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

Skip to comments.

If marriage is lost, we lose everything
WorldNetDaily ^ | August 31, 2010 | Don Feder

Posted on 08/31/2010 5:37:16 AM PDT by EternalVigilance

Memo to conservative defeatists: Surrender on gay marriage is surrender on marriage – which is surrender on the family and, ultimately, surrender on civilization.

Last Saturday, Glenn Beck held his Restoring Honor rally in Washington, D.C. An estimated 300,000 to half a million people came from all over the country. The Fox News host made the event an interfaith revival. "America today begins to turn back to God," Beck declared.

But while America turns back to God, Beck turns his back on God's law. Hey, that's catchy!

A guest on the "O'Reilly Factor" in early August, Beck was asked, "Do you believe that gay marriage is a threat to the country in any way?" Answer: "No I don't. Will gays come and get us?" Apparently, this jocularity was meant to belittle the bumpkins who oppose turning marriage into a free-form institution.

Beck then quoted his hero, Thomas Jefferson (who thought the French Revolution was groovy): "If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket what difference is it to me?" Apparently, demolishing the institution of marriage, and undermining the family, should be matters of supreme indifference to those fighting to save America from the clutches of Obamaism.

Beck is one of a growing number of conservative opinion makers who are either agnostic on the issue or have decided to earn tolerance-points with the establishment by backing here-come-the-grooms. They include The View's Elizabeth Hasselbeck. ("I actually support gay marriage.")...

Then there's Ann Coulter who's speaking at Homocon, the September extravaganza sponsored by GOProud, which seeks to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, paving the way for the imposition of same-sex marriage nationwide, and the Republican congressional leaders who are falling all over themselves to attend a Sept. 22, D.C. fundraiser for the Log Cabin Republicans.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial
KEYWORDS: family; feder; homosexualagenda; marriage; moralabsolutes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-200 next last

1 posted on 08/31/2010 5:37:22 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; Gelato; Steve Schulin; Taxman; MountainFlower; joanie-f

Ping...


2 posted on 08/31/2010 5:38:35 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (I don't believe in atheists. And nihilists are nothing to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

I am no prophet, but if the United States legalizes gay marriage, God will permit the darkness of Islam to overthrow - or overtake - our nation just as he allowed the Babylonian armies to overrun Jerusalem.


3 posted on 08/31/2010 5:39:20 AM PDT by Yet_Again
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yet_Again

A great darkness will descend on this land unless we stop this.


4 posted on 08/31/2010 5:41:23 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (I don't believe in atheists. And nihilists are nothing to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Yet_Again

Why is it up to the government to sanction a sacrament?

If we do not want to impose a state based religion, then why do we allow the government to have a say in how religions establish their unions.

It is my opinion that we should be working within our churches to not perform gay marriages. I know the catholic church is not going to do it, but there are ministers and priests out there who will perform them.

We need to get the government out of church, and at the same time, change the government’s role in codifying sacraments.


5 posted on 08/31/2010 5:43:37 AM PDT by Vermont Lt (I lived in VT for four years. That was enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 8:37:16 AM by EternalVigilance Memo to conservative defeatists: Surrender on gay marriage is surrender on marriage – which is surrender on the family and, ultimately, surrender on civilization.

Amen.

The government has an obligation to defend and promote the underpinnings of its own existence. Government can no more get out of the "marriage business" as some say, as it can get out of the "justice business".

6 posted on 08/31/2010 5:44:44 AM PDT by frogjerk (I believe in unicorns, fairies and pro-life Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt
Why is it up to the government to sanction a sacrament?,

To provide for the Common Good.

7 posted on 08/31/2010 5:46:52 AM PDT by frogjerk (I believe in unicorns, fairies and pro-life Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

I am guessing this is the new suckup strategy at WND. Pick a fight with Ann and score brownie points from Farrah.


