Did you see what just happened in Oklahoma? Republican State Representative Todd Russ introduced a bill to get the Oklahoma State government out of the marriage licensing business and into the marriage recognition business. Readers here will recognize this as the “Michael Schwartz” plan: government should record marriage documents rather than issue them. From Reason.com:
He (Russ), too, claims to be confused by objections to this legislation. While it is true that the legislation is a direct response to the federal courts striking down Oklahoma’s ban on same-sex marriage recognition and the likelihood that the Supreme Court will uphold those rulings this summer, Russ said his legislation is intended to take the state out of the fight, not to perpetuate the conflict. He said Oklahomans likely wouldn’t even notice a difference in the legal status of their relationships under his bill.
The Oklahoma State House just passed Rep. Russ’ bill and the institutional Left and Big Gay are freaking out. From Think Progress:
It’s unclear whether lawmakers are willing to get behind these bills that clearly target the LGBT community for harm, discrimination, and unequal access to government services, nor whether they would be upheld in a federal court. Republicans do enjoy supermajorities in both the Oklahoma House and Senate, so passage cannot be ruled out.
Say what? How does reducing the State’s involvement in marriage, to one of recording (like a deed on a house), rather than licensing (like the AMA does for physicians), “target” anyone? If anything, it is true “equality under the law.” I would guess that it would expand rather than restrict government services, certainly in the areas of taxation, visitation, and inheritance (the original arguments offered FOR gay marriage).
Is it possible that the same sex marriage movement was never about equality under the eyes of the law but rather a movement designed to deploy force (government) upon everyone, to accept a new definition of marriage? Stated differently, was the same sex marriage movement simply a canard, to get the Church to abdicate its authority to the State, so that when regime change happens, the State could force the Church to act against its principles?
That’s what I thought when I opposed Prop 8 in 2008. I saw opposing it as a defense of Church-defined marriage because regime change always loomed on the horizon. I sensed that same-sex marriage activists saw Prop 8 as a defining moment, a chance to ultimately change the idea that Christians and homosexuals could hold competing definitions of marriage and still live in harmony.
The reaction to Oklahoma’s movement to get out of the marriage business, leads me to believe that I was right on both counts.
Comments 125
Sincere question because i do not understand the purpose of Representative Russ’ bill: if not the State, who would issue marriage licenses and on whose authority would those marriages be legal conveying all the rights that currently married couples have?
Brian: “Deploy force(government) upon everyone to accept a new definition of marriage”
Absolutely, and it’s even more than that. It’s about having an agenda rammed down your throat under threats of fines, getting fired, and losing everything you have because of your religious belief. No such thing as freedom of speech and freedom of religion anymore. Ask Baronnelle, the florist in Oregon, and ask the ex-Chief of Police in Atlanta.
Have all the civil unions you want to get equal tax treatment and benefits but don’t call it marriage and don’t seek to get it legally called marriage. Marriage is sacred to Christians of all denominations and it has meant one man, one woman to Christians for thousands of years. When I discussed this with Ralph Denny, a gay Republican, he thought it was a reasonable approach.
So gays, be reasonable and stop trying to destroy people’s lives and you’ll be accepted much more readily. You will never change people’s ideas by force and hate.
Hi Dan!
A similar statement to yours is what changed my mind years ago about same sex marriage:
“Marriage is sacred to Christians of all denominations and it has meant one man, one woman to Christians for thousands of years.”
Not every religion defines marriage as one man and one woman forever (everybody likes to leave off that “forever” part). For example Buddhists marry same sex couples and these days there are denominations or other religions who are marrying same sex couples all the time.
Simply put, if it is Christianity or any religion that defines marriage as one man and one woman and government is only permitting and recognizing those who conform to that definition …isn’t that a violation of the First Amendment?
So, as Brian pointed out, rather than have government “permit” it….just have them record it. I would imagine this would take away some of the ease married couples enjoy when it comes to certain legalities and agreements, but it is that preferential treatment to those who conform to a preferred religion’s definition over those who do not that is the complaint.
I believe the vast majority of people, gay or straight, agree with you that people should not be forced into doing something that is against their religion or face a an end to their livelihood.
Most importantly….even after all the technicalities are debated…we are talking about real people who exist and are just like you and me. Is it surprising that there is an attempt to use government mandate to force acceptance when a culture has been created where people are openly treated like outcasts? Why be “for” or “against” same sex marriage? Let’s just develop a government where everyone has a chance to live the life they want.
The libertarian proposal to get the state out of licensing just sidesteps the issue of definition. Definition is the only issue that matters because definition is what determines whether the state will recognize a relationship as a marriage. Definition will still be a matter the state decides by law or court decision even in a marriage regime without licenses.
Author
“if not the State, who would issue marriage licenses and on whose authority would those marriages be legal conveying all the rights that currently married couples have”
Great question. The answer is? NOBODY will issue licenses. You shouldn’t need permission to marry…unless you do (because you subscribe to a doctrine which says you do)
“Definition will still be a matter the state decides by law or court decision even in a marriage regime without licenses.”
Good point. The bill defines a recognition between “two unrelated adults”, meaning polygamy is out. But this is important–the State is merely recording a private activity–not sanctioning it
Brian,
So many legal rights and responsibilities are conveyed automatically with marriage. Taking the State out of the business of licensing marriage only creates an immediate and huge need for contract attorneys and then later an even bigger need for trial attorneys.
Author
@HQ So what? Married people should take responsibility for their actions and stop socializing the effects of poor decisions they make.
HQ, what’s a specific example?
I’ve only been married for 7 years and have no kids, but I haven’t really had to prove I am married to my wife. She had to change her name on her passport and some credit cards when we got married, but that’s all.
It would be interesting to work through a real world issue or situation.
Dan,
As one Christian to another can I share a couple thoughts? I think there are a number of issues we need to unwind here. Here is the first one…
Is marriage a “right” or a “privilege”?
If marriage is a “right” why does Individual “A” need permission from Individual “B” to do so?
Black’s Law Dictionary defines “license” as, “The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal.”
We need to ask ourselves- why should it be illegal to marry without the State’s permission?
Why should we need the State’s permission to participate in something which God instituted (Gen. 2:18-24)? Which pre-existed the State?
A license by definition “confers a right” to do something. The State cannot grant the right to marry. It is a God-given right.
I would propose that not only is same sex marriage immoral but so is the Christian using government to control that which is a right.
I would propose that while same sex marriage is immoral so is using the federal tax code to redistribute our neighbor’s property (8th Commandment). Current code has over 1,000 benefits for married couples.
Estate Taxes
If I can’t take my neighbor’s property when he dies why can the state which derives its just authority from the consent of the governed? Do you think Edie Windsor (United States v. Windsor) would have a SCOTUS cased if Christians had stood up years ago to immoral, unjust, unconstitutional and unbiblical law?
Dan – I think what threatens many of us is immoral lifestyles of all sorts and the decline of character. I don’t like it either but what institutions has God created to build character? Is it not families, private education and churches?
What has weakened those institutions beyond all others? Is it not government growing beyond it constitutional jurisdiction? And who has been silent as tax codes cause mom’s to work.
Has it not been our seminaries, pastors and churches?
Who has been silent as Christian parents are forced to send thier children to compulsory state education and 501c3 law?
Has it not been seminaries, pastors and churches?
Pardon me here, is there a plank in our own eye? Are we allowed to do evil that good may result? We are just going to fix this with a law after years of apathy and silence on behalf of Christians.
I think this type of behavior from Christians hurts the sharing of the gospel. My opinion. Christians should be using love and law properly. Ideas have consequences.
Thanks for thinking this through with me.
Mike,
The concern is for people who want to be married but don’t desire the blessing or permission of a recognized religious institution. If you were one of those people, how would the State be able to recognize your marriage?
Why does that matter?
Here’s one real world issue: Under the current system, if you were to pass away, your wife would inherit all of your possessions tax free. Would that be the same under the system being proposed?
“If marriage is a “right” why does Individual “A” need permission from Individual “B” to do so?”
Phrased another way: If Freedom of Association is a “right” why does Individual “A” need permission from Individual “B” to do so?
HQ,
“How would the State recognize marriage”?
The same way it did before the 1920s. The same way it did for George and Martha Washington who did not need a marriage license.
Historically, there was no requirement to obtain a marriage license in colonial America. When you read the laws of the colonies and then the states, you see only two requirements for marriage.
First, you had to obtain your parent’s permission to marry,
and second, you had to post public notice of the marriage 5-15 days before the ceremony.
The State should only have jurisdiction over a marriage for two reasons – 1). In the case of divorce, and 2). When crimes are committed i.e., adultery, bigamy. etc.
In either case, divorce or crime, a marriage license is not necessary for the courts to determine whether a marriage existed or not. What is needed are witnesses. This is why you have a best man and a maid of honor. They should sign the marriage certificate in your family Bible, and the wedding day guest book should be kept.
HQ,
“Under the current system, if you were to pass away, your wife would inherit all of your possessions tax free. Would that be the same under the system being proposed?”
This is a private property issue. Not only should it be but after the second death as well. There is nothing moral or just or biblical or constitutional about an estate tax.
HQ,
“If Freedom of Association is a “right” why does Individual “A” need permission from Individual “B” to do so?
Correct. In a free society this idea would underpin free markets and elimnate all problems immigration.
Marriage is simply a contract between two parties.
To quote Boaz over at CATO on privatizing marriage …
” To “privatize” marriage is to treat it like any other contract: The state may be called upon to enforce it, but the parties define the terms.”
So why not privatize marriage? Make it a private contract between two individuals. If they wanted to contract for a traditional breadwinner/homemaker setup, with specified rules for property and alimony in the event of divorce, they could do so.
Less traditional couples could keep their assets separate and agree to share specified expenses.
Those with assets to protect could sign prenuptial agreements that courts would respect.
Marriage contracts could be as individually tailored as other contracts are in our diverse capitalist world. For those who wanted a standard one-size-fits-all contract, that would still be easy to obtain. Wal-Mart could sell books of marriage forms next to the standard rental forms. Couples would then be spared the surprise discovery that outsiders had changed their contract without warning. Individual churches, synagogues, and temples could make their own rules about which marriages they would bless.”
