailed. This is a religiously free society, so it can't work the same way. If some liberal Protestant church want to marry gay people, we can't stop them, even if it's not recognized by government.

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.

90 posted on 07/18/2008 11:27:25 AM PDT by MinnesotaLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Minnesota Libertarian: I'm against government marriage, period.

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.

91 posted on 07/18/2008 11:28:22 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: MrShoop

I question the figures. I think Californians STILL support a ban on same sex marriages.


92 posted on 07/18/2008 11:30:12 AM PDT by BunnySlippers (Made on a Mac)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DLfromthedesert
Well, I can't say I necessarily agree with that stance, but I don't think it's an automatic disqualifier for being a conservative. Kolbe was much more solid on issues like taxes, spending, trade, regulation, etc. than many "conservative" Republicans.
93 posted on 07/18/2008 11:33:12 AM PDT by MinnesotaLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius

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.


94 posted on 07/18/2008 11:35:37 AM PDT by MinnesotaLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: MinnesotaLibertarian
How on Earth is taking government OUT of the equation trampling on free association?

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.

95 posted on 07/18/2008 11:36:46 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (G-d gave us Law a fool could follow, but a genius couldn't comprehend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
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.

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.

96 posted on 07/18/2008 11:38:38 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

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.


97 posted on 07/18/2008 11:40:04 AM PDT by MinnesotaLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: MinnesotaLibertarian

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.


98 posted on 07/18/2008 11:41:19 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
This whole gay marriage debate should make that obvious. You allow the government to make the definition, you might not like what they come up with. So many social conservatives have the mentality of liberals; if something isn't to your satisfaction, more government is the answer, never mind the failure of previous efforts.
99 posted on 07/18/2008 11:44:48 AM PDT by MinnesotaLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
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.

Yep, it sailed with the 14th Amendment. We're still reaping that whirlwind.

100 posted on 07/18/2008 11:55:09 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (G-d gave us Law a fool could follow, but a genius couldn't comprehend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-132 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