Skip to comments.The Republican Party Must Never Endorse Same Sex Marriage
Posted on 09/15/2011 2:03:43 PM PDT by little jeremiah
The Republican Party Must Never Endorse Same Sex Marriage Our Country Was Founded on Moral Principles
Recently a thread was pulled entitled GOP Must Reconsider Gay Marriage. The moderators comment after it was pulled was No stinkin thanks. I actually had planned a long response to post on the thread, which has turned into this vanity. Why should the GOP not reconsider so-called gay marriage? Besides the obvious fact that it is a losing issue because the majority of Americans, what to speak of the majority of those who generally vote Republican, do not want marriage perverted and defiled.
Our country was founded on morality based on religious principles, as noted by a number of wise men:
Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness.
-- Samuel Adams (letter to John Trumbull, 16 October 1778)
Of all the dispositions and habits which least to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indespensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness.
-- George Washington (Farewell Address, 19 September 1796)
"[O]ur ancestors established their system of government on morality and religious sentiment. Moral habits, they believed, cannot safely be trusted on any other foundation than religious principle, nor any government be secure which is not supported by moral habits."
-- Daniel Webster, American Jurist and Senator
Sometimes people use slogans such as you cant legislate morality. Actually, this is true laws do not give people good or moral character. But what laws can do is keep honest people honest, and punish those who refuse to be honest. What people really mean when they say the government cannot legislate morality is leave my vices alone. What the government can do, and is doing now, is legislating immorality. Government is forcing, mandating immorality upon us same sex marriage, forcing homosexual and other sexual immorality in schools, forcing workplaces to tolerate perverse behavior and so on. So, the government is legislating immorality.
This brings up the question whose morality? I see this mentioned a lot. Who gets to decide whats moral or immoral? Suppose someone doesnt agree that same sex sodomy, for instance, is immoral? Therefore some people advocate values neutral laws and education. A secular society, as opposed (supposedly) to a theocracy*. In fact, accusations such as You just want a theocracy are often bandied about when the topic of Hey, get your gay marriage support out of here is brought up. The problem is, there is no neutral when it comes to morality. There are only two choices, moral or immoral. By removing morality one is then in the anarchy of everyone make up your own morality. That inevitably leads to what I call The Big Dog Makes The Rules. The loudest voice shouts down everyone else. In a vacuum, those lusting for power and control take charge. So, if traditional morality based on religious principles is jettisoned, we are then in the world of whoever has the most power then decides the New Morality. We can see the results of this all around us, very clearly. Government forces this New Morality on us constantly. And the result? Humans raised without any guidance of morality become feral succumbing to the lower passions without restraint. No one can describe this better than Edmund Burke, who was widely read and respected by many of the founding fathers:
"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites--in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity;--in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption;--in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite is placed somewhere: and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
-- Edmund Burke
Anyone who says which morality should also consider the words of Thomas Jefferson:
"Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests of society require the observation of those moral precepts ... in which all religions agree."
The basic moral principles are either exactly the same or remarkably similar in every religion in the world, both monotheist and non-monotheist. For instance, sex out of wedlock, same sex acts, bestiality, adultery are condemned in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and even such philosophies as Taosim. Lying, stealing, assault, murder all condemned. Additionally the virtues such as giving in charity, truthfulness, caring for the helpless, dependents, the elderly, orphans, widows, and so on are lauded in every religion. So anyone who does not like standard, religion based morality by definition just doesnt like morality. There is no such thing as making up ones own morality. Also, morality is naturally understood by people who want to understand:
As George Washington wrote, I think in a letter to his nephew:
"Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience." --George Washington
"The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal
power." -- Alexander Hamilton
When a large proportion of the population has no morality, this lack of respect, understanding or adherence to morals ceases to be a private matter. Just as one out of control dog may bother one family, a large pack of feral dogs causes mayhem all over the neighborhood. No morality doesnt only mean sexual immorality a person who has no restraint or morals in one part of their life will generally have no moral restraint in the rest of their behaviors. One thing leads to another.
