Skip to comments.Gay Marriage: Laura Bush, Dick Cheney and Barack Obama
Posted on 05/13/2010 12:57:50 PM PDT by AJKauf
This is a long way around to a discussion of gay marriage, something I have been in full support of since initiating this blog in 2003. It is also the subject that, when I write about it, often creates the greatest dissension from those who otherwise applaud what I am saying.
So it is with some gratification that I found tonight that the person in public life I have admired tremendously for some time is also a supporter of same-sex marriage Laura Bush. She proclaimed that support in her characteristic well-mannered, low-keyed fashion on Larry King Live. (Okay, nobodys perfect.) I even had the suspicion that her husband agreed with her, but for political considerations didnt say so.
What does this mean? Traditionally a woman like Bush would oppose gay marriage, but she has stepped outside that tradition, seen the situation objectively and come to a different conclusion. I think its interesting that the supposedly liberal Barack Obama has not been able to reach this conclusion or to perform any action that would indicate that he had. Meanwhile, the supposedly antediluvian Dick Cheney has expressed his support for same-sex marriage...
(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...
I oppose it but I am willing to let it be put to a vote by the public and overwhelmingly the population votes it down every time. Legislatures have shown they will reject the will of the people, just look at the Obamacare vote.
I really hardly care what they do. What I really oppose is redefining things as one pleases to suit whatever. You can call a cat a dog, but it’s still a dog. You can call two men living together as man and wife a marriage, but it is not one. However, at this point, I think we should just make all marriages a contract, let people decide what they want them to be and then make people abide by them. Legal and binding.
I really wouldn’t equate Laura’s actual quote (”But I also know that when couples are committed to each other and love each other that they ought to have the same sort of rights that everyone else has”)as being pro-Gay Marriage, I would classify it as pro-Marriage Equality - giving the same legal protections to same-sex couples, not necessarily the title of “marriage” I think many people would support giving civil unions the same medical, tax, inheritance rights as marriage.
That's right. Unfortunately, this debate won't be ended at the ballot box, or in the legislature, but by 9 people in black robes. The people have a right to define marriage - what is marriage and what isn't marriage. When we have judges - which we surely eventually have in this case - defining marriage, all is lost. It is only a matter of time until polygamist unions are asked for and received, should homosexual marriage be allowed by judicial fiat.
Don’t pretend, Laura Bush knew what she was being asked and she answered yes, she also supports abortion, and she wants the young people of America, to know that.
Pretty much the way I see it. In fact, I think it is pretty much a moot point now. Texas vs. Lawrence knocked the foundation out of any government interest in policing sexual morality among consenting adults.
The author of this article makes the same classic mistakes that result from the left-wing propaganda about the gay marriage movement and about political ideologies as well. The gay marriage movement is not about freedom but is an anti-freedom movement. It is also not about achieving equal rights but about denying rights to people. The left-wing gay rights movement is about forcing society to accept their perverted moral premises. They want to make it illegal to disagree with their moral premise of homosexuality being equal to heterosexuality. This is evidenced by the fact that many companies are already being punished by force of law for not treating homosexuality and heterosexuality as equal. (E-Harmony for one was sued for this.) That is not freedom but is instead a classic example of the progressive movement trying to force their perverted morality on society. They are anti-equality as well being that they do not want everyone to have equal representation on issues of how sexuality is dealt with in public. The progressives want this dictated to everyone from the judicial bench and to deny people an equal right to representation. And as for his claim that adhering to an ideology is looking backwards, I take this as just pure propaganda. This is just a means for attacking those who do not accept his agenda. The same type of argument could be made to promote pedophilia, rape or murder. It is simply the claim that if you have values then you are looking backwards, the author is ignorant.
I would. She is saying that the rights pertaining to the unique state of marriage -- a social phenomenon existing prior to any human law -- ought to be accessible to pseudo-marriage. Authentic marriage is endowed by human law with certain unique privileges because authentic marriage serves a unique social purpose. Buggery is (mostly) a private matter and contributes nothing to society. That is why buggery has no business calling upon society to recognize it with privileges it does not and cannot do anything to deserve.
Laura Bush has never been a conservative.
Lawrence v. Texas also opened the door for people at any age to engage in homosexual acts. There is no “minimum age 18” to do it.
Another lie was “in private”. Schools indoctrinate children in the lifestyle and profess it as “normal” and even teach safe “techniques” of oral and fisting sex.
Or non Consenting adults and kids, for that matter.
But the most important point for me is that we have too many much more critical issues facing us: progression towards socialism (government takeovers of way too many things in our daily lives that should be left to the states and/or the individuals), national defense, economy, border security, religions that do not tolerate other religions and try to foist their beliefs onto me, etc. The old axiom "keep your powder dry" comes to mind. Focusing all this energy on gay marriage makes it seem as if we're against everything. Seems to me we should devote our efforts to the most serious issues.
When a plane is on fire and the pilot is fighting to get it safely on the ground, beverage service is not a real important priority for me.
Either we're going to have individual freedoms or we're not. It doesn't make sense to argue for individual freedoms for some issues and against them on others. I just want the government to leave me alone.
The issue is not so much the government stopping these things but rather actively encouraging them and rubbing our noses in it.
No one was stopping ‘gays’ from making contracts or commitments between themselves and other individuals. That is not the issue. The issue for the ‘gay rights’ movement is that they want to force everyone in society to accept their perverted morality. Big difference. Why should anyone be forced to associate with people openly engaging in homosexual behavior by force of the government punishing them with a lawsuit? The ‘gay rights’ movement do not even want to allow people to have equal representation under the law on this issue. They just want it dictated.
Marriage is between one man and one woman.
I hadn’t applied it to children, naively thinking perhaps that it did not impact child abuse laws, but your point is taken.
Homosexuality is more than a sin, it's an abomination (God takes it a bit more serious than "gossip").
Up until the early 70's, homosexuality was slowed down by enforcement of sodomy and public decency laws (the good ole days when you could actually go into a public restroom to rid yourself of bodily waste and not have some pervert peeking at you through a glory hole). Since we no longer are living in the good ole days, God had to improvise with AIDS.
Quite wrong. The government does have a role in marriage.
Add murder to the list and see what they say.
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.