Go?
Uhh Gee Opie ,err, Gary, look closer - it's been GONE at least since:
"Ohhhhho say can you seee...."
Eyes Wide Shut
http://www.franklincase.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11&Itemid=9
Posted on 01/23/2013 2:39:28 PM PST by NYer
WASHINGTON, D.C., January 23, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Republican Party platform holds that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, but homosexual activists both within the party and without would like to see that change. A growing number of gay advocacy groups are now targeting the GOP, not for defeat, but for assimilation.
One such group, GOProud, says on its website, “GOProud believes that stable, loving, committed relationships are the cornerstone of our society and should be protected and encouraged for all couples - including gay and lesbian couples.”
Another group, Freedom to Marry, has launched a sub-group called “Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry,” which describes itself as “a campaign to highlight and build support for the freedom to marry among young conservatives across America.”
The group claims a growing number of young conservatives are supporting same-sex ‘marriage,’ “as an extension of personal freedom.” They cite a number of polls, including one showing that 49 percent of Republican millennials favor homosexual unions, compared to only 19 percent of Republican seniors and less than one-third of Republicans overall.
In light of a 2012 election blowout that saw same-sex marriage approved by voters in three states, and a traditional marriage initiative voted down in another, LSN asked past presidential contender Gary Bauer if it is possible the GOP will abandon its principles on gay marriage.
But Bauer, who now heads American Values – a group that promotes traditional marriage within the Republican Party – told LSN he thinks such a shift is “almost unimaginable.”
“Virtually all the candidates that competed for the GOP nomination this cycle supported traditional marriage,” said Bauer. “The party platform unambiguously did, also. I think that will be the case again in 2016.”
According to Bauer, the real threat to traditional marriage comes from the White House, not the Republican Party. “Any drift in the GOP is minor compared to the all-out push that the president is making on this issue, even mentioning it in his Inaugural address,” he said.
He pointed to President Obama’s transformation on the marriage issue since taking office in 2009 and blamed it, in part, for the major losses pro-family forces saw at the ballot box last November.
“The coalition in favor of normal marriage has been made up of political conservatives and American minority groups, including Hispanics and blacks,” Bauer said. “But the president’s so-called ‘evolution’ on this issue has resulted in what appears to be a major shift among blacks and Hispanics toward favoring same-sex ‘marriage.’”
Asked about polls that show increasing numbers of young people, even self-identified ‘conservatives,’ supporting gay marriage, Bauer said the responsibility lies with church and cultural leaders, not the Republican Party.
“To the extent that young people, including growing numbers of young Christians support same-sex “marriage,” he said, “it’s not a failure of the GOP, it is a failure of the culture and the church.”
Said Bauer, “It’s a mistake to expect political parties to have the main responsibility in winning cultural and moral debates. Parties surrender on things when it’s being lost outside of politics. Right now you have a lot of confusion in the church, a lot of people who won’t speak up about things, a lot of religious leaders that are avoiding the issue. I don’t think we can expect the Republican Party to save us when even the church won’t do it.”
I agree with all that you said. Seriously considering changing my registration from “Republican” to “independent”, as the only other choice is for ‘Rat here in MD. Wish there was a Tea Party choice.
My husband was a little surprised when I told him recently that I am not interested in continuing our membership in our county’s Republican organization.
Uhh, I thought that the GOP was already in bed with the Log Cabin Republicans! GOP does stand for the Gap Old Pansies now doesn’t it?!
“I had no idea they catered, constructed gowns and tuxes and wedding cakes.”
You also had no idea that you had to get permission (license) to get married. Permission from the omnipresent government, which has its business in all aspects of our lives.
Your idea is of a benevolent giant government who takes care of us all... how romantic.
“Rights of our youngest citizens must be maintained. There is no question that, on all measurable levels, children are best cared for by a married man and woman who are their parents.”
I do not understand your point. Are you implying that the government’s presence is keeping the institution of marriage alive?
“Without the protection of marriage, we have far more abuse of women as sex toys/ baby makers who give up their independence and can never recoup their loss once cut off.”
It is about individual responsibility. If a woman cannot discern between a bad husband and a good one, then how is the government going to protect her from her judgment?
“There is the importance of power of attorney, not needing to be formalized, and even criminal applications.”
Again, it is about individual responsibility. You lay it down yourself rather than let government decide who is “authorized”.
“You ignore the history of the entire human race, both good and bad, to deny the bedrock importance of legitimate marriage.”
Again, how is getting the government out of marriage making marriage any less legitimate? Is a government stamp going to make my marriage any more legitimate? Were people back in old times bastards because the government was not issuing them marriage licenses?
“And you are dancing to our enemies’ tune.”
No, you are sounding like a big-government-pseudo-conservative. It is perfectly fine for government to grow big if it fits your agenda. Sounds a lot like liberal enemies to me.
Utterly false. Most states recognize "common law" marriages in which the couple represent themselves as married by sharing their lives and mingling assets.
And the state doesn't give "permission." Anyone who is otherwise qualified - by qualifications universally recognized by society, not government - can get married. There is no test and no denial of the license, no renewal of the license and no periodic competence testing. The couple is all on their own, to conduct the marriage any way they see fit, to make it as good or as bad as they want, unhindered by government, church, other family members or anyone else, as long as the resultant children or the other spouse aren't objectively harmed, and there are other laws which apply to that, regardless of the existence of a marriage.
The "license" is actually a one-time recording fee. Don't you want the incidence of your marriage officially, safely recorded somewhere in case of greedy relatives contesting a will or other assets? Isn't it worth a nominal $50-$100 one-time fee to ensure that no one can contest the existence of the relationship?
Hey, join the club. But get in line; it's out the door and around the block.
I've sworn off that poison, too. And you make a great point - let the homosexuals overrun the "republican" party. They'll sink it quickly enough while we work to build a real, conservative party. Every liberal still despises it even though it pretends to love the "gays," and will stay with the Demonicrat Party. Conservatives will leave in droves, leaving only the Log Cabins and GOProuds to spout their lies about being "conservative" homosexuals, but they'll just echo in an empty cavern.
http://www.franklincase.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11&Itemid=9
The definition the state uses to recognize the institution in the modern era is simply whatever judges, pols, or 51% of the voting public think marriage can be at any one time. That’s it, that’s all it will ever be to the state. The state looks at it in a way to manipulate the culture—it can be manipulation in a good way, or a bad way. To the extent it sticks to Natural Law, the more benefit. To extent it departs from Natural Law, the more harm.
If judges, pols, or 51% of the voting public decide to punish a certain faith with the powers of the state for not accepting whatever impossibility the state is calling marriage at the time, there is nothing stopping them but judges, pols, or 51% of the voting public.
But if the state is involved, how do you avoid eventually conditioning people to think the state defines marriage? Seems to me that’s really the big reason so many accept impossibilities like ‘gay marriage’: it can exist because the state decides it can. You even see many faiths only do ‘gay marriage’ ceremonies if the state gives its permission, even though that particular faith might already think ‘gay marriage’ is possible, but won’t act before the state decides it is officially.
Freegards
“Your idea is of a benevolent giant government who takes care of us all... how romantic.”
No, it isn’t. I don’t need you to tell me what my idea is.
I am 100% opposed to a welfare state. I want prisons self-supporting. I support the flat tax. I don’t government involved in so much as disaster relief.
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.