Eric,
Comments, questions based on your latest posts:
1. Are you saying that Freedom of Association is not a right?
2. You may believe that the estate tax is immoral, but it is the law of the land which makes my point still valid.
3. If marriage was simply a private contract, would that eliminate the ability for one of the couple to demand a divorce without facing charges for breach of contract?
For anyone to respond: Since the original post admits that this proposed legislation is simply a response to the courts striking down a same-sex marriage ban, do you think this is simply a case of saying “I would prefer no state acceptance of any marriages than to have the state accept same-sex marriages?” If so, I am glad the vast majority who opposed allowing Blacks to play baseball didn’t have that attitude when the Dodgers signed Jackie Robinson.
Divorce is a breach of contract…unless it isn’t. Maybe people will start thinking about what marriage means to them when they enter that agreement. Some may decide it’s an irrevocable union, some may say it’s a term contract with renewal options.
Maybe it’s best to let those who want to enter marriage decide those terms in advance?
My good friend, Greg Swann, offers this pre-nuptial agreement: http://selfadoration.com/a-perfect-marriage/5589
How many people would really commit to that? More importantly, how many men would commit to that? I submit that fathers of daughters might appreciate a man who did.
HQ,
Q1.
I am agreeing with you. It is a right. An unalienable one.
Q2.
Any individual violating a contract would be liable for damages.
Q3.
I am sorry but I am not understanding your question here but you do mention racism a la Jackie Robinson. I believe history shows the genesis of marriage licensing in the states to have its origin in racism.
The marriage license as we know it didn’t come into existence until after the Civil War and didn’t become standard practice in all the states until after 1900, becoming firmly established by 1920.
Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal.
Eric,
I am glad we agree that Freedom of Association is a right, but I am confused by your insinuation that marriage was not a right since it takes the permission of another individual. If that were the case, isn’t the same true for Freedom of Association?
My point in #3 was that the author of this proposed law was simply stating that he was fine with marriage laws the way they were until the courts said that same-sex couples were now allowed to participate. His response was to change the law so that no one could participate (in the same manner as has been customary since the mid 1800’s). My comment was that I was glad no one thought to eliminate baseball rather than allow Jackie Robinson to play.
Lots of good, smart people were duped into thinking that the homosexual agenda was ever about “equality” Yet, if that were true, then we should have been equally as bombarded with the same vehemence about incestual, polygamous, and child marriages advanced as vigorously.
But of course, we never saw that (precisely because its creepy)…yet, as some espouse here, millions from across the world in fact have incest, polygamy, and child marriages in their cultures as common, many routine, and even institutionalized. If it were truly about equality as even smart people were schnored to believe, then I guess all those supporting SSM MUST then support other forms of marriage equally…If they don’t, then it is they who are not being “equal.”
Just with the SSM meme slithered into the public schools; you now see “health class” depicting sodomy (where, pray tell is the biological reproductive aspect of that act again??) , and now increasing legislation on transgender facilities for k-12 children, and open encouragement of SS couples at proms and dances. Why haven’t we seen 47 year old “Uncle Bob” taking his 16 niece to prom, kissing, petting, intimately swaying to the music in the ole’ gym…..is that not “equal” treatment? Or why not 2 Boys taking one girl with all the provocative dancing and intimate goings-on with the 3 of them on the dance floor?
If we remain to keep it strictly about the law, and administrative means, all through the eyes of the politically libertine clinicians, without any moral reference or anchor points, that is what you will get. Just try to stomach any current teenage reality show, and you will know precisely to which I refer.
What has been lost in much of the debate is not the recognition..but the whole sale conflation, confusion, and chaos when you try to redefine something as foundational and rudimentary as marriage in the American construct. (It is as if we were now told that red means go, and green means stop…and there would still be those lamenting why haven’t people “evolved” yet as cars continue to crash into each other..)
It is antithetical to the basic DNA of the American psyche, not because they don’t understand it, its because it is so alien, so misaligned, and so unnatural (the actual act, not the “Modern Family” Unicorn tears and Rainbow Pixie dust sprinkled on sugary surface..). I challenge any supporter of the redefinition of marriage to sight one incident where the headlining “equality” proponents ever mention, refer to, or acknowledged polygamy, incest, or child marriages in their intellectually deceptive “equality” meme.
To evolution…In the immortal words of Robin Williams..” Oedipus Schmedipus, Mom, I love ya..”
If I’m the only one confused by this conversation, so be it.
Freedom of Association is often also a two way street. HQ, do you believe that if you want to associate with me, but that I don’t want to associate with you, that you still have a right to do so?
If the two of us wanted to associate with each other, but were denied because I am real and you are anonymous, that would be a Freedom of Association issue. 😉
Barry,
Of course, my freedom of association takes another person to consent to the association, yet we still consider it a right. If I understood Eric correctly, he was making the argument that I do not have a right to marriage specifically because it takes another person to consent to that marriage. I was simply pointing out (by analogy to freedom of association) the fallacy of his argument.
Author
“I am confused by your insinuation that marriage was not a right since it takes the permission of another individual.”
Marriage (in this country, at least) requires mutual consent from two adults. Are you suggesting that you (or anyone) could simply point to someone and say (he or she) is mine now?
We Republicans repealed that kind of nonsensical thinking 150 years ago.
Ok, HQ, and I’m saying — whether one agrees with SSM or not — that the comparison is analogous. One does not have an absolute right to marry another person without the other’s consent. Likewise, one does not have the absolute right to associate with another person without the other’s consent.
Surely, when it comes to government or often even private party hindrances to association between to consenting individuls, that enters into an entire other realm of nuances and arguments. But, I’m not understanding the difference at the basic level — that it takes two to tango, but not if one of us doesn’t wanna dance.
Let’s not confuse getting government out of the marriage business with Todd Russ’ bill.
1) This bill does not get government out of the marriage business.
Government will continue to recognize marriage and give specific privileges related to marriage.
This does get government out of the actual act of marrying people. On it’s face, that’s fine. There are all sorts of things that government outsources. Why not this?
2) This bill is designed to discriminate.
a) As written (and perhaps this is just sloppy), it appears to only grant marrying rights to Christians and Jews.
b) Even ignoring that, several classes of people would be unable to be married, except via common law — including the non-affiliated, atheists, and people whose marriage is prohibited by their religious organization.
c) Common law marriage is not the same as marriage. It is significant hurdle that many people who want to get married might not be able to meet. http://johnhgraves.com/index.php?id=26
3) This bill could easily be fixed.
All Russ would have to do would adjust the language so any adult could perform marriage ceremonies (perhaps after a short class). If this is really about taking “the state out of the fight,” and not about discrimination, he’ll make that change.
Brian, Barry and anyone else who didn’t get my point,
My comments were in response to Eric Andersen’s comment. Eric said:
“Is marriage a ‘right’ or a ‘privilege?’
If marriage is a ‘right,’ why does Individual ‘A’ need permission from Individual ‘B’ to do so?”
From the above, I assumed that Eric was saying marriage was not a “right.” I simply pointed out that Freedom of Association also required permission of another person, yet we still consider it a fundamental right.
Got it. I’m good on this end.
Author
“All Russ would have to do would adjust the language so any adult could perform marriage ceremonies (perhaps after a short class).”
What’s this “perform” stuff? Can’t a notary witness the marriage agreement? That would suffice for me (for legal proof).
I”m going to want a full on Church ceremony for my daughter but as far as the State is concerned, it should record the notarized document only
Brian,
Maybe I am confused (again), are you saying that if this passes, any couple (heterosexual or homosexual) could simply claim to be married and the State of Oklahoma would be obligated to record that marriage and convey upon the couple all the rights and responsibilities which are conveyed on every other married couple?
I re-read the blog train to try to keep things straight. Brian’s original point was that gays want their unions called marriage because they are using the force of government laws to persecute, destroy, and take away the freedom of religion and freedom of speech of Christians guaranteed by the Constitution. I respect all people but we all need to ask ourselves, is this who they really are?
Despite all the hatred and persecution of Christians by gays, I’m all for privatizing civil unions and changing various codes so everyone can get equal tax treatment, health care, and benefits. But do it as a civil union for gays and anyone else.
Mike, since America was founded as a Christian country, on a Judeo-Christian code of morals and ethics, with its institutions based on Judeo-Christian principles, it was and still is a Christian country. All other religions and peoples need to deal with this. The Constitutional rights of Christians need to be restored. I don’t call affirming Christians their Constitutional freedom of religion and freedom of speech as denying First Amendment rights to gays.
I would favor Brian’s suggestion of going back to the good, old days of George and Martha Washington getting married but the government has enacted so many laws attached to “marriage” that it seems impossible. Marriage was always understood to be between a man and a woman back then. It is that “understanding” and tradition, going back thousands of years in most civilizations, that only gives one man, one woman validity.
If the Oklahoma law respects freedom of religion for churches and pastors to decide who they want to marry, gets the state out of the marriage sanctioning business but let’s gays have their union with all the benefits they need, I’m all for it.
“Hatred and persecution of Christians by gays.” Seriously Dan?
I must have missed the articles about the Christian men being beaten and killed by gays because they were Christisn. Maybe you were referring to the stories I missed about school bullying by gays against Christians. Or was it the never told story of Christian teenagers committing suicide because they couldn’t live with the constant social media ridicule that gays heaped upon them because of their religion. I know, it was probsbly the story of the Christian man who killed himself when his gay roommate posted video of his heterosexual lovemaking.
As for this being a Christian nation, actaully it is not. It is a Consitutional Republic and it is The Constitution that has so far been found by the courts to protect the right to same sex marriage. If you don’t agree with that, there is a provision in the Constitution that allows for ammendments.
Brian — agree 100%. A notary would be fine with me. If Russ does that, I can guarantee that LGBT organizations would drop their objections. This really is about equality.
Ben: Notarize a civil union- fine. Get the states and the government out of the marriage licensing business, no problem. But don’t call it marriage. Don’t change the definition of marriage from one man- one woman and Christians in general will have no problem with it.
It’s not about equality. As we saw in California, calling same sex unions marriage allows gays to use the brute force of the government to silence anyone who doesn’t agree with them under threat of fines, imprisonment, and loss of income.
Just a question, since civil unions can give total equality in inheritance, taxes, health care, and benefits, why are the gays so fixated on same sex unions being called marriage?