8 posted on 08/31/2010 5:48:49 AM PDT by tlb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt

The radical gay activists stand and cheer when they hear those views expressed. Literally. I’ve seen it.

Either we defend the natural law everywhere in this country, or the underpinnings of our civilization and form of government will be swept away.

Rethink.


9 posted on 08/31/2010 5:49:11 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (I don't believe in atheists. And nihilists are nothing to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tlb

You know absolutely nothing about Don Feder if you think that has a single thing to do with what he’s saying.


10 posted on 08/31/2010 5:50:23 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (I don't believe in atheists. And nihilists are nothing to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

The voters in CA voted against it. They voted “one man, one woman” by nearly 60%! To pass gay marriage and ignore the will of the people is the end of “the rule of law”. The constitution will be rendered useless and pointless. This will be it’s precedence


11 posted on 08/31/2010 5:52:06 AM PDT by albie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt
We need to get the government out of church, and at the same time, change the government’s role in codifying sacraments.

Througout history every government or when the government wasn't around, the Church, regulated marriage and promoted it. This is what civilization is built upon. Somehow, we now think that we are so damn smart we can have a civilization without marriage being its foundation. I don't think so.

Is it no surprise that with the slow removal of God from the public square that our nation is crumbling? This freedom of worship B.S. mentality that the administration is spouting, instead of freedom of religion, is a result of this erosion.

12 posted on 08/31/2010 5:52:33 AM PDT by frogjerk (I believe in unicorns, fairies and pro-life Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

A little over the top. Marriage is created and regulated by God, so governments can’t really do anything to it anyway.


13 posted on 08/31/2010 5:52:49 AM PDT by Sloth (Civil disobedience? I'm afraid only the uncivil kind is going to cut it this time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tlb

As you can see, this article is about homosexual marriage and special rights for deviants.....which, btw, you seem to support by posting single comments on every thread.


14 posted on 08/31/2010 5:53:06 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Either we defend the natural law everywhere in this country, or the underpinnings of our civilization and form of government will be swept away.

Excellent!

15 posted on 08/31/2010 5:53:39 AM PDT by frogjerk (I believe in unicorns, fairies and pro-life Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt
Why is it up to the government to sanction a sacrament? If we do not want to impose a state based religion, then why do we allow the government to have a say in how religions establish their unions.

Get married by a Justice of the Peace if you want, but it still maintains the definition of Marriage.

Marriage describes a relationship between a man and woman.

16 posted on 08/31/2010 5:55:33 AM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt
If we do not want to impose a state based religion, then why do we allow the government to have a say in how religions establish their unions

Based on recent experience, I'd say there are a lot of Freepers who want the government to impose their religious views on other people.

This article is just another way to divide any budding coalition among those who agree on a return to Constitutional government.

OK, blast away SoCons.

17 posted on 08/31/2010 5:55:56 AM PDT by thecabal (Destroy Progressivism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt

I’ve just been having this discussion with an “atheist agnostic” on FB. “Why are you so upset about a “word”, marriage? It’s just a word!” No, it’s an institution ordained by God. It’s a losing argument in some cases. IMO, marriage ceremonies should never have been allowed to be performed by civil servants. Marriage should be confined to those of faith. All others can have their civil unions, if they insist.


18 posted on 08/31/2010 5:56:27 AM PDT by My hearts in London - Everett (So the writer who breeds more words than he needs, is making a chore for the reader who reads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt
Why is it up to the government to sanction a sacrament?

It's not a sacrament but a contract and that is the domain of the government -- contract law in pursuit of the common good.

19 posted on 08/31/2010 5:58:46 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: thecabal
This article is just another way to divide any budding coalition among those who agree on a return to Constitutional government.

Homosexuals are not conservatives. They are first and foremost homosexuals. Their lives revolve around their sexual habits. If faced with a choice between conservative values and their deviancy, they'll pick their deviancy.

20 posted on 08/31/2010 5:58:51 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-200 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