Posted on 09/06/2010 9:57:15 AM PDT by LonelyCon
Just two years ago, supporting homosexual marriage was such an extreme, politically radioactive position that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton – both Alinskyite progressives and long-time gay-rights supporters – saw fit to publicly and repeatedly declare their opposition to same-sex marriage.
Today, as the homosexual newspaper the Washington Blade puts it, "conservatives have taken the leadership role in achieving marriage equality."
That's right. Not only have high-profile conservatives like Glenn Beck, "The View's" Elizabeth Hasselbeck, Laura Bush, Dick Cheney and many others publicly offered their ringing endorsement of men marrying men and women marrying women, but some on the right are, as the Blade reports, actually leading the charge.
Case in point: George W. Bush's solicitor general Ted Olson has been dedicating his time as one of the two lead attorneys who successfully challenged California's Proposition 8, which had enshrined in the state's constitution the fact that, as Hillary Clinton put it, "marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman."
Indeed, proclaims the Blade, when it comes to the battle to legalize same-sex marriage, it is conservatives who "have achieved the most important success so far as they are the most willing and most able to take the case to the Supreme Court."
...
And S.E. Cupp, a young conservative Daily Caller columnist and frequent Fox pundit, goes so far as to say, "Conservatism and gay rights are actually natural allies. Conservatism rightly seeks to keep the government out of our private lives, and when you strip away the politics of pop culture, it's this assertion of privacy and freedom that the gay rights movement is essentially making."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I’ve noticed several who were retreads.
It would have been much more believable aimed at me.
*chuckle*
Yes, yes, and yes.
Which is exactly the argument against Roe v. Wade. Abortion was already legal in those jurisdictions where the populace supported and illegal where they didn’t. Exactly as it should be.
If we believe in the Constitution and in federalism, this is the only logical position...otherwise we’re just asking for unconstitutional activism on our behalf instead of on the left’s behalf.
You realize the most all murder laws are state laws, right? If the residents of a particular state were so idiotic as to wish to legalize murder, they would be well within their constitutional rights to do so. Why should the things you cite above be any different?
Hank
Okay, I see your point. Some states might have different penalties for rape, bestiality, etc.
“In New York, they make you marry the cow. Then you get to meet her father...”
*Baaaaaad!*
Correct. They caved.
*********************
Agreed. I understand that, but it is wrong.
LOL!
Sentiment should not get in the way of truth.
And love is possible even if you disapprove of someone’s choices. Disapproval doesn’t mean “I don’t love you”. If we only loved those we approved of, what sort of love is that?
I agree. I could not agree more.
An idiotic claim.
Obviously you've never read the Fifth or the Fourteenth Amendments. Or, if you have, your reading comprehension skills really stink.
Robert Spitzer.
Gay activists started demanding "homosexuality disorder" be dropped around 1970. It was Spitzer who got it changed to "sexual orientation disturbance" around 1974.
He began promoting reparative therapy around 2001 believing highly motivated people can change their sexual orientation.
Spitzer now believes DSM has lead to the medicalization of 20-30 percent of the population who may not have had any serious mental problems.
I offer ADD/ADHD as a primary example of turning "being a boy" into a disorder treatable by drugs.
I am a fan of Psychiatry as observational science. But too often their diagnosis and/or research reflect a political agenda. (The recent study of children of Lesbian couples turning out as good or better than the children of heterosexual couples - funded by a lesbian feminist group, using hand-picked feminist professors)
“His Uncle used to love him but she died.....”(with apologies to Roger Miller)
There’s nothing to discuss.
Free will allows individuals to REJECT His gift of reconciliation.
What if, when Jesus said “go and sin no more”, the woman at the well had replied: “NO, I like swinging with men who are not my husband and I refuse to change my BEHAVIOR”?
Rejection of grace; that’s what.
Abomination is as Abomination does.
Nope. It's not the same. The race baiting just doesn't work.
A better scenario is that for now it's illegal for you to marry a Golden Retriever. But don't worry; the way our nation is going you'll soon be able to fulfill your dream.
You scared me for a minute, comrade. I feared you might name some of the unpersons!
You have to admit their loss, and the putative impoverishment of conservative debate, has been a small price to pay for the glorious freedom of correct thought! [Stultis sips his "Victory" gin]
Now THAT is eerie...
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.