Yes, HQ
The fundamental purpose of marriage is what is at issue here. I see intellectually incongruous arguments addressing “discrimination” and that only certain classes of people would be afforded rights to “marry”, etc…What is conveniently glossed over is our natural and inalienable right to discern both as individuals and society. And as a society, we have government affirm our society’s collective moral, ethical, and practical discernment in a myriad of areas. e.g. Who can become a licensed teacher ? To whom we issue a credit card? At what age a person can buy alcohol, or at what time of the day for that matter? Should felons/non-citizens be able to vote? Should adultery be legal grounds for divorce or annulment, when should children be able to drive, who pays at what tax bracket, what is the appropriate age of military service? Why is it we don’t allow 300 pound men to be flight attendants? Why do we assess stiff penalties for littering, or not using a specific type of light bulb? We also, as adults and parents, discern with whom our children play, where they go to school, what time they come home…etc…
As a society, we “discriminate” all the time…for many issues, and for good reason.
The strict legal and administrative interpretation is without a collectively recognized moral, ethical, or value based lens…in the increasing secular, morally ambiguous looking glass, the foundational and societal fibers that interconnect the American community (one universally understood based on Judeo-Christian precepts) through first family, then neighborhood, then community, and outlook are essential for societal health, well-being, clarity, and establishment of culture and mores. That building block starts with a family that ideally, anthropologically, culturally, and historically has been based on OM/OW not related to one another at ground-zero. That is precisely why fervant aspects of the LGBT community appear so passionate about removing any vestiges of Judeo-Christian constructs and principles because marriage as defined biblically between OM/OW is the moral roadblock to advance their secular, morally-relative, and humanist agenda. Therefore, anything related to the cultural aspects of America’s Judeo-Christian culture must be eliminated or at least marginalized where it has no basis or leverage in the public arena. Where Nazism, Satanism, Wiccanism, witchcraft, sodomy seminars, LGBT pride, “Spaghetti Monster Day” and divestment of all financial ties with Israel is permitted on virtually all American college campuses in some form or another, Judeo-Christian concepts, precepts, and principles are accosted as being “intolerant” “bigoted” and “archaic,” and therefore must be minimalized, shunned, even banned.
While I do not prescribe to this agenda in the least, I do recognize it is a challenge to the jurisprudential foundation of our form of government. Yet, there is no societal, cultural, historical precedence for SSM as institutionalize (the Greco-Roman cultural is often cited as the “historical” evidence…yet it was never the norm nor institutionalized in Greek or Roman Law)…it is not remotely anything like a “civil” right, because, unlike skin color, creed, ethnic traits, it is a life style choice…no different than adultery, or polygamy, incestual marriage, or child marriages (of course, unless you’re the child, but that is another issue)…these constructs constitute a greater percentage of the other-than-American marital relationships and institutions far more than SSM historically and worldwide…yet, no one in the SSM “equality” meme is advocating incestual relations, nor polygamy.
Why is that? Or is that what is the natural, legal, evolutionary step in the marriage “equality” narrative?
HQ,
“The concern is for people who want to be married but don’t desire the blessing or permission of a recognized religious institution. If you were one of those people, how would the State be able to recognize your marriage?”
What sort of godless heathen would dare do this?
Just kidding. The broad answer is that they can do whatever they choose, just like now, but the difference is the government isn’t there to permit it or not permit it.
Hire someone or get a lawyer to do a ceremony when you sign trust and POA docs together or just agree between each other. The power will no longer be vested in someone by the state. People will re-gain a little bit of power over their own life and decisions.
Specifically, I would imagine it would be similar to what happens when changing ownership of a house. You go into the county recorder’s office, make a record of the marriage or union (there is no way to control what others choose to call their relationship), and pull the record if there is a need for proof.
“Why does that matter?
Here’s one real world issue: Under the current system, if you were to pass away, your wife would inherit all of your possessions tax free. Would that be the same under the system being proposed?”
Some of the ease or convenience of marriage might go away, but I am not positive of that. Giving people special benefits by the government for conforming to a particular religion is going to have to change. Either the state would honor the recorded marriage or they would require some kind of trust to be set up in order for assets to transfer between heirs with some sort of special tax status. Some government procedures that have been set up based on other government procedures that are changing would need to be altered.
Side note: I am in favor of assets passing tax free to all heirs, no matter what their relationship is to the deceased.
It is hard not to feel like our side’s proposal is a just a pipe-dream though. Not because it cannot be done procedurally or legally, but because too many on the left and on the right cannot shake the idea that government will solve problems. I know it is cliché to say this, but the problems surrounding marriage or civil unisons or whatever are manmade.
It is not like we are trying to use government to stop a volcano from blowing or a title wave from hitting. We got government involved in marriage with the intention of making things easier and better for people. It is not working for all people and it is proving to exclude many.
Rather than shifting the government policy so that it favors a different set of people and risk marginalizing good people like Dan, get government out of the way so that no preference exists. Record it rather than permit it.
HQ,
Sorry I wasn’t clear. I believe marriage is a “right”. Therefore Individual “A” can freely enter a contract with Individual “C” without the permission of Individual “B”.
In my explanation I intended “B” to be your neighbor working in some government capacity.
“The fundamental purpose of marriage is what is at issue here.”
No, FF, actually it’s not.
This is how you would like to frame it so it best serves your goals, but it’s not “what is the issue here”. In fact, it’s not being addressed at all.
Maybe it would be more accurate if you wrote: “I’d like my opinion to be what everyone else bases their opinion on now.”
I don’t know if it will help your argument, but it’s at least an accurate statement.
1. Is homosexuality a sin?
2. If homosexuality is a sin, should citizens be forced to approve of it?
3. If homosexuality is a sin, what are the consequences for that sin to the practioner of the sin and to those who are being forced to accept it?
4. Should parents be forced to have their children taught to accept homosexuality if it is a sin?
5. Is there ever an instance where a homosexual couple can reproduce offspring through sexual intercourse among the two homosexuals?
6. Has any reputable scientific institution ever documented through peer reviewed scientific research a genetic trait for homosexuality?
7. Has there ever been a scientifiically researched instance of a child being born homosexual?
8. Can an adult who exclusively participated in homosexuality for an extensive period of time discontinue the practice of homosexuality?
9. Have any taxpayer rights groups ever asked for an accounting of the $100 billion in federal funds that have been dispersed to homosexual groups since 1984 for the treatment and prevention of AIDS and the education of homosexuals for “safe sex” in light of current CDC reports which state that 90% of all new HIV transmissions are occurring among homosexual men engaged in IV drug use and anal intercourse. CDC reports state that over 80% of new AIDS cases, approximately 40,000 cases in the recent reporting year, occur among homosexual men under age 26.
10. Have any taxpayer rights groups investigated the massive new financial, multi-billion dollar, tax-subsidized fraud currently underway in which homosexual groups such as the San Diego Gay and Lesbian Center are engaged in promoting for the pharmaceutical industry the prescribing of extremely expensive HIV drugs to all homosexual men who are HIV negative? This scandalous taxpayer subsidized fraud with the approval of the Obama administration permits doctors to prescribe HIV drugs such as Truvada which costs $600 per month, and other HIV drugs soon to be added to the list, to all homosexual men who are not HIV positive. This scam will cost taxpayers billions and billions of dollars as hundreds of thousands of young men who are engaged in risky homosexual anal intercourse and IV drug use are duped into believing that they will be protected from getting AIDS while they continue engaging in such risky behavior. The pharmaceutical industry knowing that taxpayers will be forced to pay for these drugs, are selling the idea that the expensive HIV drugs can be put into the same category as the birth control pill, condoms, and abortions. The CDC and the FDA in cohoootz with the Obama administration have created the myth that these drugs will prevent HIV transmission which is a complete lie in order to create millions of new customers for these HIV drugs which, in turn, creates the need for expansion of Obamacare and doctors who must see these homosexual risk takers who have been deemed as permanently refusing to stop engaging in high risk behavior, and that these men will also need expensive blood tests and other doctor appointment to monitor the physical side effects of the HIV drugs, side effects which can include liver disease, kidney failure and Cancer – medications taken by men who were not even HIV positive under the scam called pRep. These are also the respective parties who have been at the forefront for forcing the legalization of gay marriage on the rest of society and are pushing to allow homosexuals to resume donating their blood to the general public blood supply – blood mixed with toxic medications and still undetected new, mutated deadly diseases, ready, set and go for all those libertarian homosexual plants now growing wildly among the flowers of the San Diego GOP garden.
MS,
Please remind me…what are my goals again?
MS,
BTW..while you are reminding of my goals, perhaps you can clarify you definition of marriage…I recall asking that question on more than one occasion, yet I don’t recall you ever articulating a precise definition. Mine is pretty clear…what is yours again?
Eric,
Thanks for the explanation. I wish it didn’t take so long to figure it out, but I am glad that we agree that marriage is a right.
Dan,
Have you ever heard the term “separate but equal?” Do you remember what the Supreme Court said about it?
Brian, Michael, et al,
If THE ONLY THING we are talking about is removing the requirement for a state-sponsored license, then I don’t know anyone who would have a problem with what Representative Todd Russ is proposing. However, I don’t think that is what is being proposed. I am sure that Dan, FF and even the Representative Russ want to do more than that. I am sure what they really want is not to allow same sex couples to use the term “married.” In fact, they might not want anyone not married in a church to be able to say that they are married. Sorry, but giving a same-sex relationship second-class status compared to a heterosexual relationship will never be acceptable nor will it be Constitutional.
Michael,
If all we are talking about is taking the government out of the licensing part, then nothing else about marriage would have to change. If two people could simply say they were married, then they would still have all the rights and all the responsibilities that come with that definition today. However, based on the conversation on this blog, I don’t believe that is what we are talking about.
HQ-
“If so, I am glad the vast majority who opposed allowing Blacks to play baseball didn’t have that attitude when the Dodgers signed Jackie Robinson.”
