Sad. I subscribed to the magazine thirty years ago. It was rock ribbed.
Heard a quasi libertarian on the radio give his support for gay marriage using the libertarian arguement live & let live not getting that gays aren’t on board with that idea as they seek to impose their sexuality on others like florists and bakers.
The feeling is mutual sweetcheeks.
I’d be willing to use the phrase ‘real marriage’ instead if that helps.
Is she soon to come Out?
The idea of same sex marriage disgusts me. I just can’t see two of us fat, ugly, hair gross males doing whatever it is that they do. On the other side if I were female I would probably be a lesbian and chase fat, ugly, hairy gross lesbians.
I subscribe to NR, but I do sense a shift there from trad. conservatism to laissez-faire libertarianism. Many of the writers are unconcerned about homo marriage, legalized drugs, or unrestricted immigration. I was really upset when Mark Steyn was forced out for his trad. conservative views on homo marriage (?) by Jason Steorts one of the new, fascist editors at NR.
The word “marriage” has been co-opted by the Left.
The way to take it back is to ban it as a legal term.
Conservatives should push for a fedearl law that limits the government to “civil” unions” alone.
The argument is simple and absolute: no use of the word “marriage” is separate from people’s spiritual and religious beliefs, and no church or spiritual tradition means the same thing by the word, or has the same ceremony. Therefore, the word “marriage” can only have meaning by stating what religion or tradition or belief system is exists under: Catholic marriage, Protestant (Methodist, Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptsist, etc.) marriage, Hindu marriage, Taoist marriage, Jewish marriage, etc., including atheist marriage, LGBTQQIAAP marriage, etc.
In contrast, the legal term “civil union” must have the same meaning for everyone under the law.
Think about it - what, in fact, the Left has claimed is not in any way the conquering of the churches, but the conquering of calling civil unions “marriage” under the law. That’s the only thing that needs to be changed.
So if you get maried in a church, you also would file a civil union with government for tax and other government recognitions. Or if you refused a church, you could still file a civil union status with the government.
What this is describing is not new or different - it’s exactly what is going on right now. But the word “marriage” is being wrongly applied to this civil union phenomenon. In the past, marriage was always filed with the church and not the government. The only reason it was ever filed wit the government was for government services, like pensions, etc. But originally, the marriage was in the church, and the status was filed with the government - the government did not actually create the marriage.
And - it still doesn’t. it only acknowledges civil unions. Marriage has to do with uniting people in love, before God. Government has nothing to do with either - not with God, and not with love. Therefore, conservatives must take word marriage away from government. Put it back where it belogns, in the churches, connected to its specific form of belief.
That’s how you beat the Left on this issue.
Google their executive editor Reihan Salam, but take a deep breath first.
The name of the disaster over at National Review is Jason Lee Steorts (always uses the “Lee” for some reason unrelated to “Robert E.”). He’s an Ivy League liberal who threw Mark Steyn under the bus. Evidently he blackmailed his way into the ranks of the so-called conservatives, and the magazine has gone downhill ever since.
Poor baby. Just wait until that clock starts ticking..
The LIBERALS ... and ... the LIBERTARIANS are going to,destroy this society!
oh it isn’t a decline. they have long ago decided to get down into the mud and roll around
Looks like the person in question has since deleted her tweet, coward.
It’s normal marriage. The opposite of abnormal marriage.
Does the fact that two eggs can’t create a viable offspring “disgust” her too?
That Biological FACT won’t change to appease her perverted activist whims any more than wishing water would freeze at 100 degrees F instead of 32.
I’d use “real marriage”, “actual marriage”, “biblical marriage” too.
The government will tell you what you are. You have voted for 0% freedom and you shall get it as the govt sees fit. Now STFU.
I hate the term traditional marriage also.
It would suggest there are other types of marriage. There are not. There is one marriage. One Man, one Women period.........
I first subscribed to National Review in 1976. I’d read the issues cover to cover. I found it no longer valuable by 1992. Articles like this one illustrate that it has continued to go downhill.