"A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom." -
"No man is a good citizen unless he so acts as to show that he actually uses the Ten Commandments, and translates the Golden Rule into his life conduct."
"The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families. ... How is it possible that Children can have any just Sense of the sacred Obligations of Morality or Religion if, from their earliest Infancy, they learn their Mothers live in habitual Infidelity to their fathers, and their fathers in as constant Infidelity to their Mothers?"
A person who thinks that private immorality is either not immoral, or is of no consequence to others, doesnt realize that private immorality leads to public. A person who thinks nothing of breaking a marriage vow (or never making one to begin with) can find no valid reason for breaking his word in other areas. Or breaking any moral principles that dont suit his desires. I am not saying that every person who acts immorally in one instance will automatically break all the moral codes. Heres an example: People who lie often lie all the time its a habit, truth and untruth become mixed, and such people become untrustworthy. Morality is a package deal. To pick and choose which you like and which you dont like, means that ones you like today, you can reject tomorrow, or whenever they prove inconvenient to desires or goals.
Sometimes people make the claim that restraints on behavior (usually sexual behavior) are attacks on liberty or freedom. Freedom and liberty are not equivalent to licence or debauchery. As Burke wrote: In some people I see great liberty indeed; in many, if not in the most, an oppressive, degrading servitude. But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint. Those who know what virtuous liberty is, cannot bear to see it disgraced by incapable heads, on account of their having high-sounding words in their mouths.-
People who equate freedom with public debauchery or government sanction of the grossest forms of immorality such as homosexuality, are living in a fools paradise. Such licence also leads almost directly to tyranny. How so? Because in order to force the government enforcement of acceptance of immorality on everyone, it must be against the will of many. So we must have, for instance, same sex marriage forced upon us by judges or other legislative shenanigans. The tyranny of the few against the majority is far from freedom. And speaking of Nanny State government: Has government gotten smaller as we've become more sexually "tolerant" these past four decades or so? How about in Canada? Sweden? Holland? Britain? The European Union? The more sexually "liberal" we become, the more expansive the government will get. The pathologies unleashed on society by "libertinism" create a constant need and demand for government.
Additonally, the left has purposely used degradation of morality for some generations in order to usher in communism, socialism or whatever ism one may wish to use. The left and the Gay Agenda are hand in glove, and their goal is not merely same sex marriage. These are the stated goals as originally outlined by homosexual activists. This is long, but well worth reading. The downward slide of tolerating immorality is clearly seen, leading to pedophilia as stated in the agenda below, and in many recent articles on FR.
The 1972 Gay Rights Platform
In February 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations met at the Armitage Avenue United Methodist Church in Chicago. An invitation had been sent out to 495 homosexual organizations across the U.S. to come and prepare a "gay stance for the 1972 elections." About 200 individuals from 18 states representing 85 organizations showed up for the two-day event. Conference participants adopted the 1972 Gay Rights Platform, which included 17 federal and state "demands." For over 30 it has been the beacon of the homosexual movement in America. Back in 1972 their demands seemed so outlandish that nobody took them seriously. But gay activists have been extremely focused and relentless in achieving their goals. (Notice the bottom goal on the list.)
It gives an interesting perspective. If someone back then had suggested that we would be discussing this subject today and in the position we're in, it would not only have been considered unbelievable, it truly would have been beyond the ability of the average person to imagine it.
Federal: 1. Amend all federal Civil Rights Acts, other legislation and government controls to prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations and public services.
2. .Issuance by the President of an executive order prohibiting the military from excluding for reasons of their sexual orientation, persons who of their own volition desire entrance into the Armed Services; and from issuing less-than-fully-honorable discharges from homosexuality; and the upgrading to fully honorable all such discharges previously issued, with retroactive benefits.
3. Issuance by the President of an executive order prohibiting discrimination in the federal civil service because of sexual orientation, in hiring and promoting; and prohibiting discriminations against homosexuals in security clearances.
