Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Republicans and Conservatives silent on gay marriage again

The Supreme Court has refused to hear a case concerning Washington D.C.'s new gay marriage law. So starting next week, traditional marriage will be under asssault in our nation's capitol.

Fox News is not covering the issue.

No one attacked the Democratic Congress for not reversing the D.C. council vote to support gay marriage.

I think too many Republicans are either gay and/or support gay marriage secretly.

That's unfortunate.

We need a strong movement to support traditional marriage and to reverse the trend towards deviancy.

On this issue, I don't expect Democrats to carry the ball right now, but we have to change the party.

I wish the Republicans would stand up but they haven't.

The worst thing is that there isn't even a real debate.

Every once and awhile there's a little discussion but the extreme left has won the battle by defining the terms.

"Marriage equality" and "Civil Rights".

In addition , the widespread news of infidelity by people like Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Bill Clinton, Mark Sanford, etc. just makes it easier to make their case.

If so many people are so so frivilous with their marriage, how important can it be?

Look at Britney Spears. Look at Barbara Walters. Look at Rush Limbaugh.

Yet, these people need to find the courage to stand up and do what's right for society, even if they couldn't do what's right in their marriage.

We are defining marriage down rather than making it stronger.

True supporters of traditional marriage need a positive agenda in addition to fighting the redefinition that is taking place.


Libertyforall said...

As one of the worst Presidents of the latter part of the 20th century said, Craig, "There you go, again!"

I can't speak for anyone else's argument for "gay marriage" but answer me this. Do you believe in the separation of church and state?

I do! If you don't than fine with your opinion. If so, than rethink your issue with it. When the government mandates that churches have to marry same-sex couples, than I will be protesting government's involvement in religion. Civil unions and/or marriage licenses should have absolutely nothing to do with a church or its philosophy: period!

So, again, Craig. Do you believe in the separation of church and state?

Craig Farmer said...

I believe in the separation of church and state as envisioned by the Constitution. That means the government shouldn't promote any particular church or work against any church either.

So if a "progressive" church wants to marry 2 men then they can do what they want.

So if a regular church refuses to marry 2 women then they can do what they want.


This issue is about gay rights in general and Gay Marriage in particular. We are talking about civil society and the legal benefits given to married couples in secular society.

It's about whether society making a rational distinction is hideous discrimination that should be outlawed, or common sense that should be strengthened.

We aren't talking about people's nature, but people's relationships, and how we regard them in public society and under law.

It's about defining marriage differently. It's whether we can have a "preference" under our laws for a particular relationship: one man and one woman (not related by blood); above all others:

1. one man and one man
2. one woman and one woman
3. one man and muliple people either men or women
4. one woman and multiple people either women or men
5. all of the above including people related by blood.


I can believe (as I do) that normal men are born with a desire to relate with multiple women; but the law has benefits that shows a preference otherwise.

I can believe (which I don't) that a normal mother and a normal daughter can have a healthy sexual relationship with each other, but the law won't recognize their "love".

Whether someone's beliefs are grounded in "faith" or "secular" values, we the people through our government have the right to define public morality.

I wish my Democratic party was more open-minded to accept traditioinal values that work.
Instead of weakening marriage even further, it should be made tougher and stronger through waiting periods, counseling, and tax benefits/penalties.

Libertyforall said...

Your opening statement is fine so why is so hard to for you to have a more liberal opinion when it come to secular society? The authors of the Constitution ranged from Deist to others of the "established" or "organized" churches; including, Unitarians, Quakers, and Catholics. I'm not sure what their views were on homosexuality but I suspect their opinions regarding it were "traditional." They were writing to those who were educated and/or were land owners. More than 220 years later, and by degrees, it has been "extended" to the entire public; or, at least, it should be.


Gay rights in general and Gay Marriage in particular? What rights and benefits should "civil society" extend or deny to homosexuals? What rational distinction based on common sense denies or extends rights to any citizen?

Why should you, or anyone else, want to deny a benefit to someone based on a definition? A more fair argument would be why extend a benefit to anyone at all because they chose to make a commitment to another person and perhaps raise children. If the answer is because it's "healthy for society," then it is wrong, and would be unfair, to discriminate against a couple based on their sexual orientation.

Problem solved with your examples #1 through #5 because #1 and #2 presume a monogamy. Does the "act" of sex, have to be a factor? If not, then there is a good argument for letting relatives marry.

The rest of your arguments hold "little weight" either, Craig. So, like you, I can totally relate to wanting to relate to all kinds of women. Not unlike homosexuals wanting to relate with multiple people of the same sex. I, as well, feel there is something unsavory about parents having a sexual relationship with their "off-spring." I suspect the vast a majority of homosexuals couldn't accept that either.

No, Craig, neither you, nor the majority of the public, should have the right to define morality based on sexual orientation alone. The Constitution, when implemented fairly, protects minorities rights: it is that simple. I agree with you that people should take these sort of commitments more seriously. I'm sure you would find many homosexual people do too.