This is just like the Ferguson meme (“hands up, don’t shoot”, which was determined by the DOJ as never having happened)…repeating the disinformation loud enough and long enough, and enough gullible people will believe it…
News flash-being black is not a choice or life style. Opposition to homosexual marriage (not relationships or unions) is ultimately about societal discernment; not discrimination. Would you choose to allow known adulterers into your wife’s married couples’ bridge club? How about 20 year old fraternity boys have a sleep over with your daughter’s HS volleyball team? There, we see both age and gender discrimination by your logic. The sole purpose for not allowing one to do something based on skin color is truly bigoted, and must be addressed and enforced if necessary…where no other factor is considered and for which they have no ability to change it or control it.
Yet we discern on one’s life style choices all the time, and the government recognizes it and in some cases enforces it…we don’t issue credit cards to the financially irresponsible? We don’t allow felons to be teachers? Why do we run “background” checks…because of peoples former behaviors…We don’t let 19 year old Marines, after defending their nation in a firefight that day, come back to base and have a beer that night…because we “discriminate” by age…we don’t let paraplegics become police officers. Our k-6 schools are populated with easily 85-90% women teachers. No one questions the validity, reason, or obvious understanding that they are certainly more primed, suited, and have dispositions more aligned with that vocation, just as we see the vast majority of sanitation workers are men. Are men unfairly discriminated against as k-6 teachers, or are women unfairly kept from coveted sanitation jobs? If it were about equality, then where is the union knocking over the gender gap for garbage men, lumberjacks, or dockworkers?
American society for nearly 300 years has also discerned that the best arrangement for raising children, the most important and precious of the social constructs, is when that construct consists of one man, husband, and one woman, wife. While there are certainly exceptions and unforeseen circumstances that lead to that (including the breakdown of the marriage covenant, especially in the AA community), universally recognized studies indicate that is overwhelmingly the case. That is probably why America understood this as paramount for familial and societal development in the first place; just as we see most K-3 teachers are women, and most sanitation workers, lumberjacks, soldiers, and police officers are men.
The left’s narrative trying to link the homosexual lifestyle with “skin color” or some other irrevocable trait has proven intellectual folly for these proponents and actually offended many African Americans in the process.
James,
Not honoring my mother and father is a sin but not one I would want the government enforcing.
I think we may have different ideas about the just role of government. I am going to go with Jefferson here and take the position that the role of government is to defend natural rights and to protect you and your property from being encroached upon. Throw contracts in as well and fraud.
Though I am a Christian I don’t believe the American experiment was about theocracy. Perhaps you could provide some natural law or constitutional or biblical basis for your views.
And Jesus began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. And He was stating the matter plainly. And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. But turning around and seeing His disciples, He rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind Me, Satan; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.” (Mark 8:31-33”
And Jesus summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? For what will a man give in exchange for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.” (Mark 8:34-38)
Hypocrisy: You didn’t answer a question I asked, why are gays so fixated on marriage? I’d like to know. If not for reasons of using the jackboot of the government on Christians, why aren’t civil unions good enough? As Michael and many others assert, get the states and feds out of the marriage business. I would add, and without changing the definition of marriage.
On the issue of persecution, two wrongs don’t make a right. Do you think they do?
Gays should not be persecuted for their sexual choice. Conversely, gays should not sue and persecute Christians for their religious choice of not recognizing same sex unions.
Should Barronelle Stutzman be forced to do a floral arrangement for a same sex ceremony she doesn’t agree with on religious principles? Despite a many years of serving them faithfully, the gays she had a business relationship with for many years are trying to sue her out of business because of a floral arrangement.
Where is the toleration and acceptance of Barronelle?
Yes the U.S. is a Constitutional Republic. You want to know if the U.S. is a Christian country? All the early settlers were Christian, a very large majority of the Founding Fathers were Christian, and the Constitution was written with Judeo- Christian principles as its guiding light. Beginning with the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/09/the_judeochristian_values_of_a.html illustrates the many ways the U.S. Constitution is based on Judeo-Christian principles.
F.F,
“Our k-6 schools are populated with easily 85-90% women teachers. No one questions the validity, reason, or obvious understanding that they are certainly more primed, suited, and have dispositions more aligned with that vocation, just as we see the vast majority of sanitation workers are men.”
Yet, we do still allow women to be sanitation workers and men to be elementary school teachers.
“That building block starts with a family that ideally, anthropologically, culturally, and historically has been based on OM/OW not related to one another at ground-zero.”
Actually you need to add “of the same race, selected by the parents.”
“The sole purpose for not allowing one to do something based on skin color is truly bigoted,…”
So should we limit families to the “anthropologically, culturally, and historically based ideal family” or is that supposed ideal bigoted?
James – are we having the same conversation? Could you help me with the practical application? I am completely lost.
Dan,
I don’t speak for the gay community (if there is such a thing), but I would guess that they are “fixated” on marriage for the same reason heterosexuals are. It is the way we make a lifetime commitment to the person we love and the way we advertise that commitment to the world. Why do you think Blacks wanted to drink from the “Whites only” water fountain?
As for persecution, I wouldn’t equate murder with suing a business for alleged discrimination but I understand your point and I am personally torn by the issue. I do believe that everyone should have the right to associate or not associate with whomever he/she sees fit, but our laws treat personal associations differently than business ones. If I wanted to, I could choose not to allow Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Muslims, Gays or anyone else from entering my home. I could not legally do the same for my restaurant. Remember, the religious freedom argument was used to avoid doing business with mixed race couples too.
Finally, regardless the religion of Founding Fathers, if you think this is a Christian country, you really do not understand the Constitution or what makes the United States a truly unique and remarkable country.
HQ-
“Yet, we do still allow women to be sanitation workers and men to be elementary school teachers.”
Yes, but we aren’t forced or coerced to accept one or the other. If a parent would rather have a woman teacher for their child, they aren’t being taken to court to accept one or the other. They aren’t being chastised or threatened legally for being “sexist,” If a parent of a boy wanted a male teacher for a PE coach, no one would think twice about it. Yet, one would be immediately chastised, and in the new Bolshivik-like PC environment, perhaps sued, for not accepting a homosexual scout leader.
The “Gaystapo” perception on all issues LGBT is becoming increasingly pervasive and the “equal” meme doen’t pass the smell test. Shall I assume you as an equal marriage proponent also accepts polygamy, incestual, and arranged child marriages (which are much more ubiquitous worldwide than homosexual marriage)? If not, how can that be in synch with the “equal” marriage narrative? Or are we to acknowlege some “other than OM/OW marriage” constructs are more equal than others?
HQ, you’re right. That’s not exactly what we’re talking about here. Nor is that what the article is about. I’m trying to make it into what we’re talking about though.
I believe (correct me if I am wrong, Brian) that Brian’s point is that the Rs and the Ds are both wrong on this one. Both have the same basic position: use government to force their definition of marriage on everyone.
If the Dems/left/pro-same sex marriage side were really interested in equality they’d be happy with what happened in this article. But their extremist wing wants government involved and wants to force acceptance.
To touch on what Dan asked, I believe it is a Miracle on 34th Street plan. The post office said Santa was real, so he was real. If the government says you’re legit, then you’re legit. I get that. I don’t agree with their strategy, but I understand why. After decades of being treated horribly, I understand why they want what they want.
Like you pointed out, did blacks need the water from the whites only fountain? No. But they were tired of being treated like they weren’t good enough to use it.
FF,
Bad examples – we don’t get to pick our sanitation workers. If she happens to be female, the government did force that on us. Likewise, many schools only have one gym teacher, so once again we are forced to accept the teacher’s gender.
As for your other ridiculous point which you keep repeating incessantly, the equality part concerns allowing the marriage of TWO consenting ADULTS who, as you pointed out, are NOT RELATED TO ONE ANOTHER. That is what is allowed for heterosexuals so that is what the Equal Protection Clause of the Constituion requires to be allowed for homosexuals.
Michael,
If it is not called “marriage,” then it is not equal. Period.
If Representative Russ wants to remove the licensing requirement from marriage, I don’t know anyone that would have a problem with that. However, if he is trying to find another way to deny same sex couples the right to marry, then I and many others will have a big problem with his proposal.
As for the Jim Crow days, yes Blacks did need the water from the “Whites only” fountain because the Constitution required that they be allowed to drink from it. In response to those who didn’t like that fact and don’t like the fact that same sex marriage is legal, I will repeat what you have said so often. There is a method to change the Constitution.
I remember a conversation with a gay activist several years ago. He was absolutely dumb founded why I as a Republican may be open to supporting gay marriage. I told him, “I have many lawyer friends waiting to open up law firms to handle all the gay divorce cases coming their way.”
He impulsively said, “well that’s not going to happen.”
I replied, “Oh what so 50% of marriages end in divorce and you think that gay people are immune from relationships gone bad. Come on get real, Republicans only want to deny you marriage rights for religious reasons. Democrats and their trial attorney allies see you as a cash cow ready to be milked, leaving many of you broke and destitute. Be careful what you wish for.”
HQ- Not “bad” examples, but certainly inconvenient. If it seems “incessant” its because it conveniently hasn’t been answered..let’s try it this way…
“That is what is allowed for heterosexuals so that is what the Equal Protection Clause of the Constituion requires to be allowed for homosexuals.”
So, that would apply for polygamy and child marriages (or setting the bar for lowering the age of consent) as well, would it not? Are we to assume then that these constructs are also permissible in your worldview and that you would openly support polygamous and sanctioned child marrigaes as advocated by NAMBLA?
If you are for “equal” protection, then you must be for all possible permutations outside of the original definition of marriage as OM/OW..I can see how that would be inconvenient to defend.
Chris,
Since 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, are you suggesting that heterosexual marriage is a bad thing, something to be careful “what is wished for?”
Look at the bright side. Fifty percent of marriages last.
..and 100% of them are actually designed to bear and rear children…what a coincidence…
I don’t think I clearly explained myself in my last comment, HQ.
“If it is not called “marriage,” then it is not equal. Period.”
I am in favor of people referring to and labeling their relationships however they like. If they feel they are in a marriage, then they’ll call it marriage. There is nothing anyone can ultimately do about that. Nor do I particularly want to. I am not in favor of government deciding what is or is not a marriage.
So it is the opportunity to be seen as equal under the law and the equal opportunity to live their life the way they choose that I am concerned with. And the best way I can see to do this is to record rather than permit marriage. It doesn’t sounds like Oklahoma is set up to even record it. Which I disagree with.