4. Elimination of tax inequities victimizing single persons and same-sex couples.
5. Elimination of bars to the entry, immigration and naturalization of homosexual aliens.
6. Federal encouragement and support for sex education courses, prepared and taught by Gay women and men, presenting homosexuality as a valid, healthy preference and lifestyle as a viable alternative to heterosexuality.
7. Appropriate executive orders, regulations and legislation banning the compiling, maintenance and dissemination of information on an individual's sexual preferences, behavior, and social and political activities for dossiers and data banks.
8. Federal funding of aid programs of Gay men's and women's organizations designed to alleviate the problems encountered by Gay women and men which are engendered by an oppressive sexist society.
9. Immediate release of all Gay women and men now incarcerated in detention centers, prisons and mental institutions because of sexual offense charges relating to victimless crimes or sexual orientation; and that adequate compensation be made for the physical and mental duress encountered; and that all existing records relating to the incarceration be immediately expunged. State: 1. All federal legislation and programs enumerated in Demands 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9 above should be implemented at the State level where applicable.
2. Repeal of all state laws prohibiting private sexual acts involving consenting persons; equalization for homosexuals and heterosexuals for the enforcement of all laws.
3. Repeal all state laws prohibiting solicitation for private voluntary sexual liaisons; and laws prohibiting prostitution, both male and female.
4. Enactment of legislation prohibiting insurance companies and other state-regulated enterprises from discriminating because of sexual orientation, in insurance and in bonding or any other prerequisite to employment or control of one's personal demesne.
5. Enactment of legislation so that child custody, adoption, visitation rights, foster parenting, and the like shall not be denied because of sexual orientation or marital status.
6. Repeal of all laws prohibiting transvestism and cross-dressing.
7. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.
8. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.
* Theocracy is a government ruled by religious clerics, priests, bishops, imams, etc. A government founded on religion based morality is not a theocracy.
Note: The Libertarian Party Platform includes:
The LP is officially pro-pornography, pro-legalized prostitution, pro-legalized drugs (all of them!) and pro-gay agenda.
Repeal all laws against homosexuality. (Jul 2000) Right to complete freedom of expression includes pornography. (Jul 2000)
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
Government should be kept out of the matter of abortion. (May 2008) Abortion is a womans choice and does not concern the state. (Jul 2000) We oppose any abridgment of the freedom of speech through government censorship, regulation or control of communications media, including, but not limited to, laws concerning:
Obscenity, including "pornography", as we hold this to be an abridgment of liberty of expression despite claims that it instigates rape or assault, or demeans and slanders women; ...
Leave it to the states.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
I humbly apologize for the lack of decend formatting; at least it isn't a wall of text! In addition to the two lists, also pinged are the people who made comments on the pulled thread mentioned above.
Because then other states will be forced to recognize such “marriages”.
Also, here are the real reasons homosexual activists have pushed for same sex marriage. They want to re-make - aka as “destroy” - society. It has nothing to do with love, or monogamy. It has to do with pushing sexual anarchy and destroying the natural family and real marriage.
From LA Times of March 12: ...
“Divided over gay marriage” by Roy Rivenburg Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor who runs the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives, including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men and women who share sexual relations.
One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights. The other goal is to “push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society.” ... [snip]
An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
“Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):
“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake —and one that would perhaps benefit all of society—is to transform the notion of family entirely.”
“Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”
Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.
Crain writes: “...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn’t deserve the position.” (Washington Blade, August, 2003).
Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater “understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.”
He notes: “The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.” (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)
Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said:
“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.” (partially quoted in “Beyond Gay Marriage,”
Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated:
“Isn’t having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. “(quoted in “What Marriage Is For,” by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)
Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says:
“Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I’d be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of ‘till death do us part’ and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play.” (quoted in “Now Free To Marry, Canada’s Gays Say, ‘Do I?’” by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)
1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: “Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.”
[Also among the demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]
Leave it to G-d!
OK, in fairness to the moderator pulling the thread, I went to the Google cache:
This screed looks to be written by some Vassar princess who hasn’t an ounce of brains.
I have A.D.D., and missed the word “NEVER”!
I’ll read this more thoroughly later, but in my brief perusal it seems you have really helped us understand the problem. Thank you.
