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

To: Porterville
There is nothing in this country that prevents two same-gendered persons from having a ceremony that celebraters their affection for each other, followed by a party with their loved ones. Other than the religious sacramental meaning, this is all a marriage is. To get that religious meaning, they need to lobby churches to change, not governmental laws. (Many churches are already caving. While I think it is a mistake, that is their choice to make.)

What this is really about is that unfortunate state of affairs where the federal government has stuck their camel noses into the societal tent. In an effort to "recognize the importance of marriage", they treat married persons differently than single citizens. Different taxes, different rights and responsibilities (especially regarding heathcare decisions and coverage), and different laws (until SCOTUS's recent ham-handed blurring of the nation's laws) place marrieds apart from singles. THIS is what they want. THIS is the goal of the "gay marriage" lobby. As a radical Constitutionist, I am not opposed to gay persons having the same benefits of married couples. I'm against the government treating any citizens differently based upon their familial choices. I don't think anyone should be treated differently simply based upon their marital status.

However, since we conservatives have decided that it makes sense to reward stable long-term relationships with certain changes in "The Rules", then those who choose long-term stable relationships with persons of the same gender should get equal treatment. Reserving these changes exclusively for those who make the choices that government demands they make is not a proper role of a fair and equuitable government.

While homosexuality has never been a foundation for any successful society, and few have recognized it in any positive manner (and I would defer to 10,000 of social history), what government decides to do for straight couples, it should do for gay couples. Count my radical right-wing whacko vote for keeping the federal government out of ALL of our social choices, be they traditional or exemplary of a San Francisco freak-fest.

(However, calling it "marriage" is an unnecessary and intentional attack upon a religious institution, and I would be one of the first to vehemently oppose any state recognition of gay relations by this title. Not only is it a blatant violation of chuch-state separation, but it is a cruel political attack upon the Religious Right.)

128 posted on 07/19/2003 9:06:07 PM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies ]


To: Teacher317
(and I would defer to 10,000 YEARS of social history)
129 posted on 07/19/2003 9:09:41 PM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies ]

To: Teacher317
Absolutely agree with you...

It is simply an attack on 5,000 years of western history and religion. All individuals should have the right to do with their property (including their physical form) as they wish. But what the homos are doing is attacking the very basis in what I believe and insulting thousands of years of my cultural history. In the past I would support gays for their rights, now I just think they're self-serving, pig-headed beast, that have utterly given up on who and what they were. And since they have adopted a pointless life without any spiritual meaning, they are able to recognize the truth in the male/female/heterosexual bond and it's ability to reach a spiritual plane equivalent to Nirvana here on Earth and beyond.

Homosexuality is purgatory on Earth, it has no truth only a self collapsing inner struggle that ultimately ends in with dissatisfaction, disease, psychosis, death, and guilt.

So, the gays want to destroy or try and pull down, what is sacred, what is pure, so they can defecate on it and feel like they've achieved some form of spiritually equivalent playing field as the rest of the world. However, even if they achieve this, their lives will continue to be a vapid excuse for existence because their lives are based on the collapsed blackened husk of mendacity.

131 posted on 07/19/2003 9:46:13 PM PDT by Porterville (J Marshall asserted the Court's monopoly on the interpretation of the Constitution, may he burn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies ]

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