Gay "marriage" - liberal may pretend their invention is not a contradiction, but that doesn't change reality.
Posted on 06/21/2013 4:04:36 AM PDT by darrellmaurina
As the Supreme Court considers overturning California’s ban on same-sex marriage, gay people await a ruling that could change their lives. But the case has already transformed one gay man: Ken Mehlman, the once-closeted Republican operative who orchestrated President George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election on a platform that included opposition to same-sex marriage.
Now Mr. Mehlman, a private equity executive in Manhattan, is waging what could be his final campaign: to convince fellow Republicans that gay marriage is consistent with conservative values and good for their party. His about-face, sparked in part by the lawyer who filed the California lawsuit, has sent him on a personal journey to erase what one new friend in the gay rights movement calls his “incredibly destructive” Bush legacy.
He remains controversial, both applauded and vilified. On the left, he is either an unlikely hero or a hypocritical coward. On the right, some Republicans embrace him; others deem him a traitor.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
For Wagglebee and Little Jeremiah: ping to Moral Absolutes and Gay Agenda lists requested.
~ Isaiah 5:20
I will not ever vote for any candidate who supports homosexual marriage. Not ever. We just need a new party, completely separate from the RINO party. I am sick of them.
Don’t feel like the Lone Ranger.
Millions of us are sick of a party so weak it takes up the banner of Democrats, and claim they are trying to save the party.
My, my, my! . . . I'm shocked. Who knew Ken Mehlman was in the closet?
Absolutely. I will NEVER join with anyone who supports this sick perversion of God’s sacred institution. PERIOD. And this hideous piece of detritus can go to hell, because he’s not convincing me.
To me he sounds like a pure opportunist and that isn’t intended as a compliment. More like a hyena feeding on an elephant corpse found rotting in the sun.
He sees the college republican crowd being driven ever to the left and rather than try to turn them to the right, he follows at a distance and feeds on the dead.
Gay "marriage" - liberal may pretend their invention is not a contradiction, but that doesn't change reality.
I have found that liberals are “immune” from their ideas being debunked by exposing contradiction.
It’s OK with them that there is contradiction - they simply have rejected their God-given logical, orderly wiring.
Sodomy should not be endorsed by society, just as homosexuals should not be abused or attacked for their behavior—as long as it isn’t directed toward children or unwilling adults.
Love the sinner, condemn the sin is the example Christ gave us.
Anyone want to bet this announcement was coordinated with Lisa Murkowski?
God invented marriage, not man. God designated marriage, not as a contractual agreement, but as a covenent. Governments may be able to regulate contracts, but a covenent is based on the laws of God and not man. Thus marriage is an institution outside of the bounds of government.
Government was happy to intrude into the marriage because when we gave tax exemptions based on marital status, or when we taxed a person’s estate upon their death, or when the State stepped in to direct the disposition of an estate, or when we used the State to enforce marital fidelity or grant divorces, we had to allow the State to define who was “married” and who was not.
As with all things Statist, the secular State’s definition of marriage and divorce has come to have more weight in society than God’s definition.
God defines marriage as being between men and women. While many men whom God called righteous in the Bible practiced polygamy, Jesus is quoted in Matthew chapter 19 that from the beginning of humanity, it was God’s intent that marriage would only be one man and one woman. In Mark chapter 10, Jesus stated that God, not man, joins the husband and wife and the two are “one flesh”, an act that by its very nature is only heterosexual.
God defines sexual relations between people of the same sex as against His law, that is immoral. In Revelation 22:15, a book dictated to John by Jesus, God tells us that anyone who practices sexual immorality will not be granted eternal life.
These are ecclesiastical considerations that are outside of secular government, that is unless we want government to police sexual behavior between consenting adults based on the standards of the Bible, assumingwe can agree what those are. Do we want Congress to have that debate?
Maybe it is time to get government out of the marriage business and to return it to the private sphere. The problem for me today is that people who want to call themselves “married” against God’s law (as I read it) are willing to use the State to force me to recognize that marriage, which I cannot do. The want to have the State’s public education system indoctrinate my children that homosexual marriage is “normal”. They want to force me to subsidize the homosexual marriage in the tax code just like the godly marriage is subsidized, and they will use state agencies to punish me for “discrimination” if I decline to accept their status in any way.
If the State must force me to acknowledge its power to declare two men to be “married”, then I must support efforts to remove that power from the State. If people who don’t want God defining their personal morality demand a separation of church and State then let us also have separation of marriage and State as well. If those people don’t want any displays of the Ten Commandments in government buildings, they cannot hide behind the Commandments that protect marriage when it comes marriage that God cannot sanction.
That was as big a secret as Valerie Plame working for the CIA. Who didn't know?
I'm not disagreeing, but to some extent this was “don't ask, don't tell.” As long as Mehlman stayed in the closet until 2010 he could at least claim that he was “struggling with his orientation” and get a level of sympathy comparable to how we would handle a struggling alcoholic. There's a difference between someone who embraces sin and someone who struggles with it.
However, once he came out in 2010, he started to throw a number of other conservative political positions — such as conservative views on global warming — under the bus. Now he is not just admitting he's homosexual but aggressively campaigning for homosexual marriage.
He's gone from being somebody who was (at least arguably) right on most issues to being somebody who is actively fighting against biblical morality.
He chose to switch sides and we now need to treat him as what he has become — an open enemy of Judeo-Christian morality. I regret that, but it's his choice to switch sides, and as a longtime conservative Republican activist, he certainly knows what's coming.
And yet, many "conservatives" voted for Romney, the Father of Homosexual "Marriage" in America.
“Anyone want to bet this announcement was coordinated with Lisa Murkowski?”
The “announcement” was three years ago.
This is just the New York Times looking to stay topical right before SCOTUS tosses out DOMA.
Thanks - I will ping this out later today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.