I am also in favor of letting churches determine their definition of “married” or “marriage”. For example, if a married same sex couple attends a church that does not recognize their marriage; I believe it would be hateful, un-American, and horrible to force that church legally to accept them as married in any way.
“If Representative Russ wants to remove the licensing requirement from marriage, I don’t know anyone that would have a problem with that. However, if he is trying to find another way to deny same sex couples the right to marry, then I and many others will have a big problem with his proposal.”
I mostly agree with you, but I do know people who have a problem with getting rid of the licensing requirement. Some pro-traditional marriage folks want to keep it here to stop same sex marriages and some pro-same sex marriage folks want it there to force acceptance onto people who disagree with it. Both are the wrong use of government.
“As for the Jim Crow days, yes Blacks did need the water from the “Whites only” fountain because the Constitution required that they be allowed to drink from it. In response to those who didn’t like that fact and don’t like the fact that same sex marriage is legal, I will repeat what you have said so often. There is a method to change the Constitution.”
All I meant here is that there were other sources of water. It wasn’t a live or die situation. Just like there are other ways for couples (LGBT or straight) to protect assets and jointly share their life. Blacks and LGBT were not accepted by society so a fast track to acceptance was protection under the law to drink from the same fountain and the legal protection to get married.
And so far, my marriage is at 100%. I am the 50%!
These passionate arguments about how the government should define marriage reinforce my belief that the government shouldn’t be defining marriage.
We can disagree on the definition of marriage and the world won’t fall apart.
“For example, if a married same sex couple attends a church that does not recognize their marriage; I believe it would be hateful, un-American, and horrible to force that church legally to accept them as married in any way.”
Would those who have the above position (ostensibly a secular Libertarian view, and not to be confused with the virtually indistinguishable leftist progressive view) consider it equally as “hateful and un-American” if that same church were to deny a polygamous marriage? If NAMBLA were to have its way, lowers the age of consent, and advocates for a 40 something year old man and a 14 year old boy to get married (and no, it’s not “ridiculous” if you were to follow many other non-western cultures who sanction child marriages and relationships, both hetro and homosexual)… it wouldn’t even have to be a “hateful and un-American” church…it could be a perfectly secular, humanist and bureaucratic “licensing” center with no predetermined “hate and lack of patriotism” attached…as religiously sterile, ethically clinical and void of any judgment or perceived prejudice…as any good as red-blooded Libertarian secularist (or progressive liberal) could ask for…
Alas, this is the harsh and perhaps unintended consequences when something so universally recognized as marriage specifically defined as OM/OW is “redefined.” It’s as if we redefined the cardinal headings on the compass, not considering second and third order effects of such a “redefinition.” The “equal” proponents never, ever, want to wander into the dissolute swamp-like permutations of all the other constructs that manifest now that the “equal” redefinition has been uncorked.
That is precisely why the SSM “equal” crowd always avoid sharing their definition of marriage…for if they do, then it completely destroys their “equality” creds, and they know that now the SSM genie is out of the bottle, and the legal, administrative, “constitutional” arguments all made for SSM must apply to all forms of “marriage,” be them polygamy, incestual marriages, or sanctioned child marriages. (oh, and if anyone thinks those definitions are not being pursued, with as much vigor as the nascent stages of SSM were, then you are truly ignorant to what you signed up for.)
Its ok…I wouldn’t want to answer for that either…but I’m sure it makes one feel good about themselves as they ignorantly support something for which they have no idea what it will sow….or more disturbing; they know precisely what it will sow.
Good point Frank. NAMBLA.
Looks like you won this debate. With your point about….NAMBLA.
After closer consideration and based on Frank’s NAMBLA expertise, I promise to reconsider my stance on the Constitution and how government should interact with marriage.
Thank you, Frank, for your keen insight on NAMBLA. You have proven to be an intellectual and a scholar by pulling out the NAMBLA card.
Another way to look at what I said is “why is the institution of the state matter so much to seek recognition such that a group would put 1/2 of themselves into great debt to newly minted divorce lawers, paralegals and at the mercy of a judge representing said “state”? Seriously LGBT guys why would you want to seek recognition by a bunch of politicians who are in lower regard than used car salesmen. I like to seek recognition by my respective faith. Faith is universal. Find people that shares yours.
…and yet, you still haven’t answered the basic question, Michael…I’m afraid you can’t.
But let’s not play the “NAMBLA card” (although NAMBLA is playing the NAMLBA card, whether you like it or not..) I’ll see your snide card, Michael, and raise you a pragamtic one..how about polygamy or incest marriages…Let me guess- your down with that, no doubt “Who am I to judge…as long as they love each other, and aren’t hurting others…freedom…equality” … So, is that first cousins only…or are you down with mothers and sons…fathers and daughters? Perhaps polygamous incestual marriages..a family affair of sorts. As ludicrous as that may sound and as desperately you try to make it snide and personal, in the end, that is what you support…marriage “equality.”
40 years ago, I’m sure there were those that said “Same Sex Marriage, Frank…sure…good point…right..” snicker, snicker…
Keep swinging… 🙂
FF,
Re-read the Michael Schwartz comment that you quoted in the first paragraph of your previous post. He was agreeing with you that churches shouldn’t have to accept same sex couples.
As for your contention that 100% of marriages are “actutyally designed to bear and rear children,” add it to your list of obviously false statements. Or are you proposing that couples who are either not fertile, not wanting of children or beyond their child bearing years also not be allowed to marry?
As for your polygamy, et al rant, I will say it only one more time: the marriage of TWO ADULTS NOT RELATED TO ONE ANOTHER ( not polygamy, not incest, not arranged child marriages, although the latter used to be traditional) is what is given as a right for heterosexuals. If you believe in the Constitution, then that right needs to be given to homosexuals as well.
Chris,
Approximately 50% of all businesses fail in their first year and many of these failures are profitable for the legal profession. Should we ban homosexuals from starting a business in order to spare them the expense, debt and heartbreak of a failed business?
I make it personal because it’s personal. It’s marriage. It doesn’t get more personal. I’m snide because you’ve earned it.
There are legitimate concerns and good arguments across the spectrum when it comes to the issue of marriage and government. Issues that are real and deserve a discussion by people with a sincere interest in getting it right.
And then there’s you and NAMBLA.
MS/HQ,
You are now determining that either polygamy and incest marriages are not valid…so much for your “equality” meme…so, an Islamic family or a Mormon family (or three gay men) are denied the right to “marry whomever they want” because your “equality narrative” only extends where YOU think it should go. The law prohibits “first cousins” getting married…is that “just” or exuding your “equality rant” because we are denying couples (or triples) to love who they choose?
As far as the “100%” issue…I didn’t say they would, or in cases of infertility, they could…they are designed to and then nurture those offspring in an environment that displays the wonderful contrasts and complimentary aspects of having a father and mother as life models. If you don’t think that has any merit, then you haven’t been to any major urban communities where the lack of a stable and healthy family unit with dad’s especially, and mom’s, in the picture is catastrophic.
Don’t hate me because I’m right…Argue better…because you have both been exposed as weak and frail in your argument to accept SSM while denying polygamy and incest (which are far more ubiquitous in the world than SSM)…Now that you have both supported the redefinition of marriage, who are either of you to invoke YOUR definition where polygamy or incest marriage are denied? you cannot have both..
Perhaps “Hypocrisy Qualified” is a better Nom De Plume…And Michael…no, you earned it..and it clouds your ability to rationally present otherwise salient arguments…haters gonna hate indeed.Like a set of keys out a 3rd story window, your rationale for why you supported the redefinition of marriage plummets to the ground.
But, still have a blessed day! 🙂
FF,
For a very long time, the “traditional” definition of marriage also include “of the same race.” Do you have a problem with the fact that marriage was “redefined” barely 50 years ago to allow interracial couples to marry?
Hypocricy
Funny you mention small business. I own a small business. Over regulation and unnecessary taxes levied by the state prevent me from making capital investments and giving raises to my guys. The current “state” is a liability to small business in that it impedes productivity by small business. I would think that many homosexual small business owners would be more concerned with their bottom line, then anything else. If they are not, then yes they should fail as businessmen.
“…they are designed to and then nurture those offspring in an environment that displays the wonderful contrasts and complimentary aspects of having a father and mother as life models.”
This isn’t a reason government started permitting marriage therefore it isn’t a reason to continue. The permitting of marriage also hasn’t stopped people from having children outside of wedlock or raising children in many other different scenarios than you prefer. Therefore, again, it is not a reason for government to continue to permit marriage.
It also hasn’t stopped pedophilia (which is illegal so the marriage of a 40 year old and 14 year old won’t work, same sex or not), incest, or polygamy so every argument you make against discontinuing government permitting of marriage applied equally to the government permitting of marriage, Frank.
See how that works?
Chris,
I agree that the state has many unneccessary regulations that hinder small business. Where we disagree is on priorites. To paraphrase your comment, a person, gay or straight, who is more concerned with their bottom line than they are with their family, will likely have a failed marriage.
Hypocricy
In this bad economy which I’m sure is affecting you personally. A strong bottom line of a small business effects every employee’s paycheck from the top down. A good portion of marital strife comes from arguments about being unable to pay off debt. Yet the state legislature continues to levy burdensome regulations and taxes that further impede couples’ ability to pay off debt. I don’t need statistics to show that will lead to more “irreconcilable differences.” I don’t see how any self interested divorce attorney could vote Republican towards Sacramento. Especially considering that the “state” granted gay marriage then created economic conditions that made it harder for gay couples to prosper in marriage.
Gays are completely responsible for hurting the “institution of marriage” when they back an economic platform that results in more divorces including their own.
In re-reading the discussions, many of them heated and passionate, the one thing that jumps out at me is the tremendous divisiveness of gays and their agenda.
In my opinion, this issue has caused more good Republicans with family values to leave the Republican Party in San Diego and become DTS than any other issue. The number is 80,000 at last count.
Are the gays worth it from a political point of view? In my opinion, it is a strong NO! Gays are only 4% of the population so their numbers are don’t count. Besides that, gays are natural leftists and Democrats. They refused to vote for Carl De Maio, an outwardly gay Republican, and they didn’t vote for Kevin Faulconer. What does that tell you?
