Posted on 03/02/2014 5:22:19 AM PST by reaganaut1
IT now seems certain that before too many years elapse, the Supreme Court will be forced to acknowledge the logic of its own jurisprudence on same-sex marriage and redefine marriage to include gay couples in all 50 states.
Once this happens, the national debate essentially will be finished, but the country will remain divided, with a substantial minority of Americans, most of them religious, still committed to the older view of marriage.
So what then? One possibility is that this division will recede into the cultural background, with marriage joining the long list of topics on which Americans disagree without making a political issue out of it.
In this scenario, religious conservatives would essentially be left to promote their view of wedlock within their own institutions, as a kind of dissenting subculture emphasizing gender differences and procreation, while the wider culture declares that love and commitment are enough to make a marriage. And where conflicts arise — in a case where, say, a Mormon caterer or a Catholic photographer objected to working at a same-sex wedding — gay rights supporters would heed the advice of gay marriage’s intellectual progenitor, Andrew Sullivan, and let the dissenters opt out “in the name of their freedom — and ours.”
But there’s another possibility, in which the oft-invoked analogy between opposition to gay marriage and support for segregation in the 1960s South is pushed to its logical public-policy conclusion. In this scenario, the unwilling photographer or caterer would be treated like the proprietor of a segregated lunch counter, and face fines or lose his business — which is the intent of recent legal actions against a wedding photographer in New Mexico, a florist in Washington State, and a baker in Colorado.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
How about incest? Etc....
****
Why should “what someone does in the privacy of the bedroom” be the determining factor? Why can’t a mother whose son moves in with her be her significant other for ‘entitlement to benefits’? Or two elderly sisters sharing a home, or two elderly brothers, or you name any combination of adults, or why stop at adults ......
for later
the funny this was a non issue for me till the last few years Had/have lot of gay friends. It was no skin off my nose..true libertarian live let live... all have are failings, our falsehoods but we know our own lies are lies.....it when this changes to ...”you and the world must confess fault as truth” that when it crossed over...take a bite of the apple
What’s “too old to have children” have to do with it?
The claim is that “any two people who love each other should be allowed to marry”.
Once they start putting limitations on that, we’re back to the fact that standard heterosexual marriage has lots of limitations on it, and that one of the limitations is that there shall be exactly one man and exactly one woman.
That may be the percentage of the population who are homosexuals, but that's not all who are pushing this "gay marriage" nonsense.
The institution of marriage has been under attack for a long time by people who are mostly not homosexuals. "Gay marriage" is their latest tactic.
“As surely as water will wet us,
As surely as fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings,
...”
Even without any Divine causation, there is a great deal of unpleasantness that lies ahead, no matter what any person or persons do or don’t do.
Promises that were made on an industrial scale over the course of generations will be broken on an industrial scale over the course of years or even months.
The money has run out.
Combine that with the fact that the last forty years of solar activity trends say “Ice Age Coming”, and the world-wide casualty count will be in ten digits.
With all due respect, allow me to make a correction.
The United States has already lost it's moral compass.
I notice that when the libertarians have a victory, they don’t bother with these type of threads anymore.
Because the argument would be that siblings shouldn’t marry because any resulting children would probably be retarded. I’m not saying that sibs should get married, I was saying that once the door is opened to gay marriage, then anyone should be able to marry. My personal beliefs are biblical, One man, One woman. Til death us do part.
Do you think 38 states would ratify any part of that?
Christian America lost itself years ago.
First when we acquiesced to contraception being legalized, then when we acquiesced to “no fault” divorce and then we we slowly accepted and acquiesced to the normalization of premarital sex. “Sex ed” in the government schools, liberalism in the mass media and the acceptance of same and worse, our embrace of college as “an experience” for our kids, and Voila~, here we are!
All this played out over the generational span of the WWII to Korean War to Vietnam War era Baby Boom coming of age. We mixed in and accepted the idea of “recreational drugs” and “weekend flings”, soft core and then hard core porn and now we act shocked at where we are.
If you care, take your kids, grand kids and neighbors kids out of the “free” schools the government provides, get them into home school/private school/church schools as fast as you can. If you have money, share the burden with those who do not. If you do not, humble yourself and find a way.
Or stop whining. Accept that the queers who told you what they want - see http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/queernation.html - are winning and that you and your children will live in a pagan, anti-Christian world, hunted and despised for their faith.
Are you a Soldier for Christ or a fair weather friend, a summer patriot not interested in the battle? Well?
It’s going to be short sighted to look to the political realm.
We need to look to the divine realm first. Then let all else we do follow from that.
These are political issues. They need political solutions. As I said, we need to live in reality.
God helps those who help themselves; we can’t wait for Him to miraculously change the hearts of a majority of Americans. We need to roll up our sleeves and do the hard work ourselves.
“Marriage” is the means, not the goal
And a billion Muslims agree!
At this point, the only real hope would be civil disobedience (Conservative States and Governors refusing to comply), a miraculous change in SCOTUS makeup, or non-violent secession.
The latter would be the most effective, but would have to be done knowing that ABSOLUTELY no GOP leadership would support it ANY step of the way. It would also require discomfort, which I think might be enough to snuff out support from most of those who would otherwise advocate it.
So really, I think that laziness and defeatism will probably quell any major resistance to the nationalization of gay marriage. Lord know, the gay advocates are tireless, wealthy, relentless, and motivated. I can nary find a Conservative who has their passion and commitment anymore. It’s ironic, really, but it turns out our side is the one who lacks the stomach for war.
We need to get used to the fact that our laziness and the Liberalizing of the GOP will soon make the loss of tax-exempt status for our churches, loss of ownership of businesses, and lawsuits against believers the norm.
We have about one, maybe two elections to make a last-ditch effort to preserve states’ rights on the issue. At this point, the Karl Roves, Steve Schmidts, CPAC, and Chamber-of-Commerce types have succeeded in transforming much of the GOP into a more Pro-Gay Activism party than the Democratic Party of ten years ago.
I really, really hope that my fellow Conservatives will FINALLY stop getting fooled by the GOP’s surprise “Home run” SCOTUS nominees evry time a Republican is President. How many more times are we going to get John Roberts-ed?
Their position is “Any two people who love each other should be able to marry.”
Any two.
Not “Any two, with certain limitations”.
Any two.
“Don’t aim your gaydar at my innocent children!”
But that’s what they do. That’s how the thing perpetuates itself.
“After all, what meany can be against two loving gays getting “married”
Yo, right here.
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.