I was happy the thread was pulled! I just wanted to have my say. General Ripper (may he RIP) was pulled, too.
Whew! I’m glad I remember to add “Never”.
B.S. States have their own laws.
Thank you for reading. Sometimes people don’t see what would happen next - and after that.
I really tried to keep it brief. I could have written a lot more...
There’s a clause that says marriages have to be recognized in other states. Ever wonder why when a married couple moves to another state they don’t have to get married all over again? That’s the reason. Homosexuals would force their sick perversion on states that had not approved of same sex “marriage”.
That is some poetic justice!
(Have to go for a bit, be back later and see if any libertarians show up.)
You’re a Libertarian, aren’t you?
Are you OK with New York allowing gay marriages? If so, what other socially liberal ideas do you endorse?
Forget it. Don’t answer that. I know you are in favor of surrendering in the WOD and stuff like that.
I’m not familiar with this clause, but I believe that states that want gay marriage should allow it, and those that don’t want it don’t have to recognize it.
Married homos should be mindful of the states they travel thru if they want to be confident that their marriage is recognized.
(Have to go for a bit, be back later and see if any libertarians show up.)
Then homosexuals would fight to have their sick perv “marriages” recobnized under the Full Faith and Credit clause or whatever it is called exactly, that all real marraiges are recognized under. Homosexuals would claim that if their “marriages” are not recognized in all states they are second class spouses or something.
—marked for reading later this evening.
I’m a Federalist. I don’t endorse gay marriage or any other liberal ideas.
If a particular state passes gay marriage thru their legislature, rather than judicial activism, I would accept it.
I don’t know what the “WOD” is, so I don’t know if your silly assumption about me is correct. But overall, your post to me was pretty lame. Try better next time.
You have isolated the real problem, which is that fact that states are required to recognize marriages.
There is a lot of work to be done.
Let me guess which of the regular troll posters posted that original article? It would only take three.
yea that’s going great, we have two men who move to LA from NY and then want a divorce and there are many many issues like this around the country.
Anyone thinking the GOP should not raise this is not taking notice.
The NY seat was also about homosexual marriage amongst other issues.
Every state which is asked the question votes to have normal marriage.
We should mention it instead of being cowards
Marriages have always been “recognized” as legally binding, which means “by the state”. That way inheritance, protection of children, and so on are legal.
The ridiculous idea that marriages should just be private “contracts” with no public or legal ramification is a standard libertarian pie in the sky utopian “if human nature was all different, everything would be all different”.
IIRC it was the noob (now zotted) General Ripper who posted it, link got posted above.
Libertarian schools of thought differ over the degree to which the state should be reduced. Anarchists advocate complete elimination of the state. Minarchists advocate a state which is limited to protecting its citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. Some libertarians go further, such as by supporting minimal public assistance for the poor. Additionally, some schools are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources while others reject such private ownership and often support common ownership instead.
Another distinction can be made among libertarians who support private ownership and co-operative ownership of the means of production; the former generally supporting a capitalist economy, the latter a libertarian socialist economic system. In some parts of the world, the term "libertarianism" is synonymous with anarchism.
No-—Can’t have States take away Natural Rights of children to be raised by their biological parents. Those rights are inalienable....granted by God and can’t be voted away or given away. Look up the word in our Founding documents.
The Standard of Right and Wrong-—is the Objective Truth which comes from the Creator-—the Christian paradigm—and that is the philosophy of our Supreme Law of the Land.....It is not Barney Frank’s standard of “Right and Wrong” or the Standards of Marx or Atheism.
The Law of the Land is from God’s laws. We can never change those standards of right and wrong without eliminating the Fundamental principles of Natural Law Theory and giving up our Natural Right (Hint: it doesn’t include putting penises in places which cause disease and dysfunctional lifestyles).
Exactly so. Just “not endorsing” homosexual marriage is definitely not enough.
bookmark for the quotes
Finally read it. Good. I like it.
The formatting is horrible though, almost unreadable. I am so rotten at html.
Bumping for Ransomed.
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.