Their strategy of forcing every one to accept them or shut up for fear of punishment and their brainwashing of the youth through the schools disgusts many people who might otherwise be sympathetic to them.
Republicans with family values, most of them Christian Conservative, are natural conservatives and natural Republicans. They have always been the backbone of the Republican Party in San Diego. This strong embrace of the gays is toxic for the Republican Party in San Diego. Drinking the purple kool-aid of the gays means nothing but bad things for San Diego Republicans.
Be nice to the gays and treat them like every other person out there. But don’t cater to them and don’t buy into their leftist extremist agenda. You want to court someone? Court the Latinos and Blacks who are culturally conservative, and family-oriented. They should be our natural constituents. Kevin realized this, reached out to them, and it paid off for him in the Mayoral election.
Show me any (reasonable) person — straight or gay — who gets married thinking they will be paying a divorce attorney, then we’ll talk.
Dan,
Kevin Faulconer is pro-choice and in favor of same-sex marriage. Yet, at least so far, he has been a very good mayor. Imagine that.
Barry
Why does the “Prenup” exist?
Lets talk.
A prenup exists so people don’t have to pay divorce attorneys.
Come on, Chris, I’m messing with you. But, my point is the same. No individual or group advocates for a right to do anything based in the belief that the right, if achieved, isn’t going to work out for them. It’s like telling teenagers they shouldn’t want to learn to drive because drivers have car and insurance payments, as well as high gas prices.
Barry
LOL I know, and I have made that point before.There are always unintended consequences that have to be factored in with risk. The wealthy gay elite should have considered the downside to any potential positive. Now new wealthy gay married couples join the rest of straight couples as being fiscally oppressed and subject to higher divorce rates as a result of “irreconcilable differences” stemming from debt aggravated by taxes and regulation levied by the same leftist politicians who advocated marriage. They are in the same boat as we are. At least those of us who are worried about the bottom line.
Chris,
Even more to the point – if the institution is good for heterosexual couples, then it is good for homosexual couples as well. As for your insinuation that gays are somewhat less fit for marriage because they vote predominantly Democrat, every demographic (except white males) votes predominantly Democratic, even women. How does that fact fit in with your argument?
No one, less those on the rhetorical ropes, see linking race with behavior choices other than a canard of the left. It is highly offensive to those that fought for civil rights based on the prejudice of one single physical attribute for which that individual has no control and for which one was denied one’s civil rights-skin color and/or racial features.
As mentioned numerous times, and thankfully, more recognized as people sift through the emotion and political correctness, sexual proclivities (and that is all they are…appetites with no more scientific basis for pre-disposition than one choosing adultery or disliking the color orange) such as homosexuality, polygamy and incest are in fact behavioral choices. While many believe all are a deviance to normal sexual relations (as recorded by the American Psychiatric Association until as recently as a couple decades ago before they were pressured to remove it by staunch gay lobbyists and advocates) , apparently there are those that now argue some forms of marital alternatives outside of OM/OW are more equal than others.
So, the argument is: SSM/homosexual lifestyles good- polygamy bad…so those billion or so Muslims that practice polygamy and child arranged marriages and that are recognized by societies, nations with which we, the US, conduct diplomacy and commerce with don’t have a case as strong as the comparatively infinitesimal percentages of homosexuals worldwide.
Yeah…that simply doesn’t pass the smell test. Just because the Hollywood Screen Writers Guild has a large number of homosexuals or their proponents comparatively doesn’t equate to that same percentage nation-wide or worldwide.
The other canard is all the discussions some try to posit about pedophilia/sanctioned child marriages or polygamy being at present “illegal.” They are no more “illegal” (certainly shunned at a minimum in western society) now than open homosexuality was 40 years ago. As preposterous as advancing polygamy and child marriages may sound to some now, it is no more so than the idea advanced for homosexual marriage or recognized SS legal arrangements was 20 plus years ago. (How preposterous was it just 10 years ago that sodomy would be taught in a 6-7-8th grade “health” class…but, with the advent of the homosexual lifestyle into mainstream acceptance, we now have sodomy openly taught to our children)
Many advocates have touted this as “evolving.” One can only assume that this evolution would continue now that we have allowed for the redefinition of marriage and society being shaped to acknowledge, accept, and in increasing cases, forced to adhere and comply to these other constructs. (as described aptly above in the form of financial and legal punitive damages)
The greatest challenge those that argue for open acknowledgement of other than OM/OW marital or legally recognized arrangements is simple- Once the universal understanding and longtime acknowledgement (whether by government or society writ large) of marriage was re-crafted, it now opened endless permutations of what “marriage” could be (and if the polygamy, and yes, NAMBLA, crowd is smart, they will simply craft their advocacy as the SSM crowd did)…vice the longstanding understanding in Western Society of what marriage is… Whether it is recognized by the government or not is rather immaterial. If it is recognized and advanced by pockets of society writ large (as small and unrepresentative as they may be), then they will argue a right to defend their “way of life” regardless how preposterous it may have appeared now, or 30 years ago.
Hate the message, but not the messenger. This is happening whether you like it or not. The difference with many here is there are those that prefer these “(d)evolutions”, and those that do not. I prefer not to have sodomy taught to my pre-teen children, or one’s young daughter scared and confused because Johnny now considers “herself” Joanie and is using the girls bathroom today……and for many of you, that makes those who are concerned by this societal dismantling as “haters.” …but where it started is quite evident…with the redefinition of marriage as promoted and fervently advanced by the homosexual agenda…
That is irrefutable. Perhaps now you see how that works.
HQ,
When I get married I want my preachers powers vested in him by God not the state of California. The state of California sucks. There are plenty of preachers of various faiths would perform gay marriage under the name of God. And you are absolutely right. The democrats spend more time marketing a flawed fiscal policy to individual demographics rather then spend their time improving the states economic health to the benefit of all citizens regardless of demographic.
FF,
I was not trying to compare the civil rights struggles of different groups who have been persecuted through the years. I was simply pointing out, since you are so obsessed with “traditional” marriage, that the tradition was also limited to people of the same race. Culturally, societally and legally, interracial marriage was abhorred and many reacted as strongly to its change as you are reacting now.
I honestly don’t know what to do with this.
Two men can’t call themselves “married” even though they share their life and property because Frank is worried about the mainstreaming of NAMBLA (which you have a unusual amount of knowledge on)?
And we have to issue marriage licenses like we’ve done for less than 100 years or society will crumble and those licenses have to be for the type of marriage that society has been built on for thousands of years (how’d they do that without a license though)?
Nobody is “linking” race with behavior, but we are comparing (I can’t believe I have to explain this to anyone who completed 8th grade) similarities in two different legal scenarios which is done with regularity by scholars, judges, the elected, etc.
But you’re just throwing in everything. Sex ed in schools. Pedophilia. The screen actors guild. (Huh?)
If you had a real concern then you’d discuss that concern. But you don’t, Frank. You’re just have grasping at everything that supports your core dislike of a group of people. It’s impossible to discuss anything this way. So when you write your emotional diatribes and then ask some ridiculous question, rather than getting mad at Thor’s Assistant, you’ll understand why people role their eyes rather than respond.
Hypocrisy
How the heck are we to tell what you are saying when you are constantly clarifying, expanding and adjusting your position. Be clear and concise the first time.
Chris,
I believe each of my comments have been very clear. However, an apparent lack of comprehension by those responding makes it necessary to sometimes re-state a position.
As for being married by someone whose powers were given by God and not the state, I am glad that worked out for you. On the other hand, I was married in a civil ceremony and 23 years later, I love my wife more than I did the day I married her and we have three (nearly) perfect children. People should have the option of being married without the blessing of any religion.
Michael,
Your distain clutters the real issues…bless your heart, you’re still stinging having been proven wrong on DeMaio…and your status with the SDGOP is wavering…I’m sorry you are so mad…truly, and that stings like salt in the wound I’m sure…but you need to wipe the tears and move past that and focus…
Let me break it down since you claim you at least made it to the 8th grade;
I DON’T CARE THAT TWO MEN, OR WOMEN, THREE MEN, TWO DWARVES AND A UNCLE BY MARRIAGE ALL WANT TO SHARE THEIR LIVES WITH ONE ANOTHER…I DON’T CARE IF THEY LIVE TOGETHER, HOLD HANDS, OR CHOOSE TO PERFORM ALL THE SODOMY THEY CAN ENDURE…AND I DON’T CARE IF THEY OWN PROPERTY, RECEIVE TAX BREAKS, OR EVEN ADOPT CHILDREN AND THIS IS ALL CAPTURED IN A LEGAL CONTRACT….
..but they aren’t married, and they don’t get to shove their alternatives to marriage on me, my family, or my community…no more than those who prefer to drink heavily, smoke, or gamble can dictate where my kids will be exposed to any of those behaviors or sanctioned policies or laws that now promote, promulgate and force others to accept it and endure it. If none of this mattered, married vs. not recognized, then why in the world would the homosexual community be so fervent and so apoplectic about something that doesn’t matter? Why are you, for that matter? Because they should be able to “marry” whomever they want? Then why deny that to polygamists or proponents of incest?
As a secular libertarian with admittedly no children (and therefore admittedly do not fully understand concerns a parent has regarding their children) your trying to minimalize or trivialize sodomy being taught in J.HS that doesn’t resonate with you…how could it?…it doesn’t affect you or how your children view sexuality, biology, or the social-familial construct that has been the basic building block for western society for centuries.. And because you do not understand, you cannot have empathy because you are swept in the PC mantra and humanistic, secular, amoral mindset that “to each their own.” And while that works in cozy smoke filled campaign suites at the Grand, it doesn’t relate to real life, with real issues, and thus real concerns for millions of Americans that 5 years ago didn’t worry about depraved teachings in health class or transgender bathrooms.
While you make ridiculous and baseless slights about the concern anyone rightfully may have about an organization like NAMBLA, I can’t believe I have to explain to an adult the basic and fundamental concern about sexual depravity aimed and targeting children.
You apparently are comfortable with children being exposed to immoral sexual behavior at young ages…I am not…
You are apparently comfortable with the idea of transgender bathrooms at public schools or public venues, parks, etc…I am not.
