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, nobody’s perfect.) I even had the suspicion that her husband agreed with her, but for political considerations didn’t 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 it’s 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 ...
It’s all about the benjamins. They want the same recognitions and support provided to married couples in pensions, taxation, etc. The list goes on.
As Rush said, always follow the money.
“should have a right to enter into legal contracts that don’t affect other people.”
They do affect children. Children have a right to their mother and their father and regardless of what homosexuals may or may not believe, they are depriving their children of their birthright.
Gay marriage does affect other people in a negative fashion.
Neither are deprived of their father. They know very well who their father is.
The people have a right to define marriage - what is marriage and what isn't marriage.
I disagree with both of you. Sound reason doesn't come down to a vote of the most people - it's rooted in the obvious, objective conclusions of any rational observer. Otherwise we can have people vote to call all cats 'dogs' and we would be compelled to do so.
And this is the implication - that homosexual "marriage" WILL be imposed on everyone. Not in the sense that everyone will be forced to "marry" someone of the same sex, but, just as totalitarian and despicably, everyone WILL be expected to at least act as if they consider it normal and healthy. Across-the-board sodomite "marriage" will result in our children being thoroughly indoctrinated in its favor, and even Christian communities will, eventually, be forced to bow to and accept it. It's happened here before, and is happening now.
Righteousness brings blessing: “Keep my commands and you will live” (Proverbs 7:2); and sin brings judgment: “He who sows wickedness reaps trouble” (Proverbs 22:8).
"...the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women.
The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women,..." http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/msmpressrelease.html
Let me get out my calculator trolo. HIV+syphilis= (don't tell me, I can add it on my own)...ummmm "trouble".
Worst mistake Reagan every made. My three worst votes ever. Never again.
Sound reason may not, but law certainly does, or at least it should. I'm not sure what you're "disagreeing about".
Throughout the history of the Republic, marriage has been left to the States to manage and regulate. Why? Because the Constitution is quite clear, things not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, are plainly left to the states.
Then we have to ask ourselves, who precisely in the state would make this decision? It could be the executive, the legislature, the judiciary, or in some states depending on that state's Constitution, it could be decided by popular referendum. But, to be clear, one of those four mechanisms will be the "decider" when it comes to homosexual marriage.
It looks as if the federal government, vis-à-vis the federal judiciary, is perched to usurp the primacy of the individual States with respect to this issue. That would be the worst possible scenario, and it was what the other poster and I were talking about.
I'm not quite sure who you would like to see make that decision. You really don't say - just that you "disagree with us".
That people want to bend facts and pretend that they are somehow the "biological parents" of a child when they clearly don't have the genetics and equipment to be that, is the pinnacle of madness and irrationality.
Ack! There IS NO discrimination concerning gays and marriage-
They have the SAME right to marry a person of the opposite sex that everybody else does.
-----
What they want are special rights to have a legally-sanctioned pairing with whoever is the object of their affections.
When confronted with a 'gay-marriage' proponent, I just ask a simple question-
Why can't I marry my brother?
That usually sends their heads spinning so fast, they can't come up with a reply.
Why is it the vote needs to be held every year to block it but it only needs to go through once “approving” it never to be repealed?
Foreign marriages to child brides are not recognized.
Mexico will be offering same sex marriages to boost tourism.
Each state determines its own law, trol.
I agree, but a civil union IS a "gay marriage." They are not precluded from entering into such a contractual relationship - and they shouldn't be. An actual marriage is between a man and a woman.
I think if you read my comment to which you replied, you and I said pretty much the same thing, but in a different manner.
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.