You are apparently so flippant with your moral compass and lack of moral conviction that you would sacrifice thousands of parents who do care about these things all so you can hang out with the new cool gay kids…I am not.
You can continue your “stupid… bigoted, …uniformed” meme on me…but you, Michael, are clearly comfortable with an unprecedented level of depravity and are comfortable promulgating that depravity through your support of issues that most can clearly see is an agenda to advance and mainstream certain sexual proclivities…
BTW- For every eye rolling on me, there are those that share they cannot believe how passionate and vociferous you, and thus the SDGOP by association, appear in defending the indefensible.
So were back to our original positions…you think I’m bigoted; I think you’re depraved…I can live with that.
Hypocrisy
Sure why shouldn’t people have the the option to opt out of a religious based marriage?
Also whenever I tell a joke that bombed I never tell the audience. “I am very clear, however, an apparent lack of comprehension makes it necessary for me to re state my joke.:”
Frank, thank you. Your last comment is a perfect example to prove my point.
Chris,
You are beginning to act like you are commenting on a cable news website. Rostra is supposed to be about the issues, not the posters. I choose not to continue engaging with you and reducing the quality of the blog I have come to respect.
Hypocrisy
Well played. Your concession is accepted.
“No one, less those on the rhetorical ropes, see linking race with behavior choices other than a canard of the left. It is highly offensive to those that fought for civil rights based on the prejudice of one single physical attribute for which that individual has no control and for which one was denied one’s civil rights-skin color and/or racial features.”
But linking NAMBLA to the entire gay commmunity doesn’t offend anyone.
Cha Cha is correct. I’ve talked with several black friends of mine who are furious that gays equate their sexual choice to black’s skin color.
At this point, Brian, Michael, and Eric, I agree to disagree with same sex marriage. I will never accept it. The Texas Republicans have the correct stance politically. They don’t even let the Log Cabin Republicans have a booth at their TRP Convention. This tiny minority is toxic to the Republican cause. They have nothing to offer us politically.
Focus on opening the big tent to disillusioned Blacks and Latinos. Their natural cultural and spiritual conservatism makes them ripe for becoming Republicans. Forget the gay cause. As you can see, it means nothing but divisiveness and bad feelings for San Diego Republicans.
Dan brings up an interesting point – when debating the issue of same-sex marriage, it is important to consider perspective. I always discuss points of policy from the perspective of “what will my (yet to be) grandchildren think?”. On this issue, I am quite confident that my grandchildren will accept same-sex marriage as completely normal and won’t even understand what the fuss was all about. On the other hand, from the perspective of winning elections today, Dan is probably correct. A Republican probably has a better chance of winning if he/she has an opposed position.
My opinions aren’t influenced by what will attract the most voters. If everyone likes it, there’s a good chance it’s wrong. (See disco) Which is why we do not have a Democracy form of government.
I’m not interested in everyone seeing same sex marriage as normal. I don’t see it as normal. I see a marriage like mine as normal which is why I’m in it. I am interested in people having rights, liberties, and freedoms respected, protected, and allowed.
I don’t agree with Frank that the LGBT community will gain in popularity unless it is suppressed by government. But that’s because I’m not gay and cannot imagine living my life as anything, but straight. Same with Frank’s ideas about NAMBLA. I say shine a spotlight on them because they’ll be rejected. Frank thinks we need the power of federal government to ban same sex marriage otherwise it will become popular and lead to a popularity of NAMBLA. He and I disagree strongly on how popular their ideas can become.
It’s a difference in perception of the strength of their product. I guess.
Ok rep Todd Russ appears to want to stop states officials from performing marriages. Because its a headaches dealing with county clerks who don’t want to perform marriage. BOOM! OKLAHOMA can cut some expenses from a redundant program. Marriage forms to the state will be as dry as joint tax forms. Insurance contracts, and loan documents. If you want a ceremony. The state needs to cut back. Throw your own ceremony.
Gays get to marry, and the conservatives won’t have to see people having ceremonies on the courthouse steps and everybody wins because this cuts overhead in the states expenses.
Michael,
A few other types of marriage that weren’t always perceived as normal: interracial marriage, second marriages, senior citizens’ marrying, interfaith marriages.
The latter is particularly interesting since even though Dan and Founding Father disagree with most scientists about whether sexuality is a matter of choice, there is certainly no one who doubts that faith is a matter of choice. Yet, interfaith marriages, once rare and frowned upon are now considered quite normal, as will same-sex marriages.
I know of many, many marriages between a man and a woman that I do not consider normal.
My point is “normal” is about percentages and judgment. Our government isn’t about judgement or percentages. It’s about protecting rights, liberties, and freedom. We are a country of the self-governed. So I don’t care if people consider same sex marriage as normal. Do or don’t. But we have to use government to protect their rights, liberties, and freedoms. Especially of those who represent a minority. Not codify what the majority considers normal.
That’s why the “people voted” argument on Prop 8 is irrelevant. Our form of government protects against the ability for the majority to gang up on the minority.
If you’re going to invoke my ideas, you need to at least get them right…
I don’t for one moment take ownership that SSM equates to any other permutation of marriage (be it polygamy, incest or child marriages). The “equality” crowd solidified that absolute the moment they blew the dam and supported and allowed therefore the torrent of all the infinite number of combinations and ways to “express love” outside of OM/OW.
Those proponents are in your current SDGOP leadership and CC…every new marriage construct is tacitly and directly supported by the party that just 2 years ago, with the Chairman and senior leaders in the lead, fervently stated the GOP would be the party of Life and Marriage. And now they advance candidates that reject both outright, and in some case promote antithetical positions.
Proponents of the original definition of marriage argued to retain one definition. All those deceived by the “equality” meme, while they may not like it, cannot deny the potential, as depraved or inconceivable it may be, to ALL possibilities that are not OM/OW. I’m sure Michael and HQ, and all the other “equality” proponents years from now can relish that their “equality” efforts brought on inevitable various combinations of marital construct….true “equality”… that include polygamy, incest and child marriages.
Well done!
PS- No one..not one “equality” proponent has answered the basic question of “what is your definition of marriage?”…If that was the point, then you are welcome.
You are ALL missing the point entirely. This whole pitiful push for genderless “marriage” is an attack on religious freedom and the First Amendment. Look at what happens when bans on genderless “marriage” are repealed. Don’t tell me you aren’t aware of what’s happening to the baker in Oregon, the florist in Washington, the photographer in Arizona, the bed and breakfast in Vermont, and even the attack on eHarmony that forced them to create a dating site for gays. We won’t even go into the suspension of a Catholic teacher from a Catholic school for promoting her own Church’s views on genderless “marriage” on her own Facebook Page just the other day. Then, there are the two brothers whose cable home remodeling show was booted because they hold a Biblical view of marriage. And, we now have a military chaplain who was reassigned because he shared his Biblical view of marriage in private counseling sessions. One would hope that is precisely what a chaplain would do when asked.
This isn’t about marriage at all. It is about silencing opposition to the overall acceptance of homosexual behavior and that whole lifestyle. Look at what’s happening in our schools when the same “anti-discrimination” logic that is used to repeal these bans is being used to force young girls to share bathrooms, showers, and even sports teams with boys in public schools. This nonsense is the direct result of this push, and it needs to stop.
No one is saying anyone can’t love whom they wish or enter into contracts to preserve inheritance or even custody. That has always been legal and proper. But to remove these bans on who can legally marry with the full intent of diminishing our Constitutionally-guaranteed religious freedom is unacceptable.
No one should have to set aside their faith when they put an open sign on the door of their business, nor should children’s privacy be attacked like this. But that is the intent of this push for genderless “marriage,” and it’s what is happening. This needs to end.
“You are ALL missing the point entirely.”
So, Karen, is that to say, over 100 comments into this discussion, that not one other commenter, not even Founding Father or James Hartline, are getting the point?
I agree that the non-traditional agenda is as much about silencing those who believe in the centuries old Judeo-Christian DNA for their American political foundation as it is about advancing any potential marriage construct, to include genderless marriage. Both can be true.
Just look how the SDGOP leadership itself and many of the most vociferous proponents went after those that supported OM/OW and Life…from the first comment I ever presented, the “bigot, intolerant, homophobic” charges came from those within the GOP and its most ardent enablers…. Even those that only 2 years prior were in lock step and voicing that exact same support…until it became politically uncomfortable. They then invoked compromise in place of courage and conviction.
thor
You have a good sense of wit.
Because I missed the points of founding father and dan holstein entirely. I wish they would clarify their points in great detail for all of us to read.
“No one..not one “equality” proponent has answered the basic question of “what is your definition of marriage?”
Actually FF, I have answered that repeatedly, but I will do so one more time:
Marriage is the union of two adults who are not related. Actually, this is the same definition you gave except I substituted “two adults” for your “one man, one woman.”
FF, I have to give you credit. You stay with your talking points no matter what is thrown at you. But now that I answered your question, perhaps you will do me the courtesy of answering mine:
If “traditional” marriage is what is most important to preserve, then how do you reconcile the fact that traditional marriage was, not long ago, restricted to couples who shared the same faith and the same race? Are you opposed to interfaith and interracial marriages or are you ok with some changes in the definition of “traditional?”
Dang. It did occur that the question to Karen Grube could be viewed as a slam on other commenters. It actually wasn’t. It appeared to us here that FF and Hartline were in agreement with Karen, so when she noted that everyone is missing the point (“all”), the question was serious: Does she feel she is the only commenter thus far that gets the point?
“No one..not one “equality” proponent has answered the basic question of “what is your definition of marriage?”…If that was the point, then you are welcome.”
Then you agree that there are different definitions of marriage depending on the individual? Score one more for individual rights and small government! Glad you could finally join us, Frank.
thor’s assistant
Thought this had to do with OK rep russ bill.
Apparently this is now a forum for people pointing out this we have all heard before. Basically saying. Gay marriage is bad. While hypocrisy says gay marriage is good.
Yes, despite Brian Brady’s original post, the discussion does often head in the direction of the same ‘ol arguments. That’s fine. Peeps can read it. Or not.
Chris, you’ll find it just isn’t a discussion until we cover the FF basic points:
1. FF doesn’t like gays and that should be important to you.
2. FF doesn’t like the local GOP because they don’t dislike the gays enough.
3. FF knows the gays are out to get us and he’s figured out how.
4. FF is the victim in all of this and it’s not fair.
5. FF has a brand new outlandish claim to float in support of #1. This time it was NAMBLA.
This is all done through the use of long diatribes, the occasional misuse of a big word, and comments that make it embarrassingly obvious that FF doesn’t read what anyone else writes.
HQ-
“Marriage is the union of two adults who are not related. Actually, this is the same definition you gave except I substituted “two adults” for your “one man, one woman.”
So, then you have decided “equality” as posited by the homosexual agenda proponents does not include polygamy as “marriage” as defined by hundreds of millions of Muslims world-wide (100s of thousand that reside here in the US)? Or, if proponents of lowering the age of consent were to succeed, as did the SSM proponents, and “adults” were now 16 or 14 (as is argued for driving, voting, working) then you would or would not recognize them..??
As for skin color versus behavior, I would never support one being denied their rights based on a physical trait or irrevocable physical attribute. I would no more support denying interracial marriage than I would to support slavery or Jim Crow laws. I would not deny someone to rent a room in an apartment complex based on skin color; I would deny them that same room if they had a 435 credit score, or were flagged as a pedophile. Behavior is a choice…where desire may be irresistible, like the desire to commit adultery, how one curtails or is curtailed is a choice…millions of men, and women, everyday choose not to commit adultery. Because Ashley Madison is a reality doesn’t make more people want to be adulterers; it makes their desire to act on that impulse more socially acceptable. (e.g. Late night commercials pandering to the miserable and morally weak or ambivalent)
The vast majority of this is based on political/social correctness; Take the transgenderism argument. While medical institutions and administrations are being pressured to conduct sex change operations stemming from lawyers representing Transgender patients, few, if any, doctors would willingly cut off one’s perfectly healthy limb if they were asked…would they?
Yet there are people that are convinced to have their own perfectly healthy limbs removed…it’s called Apotemnophilia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apotemnophilia
Do you believe transgenderism has a right to have otherwise healthy body parts removed by a medical doctor? Why are doctors allowed/permitted to perform the latter but find the former unethical?
The above proclivity is a sexual proclivity…as was homosexuality defined 40 years ago, and pedophilia is now…what do they all have in common…they are sexual deviances (they didn’t change, attitudes did)…only political and social correctness decides its social acceptance…so, now it’s homosexuality; tomorrow it may be Apotemnophilia, or pedophilia, or polygamy…when one abandons clear and established definitions for the health of society, one then opens oneself to anything. (i.e. “equality”)
The main difference: Slavery, Jim Crow Laws, and institutionalized racial bigotry were always wrong. We changed that from within…However, sexual deviances are still aberrations, but there are those that deceive, craft, and manipulate the ignorant to make them “right,” in the name of “evolution.”
I like rep russ’ bill. So long as the tax money saved goes back to the tax payers rather than provide funding for another redundant or dysfunctional government program.
…and Michaels point, from the beginning, was to discredit any opposition to his and the new GOP’s mantra that shifting to the left, by abandoning key GOP tenets, is a good thing…and they will attack, vilify, misquote, even out and out lie, to ensure anyone, even decades long republicans having dedicated hundreds of hours, thousands of dollars, and upholding the tenets established by the traditions of the GOP, are pushed out to accommodate the new “pragmatic” hollowing out of the Republican party and replace it with a “new generation.” We can see how successful that was in the last congressional race…Michael’s guy lost. If you have any further doubt, just note the 85K people in SD County alone that have left the Republican Party over the last 7 years.
Michael, in all his desperate attempts to make arguments that support the advance of social depravity and the breakdown of common decency and societal health in the name of “equality”, is at ground zero for that quite remarkable exodus of nearly 100k people that agree with me that the GOP has taken a horribly detrimental turn.
Sadly, while Michael vigorously, and at times rather ham-handedly and filled with a visceral hatred to those that oppose him and apparent deep seeded inability to accept being beaten, posits that redefinition is a good thing. However, don’t expect the same level of “tolerance” when some activist judge or slick, powerful lobbying firm, succeeds in redefining what “regulated”, “militia” or “infringed” means…if a small active group that is a fraction of the population can promote the change of something as universally understood as marriage in the US, they can motivate millions of soccer mommies to rethink the 2A when the next Sandyhook goes down and they begin to ask the basic question…”Why are there so many guns, and why don’t we take prudent steps to rid our streets of them?”
“As for skin color versus behavior, I would never support one being denied their rights based on a physical trait or irrevocable physical attribute. I would no more support denying interracial marriage than I would to support slavery or Jim Crow laws. I would not deny someone to rent a room in an apartment complex based on skin color; I would deny them that same room if they had a 435 credit score, or were flagged as a pedophile. Behavior is a choice…where desire may be irresistible, like the desire to commit adultery, how one curtails or is curtailed is a choice…millions of men, and women, everyday choose not to commit adultery. Because Ashley Madison is a reality doesn’t make more people want to be adulterers; it makes their desire to act on that impulse more socially acceptable. (e.g. Late night commercials pandering to the miserable and morally weak or ambivalent)”
This was thought out and well explained. That said, I do not mean I agree with it, but it’s at least a rare glimpse at a point that can be debated and/or discussed.
But then there’s a bunch of stuff about amputations which makes people’s eyes roll and just move on.
Michael, if one “rolls their eyes”, don’t blame the messenger. They choose either not to learn or they are not capable of grasping the argument or fail to see their own hypocrisy. You and many leaders in the current SDGOP support the LGBT agenda…The “T”, if you didn’t know, is for Transgenderism.
So, again, are you saying you support the re-plumbing and removal of sexual organs to accommodate Transgenderism while not supporting accommodating the sexual desires of an Apotemniphile and their presumably equal desire to remove body parts? Many in the medical community are also hypocritical on this as well.
OR, are you prepared to re-label the LGBT and add A for Apotemnephilia or P for polygamy, or I for Incest? If not, why not?
As definitions and their social acceptance are rapidly shifting as a result, in no small part, of your support and advocacy and that of the RPSDC, I’m just trying to keep up with your new parameters within your and the SDGOP’s support of the LGBT community and subsequent “equal” proclivities and their impact and fundamental shift in the GOP and American society in total. I fail to see why that would constitute “eye rolling.”
Michael,
So you think FF actually put together a paragraph that makes some sense. I would agree except for:
1. The “dog whistle” comment about a “435 credit score.”
2. The fact that faith is a matter of choice and we used to discriminate against interfaith marriages, something very few would do today.
3. 99% of scientists agree that sexuality is not a matter of choice.
I guess except for those minor items, I would agree too.
Michael…you’re slipping….”F…. doesn’t like gays and that should be important to you.”
I have never said I don’t like gays…ever…in a country where I am still able to discern on behaviors, we have proven over and over that there are an endless number of behaviors and proclivities we do not accept and thus “discriminate” against…am I “bigoted” to poor credit people or felons wanting to run day care centers? I “discern”..I’m not sure that constitutes bigotry.
Shame on you TA for promoting that false meme…Michael clearly continues to promote and promulgate a narrative of “homophobia” and “bigotry” where there is none (just as the Tea Party was vilified by the left, the “new” republicans now villify the GOP veterans and those that promoted and supported GOP tenets long before they came along) he continues to use my name in an attemptt to link my discussion points and arguments to his narrative that “FF” is “bigoted”…I am no more “bigoted” on gays than I am on someone who practices polygamy, or condones child marriages or incestual ones. As with many social conservatives, my heart cries for them. Once the redefinition was in play, then all who believe that marriage is between OM/OW are now “bigoted”..which would also include the Chairman of the SD Republican Party himself as of two plus years ago.,…that is the crux of the opposition to “equality” of marriage where after 108 comments, there still has not been one proponet that can refute that the “equality” meme is a false and deceptive one.
..and HQ…we Christians have heard that argument for centuries…”choose another religion or keep silent…it’s your “choice..”
Our faith demands we adhere to the Word of God…for you, I guess its the word of Al Gore or the Earth Mother…the same Creator that bestowed upon you your inalienable rights as understood by the Founding Fathers as the God of Abraham and through the Gospels is the same God and His word that guide millions to reject the sin of homsexuality…but never the sinner…so Michael, regroup on your attack..because it is inaccurate, baselss, and deceptive.
…wait, did you hear that…I think that was another 100 “bigoted” people declaring DTS as their voting status…
HQ..then your 99% are wrong…I choose everyday not to have sex with the same gender…I could I guess if I were so incline…but I am not…I also don’t eat eggplant, but I choose not to..I don’t like it..(I’ll brace for all the “bigoted” comments on eggplant)
As mentioned before, there are countless examples of people who have led a gay lifestyle, then decided not to continue that route (and vice versa)..was not the First Lady of New York a “former” lesbian, who now has children with Mayor DeBlasio? The point you so remarkably miss is skin color IS NOT A CHOICE…where the act of having sex with someone of the same gender is..as is commiting adultry…as are fetishes, and countless other sexual proclivities…they are desires, and from those desires, people make decisons and take actions or they don’t…we “faith” rubes call that temptation.
I have never really thought of having sex with a guy as a “temptation.”
Author
These conversations do often detour (which is fine).
“This isn’t about marriage at all. It is about silencing opposition to the overall acceptance of homosexual behavior and that whole lifestyle.”
I think Karen and I are in agreement on this point.
The point I am making is that, if LGBT people can’t get behind marriage, governed by civil society and recognized by the State, I wonder if the “movement” is not just another cultural Marxist attack on the Republic.
OK, we’re gonna step in here…
If someone chooses to post anonymously, that is an established right on these pages. It doesn’t matter if they once “outed” themselves here; the right to post anonymously will be protected, without anyone else outing them.
As far as TA (or TAs) promoting a meme — we can barely keep up, but although the conversation is very much getting into what appears to be personal animosity — which needs to end — we don’t view someone having a strong opinion about someone else’s views as something to simply correct or ban.
However, if the belief exists that anyone opposed to gay marriage is a bigot, we’d have to cite plenty of examples to the contrary. Unless one believes that many of the conservative elected officials in this county are all bigots.
It’s well established that a couple of commenters vehemently disagree with each other on this topic, while making their points, some of them repeatedly. Repeatedly.
Carry on.