Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Backers of Gay Marriage Ban Use Social Security as Cudgel
The New York Times ^ | January 25, 2005 | DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

Posted on 01/25/2005 8:30:22 AM PST by HostileTerritory

A coalition of major conservative Christian groups is threatening to withhold support for President Bush's plans to remake Social Security unless Mr. Bush vigorously champions a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

The move came as Senate Republicans vowed on Monday to reintroduce the proposed amendment, which failed in the Senate last year by a substantial margin. Party leaders, who left it off their list of priorities for the legislative year, said they had no immediate plans to bring it to the floor because they still lacked the votes for passage.

But the coalition that wrote the letter, known as the Arlington Group, is increasingly impatient.

In a confidential letter to Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political adviser, the group said it was disappointed with the White House's decision to put Social Security and other economic issues ahead of its paramount interest: opposition to same-sex marriage.

The letter, dated Jan. 18, pointed out that many social conservatives who voted for Mr. Bush because of his stance on social issues lack equivalent enthusiasm for changing the retirement system or other tax issues. And to pass to pass any sweeping changes, members of the group argue, Mr. Bush will need the support of every element of his coalition.

"We couldn't help but notice the contrast between how the president is approaching the difficult issue of Social Security privatization where the public is deeply divided and the marriage issue where public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side," the letter said. "Is he prepared to spend significant political capital on privatization but reluctant to devote the same energy to preserving traditional marriage? If so it would create outrage with countless voters who stood with him just a few weeks ago, including an unprecedented number of African-Americans, Latinos and Catholics who broke with tradition and supported the president solely because of this issue."

The letter continued, "When the administration adopts a defeatist attitude on an issue that is at the top of our agenda, it becomes impossible for us to unite our movement on an issue such as Social Security privatization where there are already deep misgivings."

The letter also expressed alarm at recent comments President Bush made to The Washington Post, including his statement that "nothing will happen" on the marriage amendment for now because many senators did not see the need for it.

"We trust that you can imagine our deep disappointment at the defeatist position President Bush demonstrated" in the interview, the group wrote. "He even declined to answer a simple question about whether he would use his bully pulpit to overcome this Senate foot-dragging."

The letter also noted that in an interview before the election Mr. Bush "appeared to endorse civil unions" for same-sex couples.

The group asked Mr. Rove to designate "a top level" official to coordinate opposition to same-sex marriage, as a show of commitment.

Trent Duffy, a spokesman for the White House, said on Monday that "the president was simply talking about a situation that exists in the Senate, not about his personal commitment or his willingness to continue to push this issue." Mr. Duffy said the "president remains very committed to a marriage amendment" and added, "We always welcome suggestions from our friends."

Some Senate Republican leaders were not optimistic on Monday about the amendment's prospects this year.

"I think if we had the vote right now we'd come up short," said Senator Rick Santorum, the Pennsylvania Republican who is a member of the leadership and one of the amendment's most vocal backers in Congress. "We'd like to bring it up when we have the best possible chance of getting it passed."

The members of the coalition that wrote the letter are some of Mr. Bush's most influential conservative Christian supporters, and include Dr. James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, the Southern Baptist Convention, the American Family Association, Jerry Falwell and Paul Weyrich.

Several members of the group said that not long ago, many of their supporters were working or middle class, members of families that felt more allegiance to the Democratic Party because of programs like Social Security before gravitating to the Republican Party as it took up more cultural conservative issues over the last 20 years.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, declined to talk about the letter, but said, "The enthusiasm to get behind his proposals is going to require that he get behind the issues that really motivated social conservative voters."

Asked to estimate the level of discontent with the White House among the group on a scale from one to 10, Mr. Perkins put it at 8.


TOPICS: Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: amendment; arlingtongroup; fma; marriage; reform; socialsecurity; term2
Someone told me last week I don't need to excerpt from the New York Times; I hope he's right.
1 posted on 01/25/2005 8:30:23 AM PST by HostileTerritory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory

I think President Bush is very wise to stick to substantive issues like the privatization of Social Security rather than becoming entangled in cultural issues like abortion rights and gay marriage. The privatization of Social Security is going to be a more difficult struggle than we expected, and the administration cannot afford to expend political capital in polarizing cultural issues. Although it is true that a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, that is not the same as saying a majority of Americans support changing the constitution to address it. Numerous states passed amendments to their state constitutions this last election to handle this. I'm not sure there is universal enthusiasm for taking it to the national level.


2 posted on 01/25/2005 8:38:27 AM PST by edweena
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edweena

well said. I agree. Republicans are supposed to be for state's rights anyhoo....

If these groups really do sabotage SS reform for this somewhat unimportant idea it will be absolutely discraceful. I think they will loose a lot of allies and make a lot of enemies and it will start to splinter the republican party.

The democratic party has to be looking to ways to splinter the economic and social wings of the republican party and must be loving this... :(


3 posted on 01/25/2005 8:51:53 AM PST by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/blackconservatism.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

I diagree. This is an important idea. It won 11-0 on election day. Bush is supposed to be championing it, but he is not. It helped get him elected. This is one way to get his attention, since social security reform is probably one of the three biggest ideas he has.


4 posted on 01/25/2005 8:58:59 AM PST by KC_Conspirator (This space outsourced to India)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

Whether the government will acknowledge Man & Man/Women & Women unions as legitimate marriages SHOULD NOT be a state issue. This is a federal matter if ever there was one. Personally, I have always thought the idea of augmenting the US Constitution to limit the"rights" of its citizenry as repugnant, however this is a very different matter. If the US Constitutuion can be used to outlaw slavery, then it can be used to outlaw Homosexual marriage, both unnatural and socially malignant institutions. Homosexuality is, like it or not, seen as morally acceptable by a large number of Americans. It is an unfortunate truth, IMAO, that the Federal government must now legislate morality because our religious & social institutions were too weak to do so.


5 posted on 01/25/2005 9:10:52 AM PST by two134711
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: two134711

Indeed. "Gay Marriage" opens up the door to "legitimize" all sorts of of depravity, accelerating the downslide of a very slippery slope.


6 posted on 01/25/2005 9:20:49 AM PST by loborojo (What the hell is a "Reagan Democrat"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: two134711

two134711 wrote:
"Homosexuality is, like it or not, seen as morally acceptable by a large number of Americans. It is an unfortunate truth, IMAO, that the Federal government must now legislate morality because our religious & social institutions were too weak to do so."

You have stated exactly why it would be a waste of time for President Bush to put all his energy into passing a constitutional amendment that would prevent gay marriage nationally. It would ensure that all gay sex would be extramarital, but would do nothing to legislate morality. As you point out, a large number of Americans do not worry about other adults' sex lives anymore. Only religious and social institutions CAN effectively control private behavior in this climate.

There are more urgent matters on which Republicans can achieve a consensus, and legislation will actually achieve its end.


7 posted on 01/25/2005 9:32:53 AM PST by edweena
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: two134711

Agreed.


8 posted on 01/25/2005 9:39:14 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory
The NYT would love to see the Republican Party divide internally, and fight itself. Gay marriage is an idea that liberal judges have rammed down the throats of the bulk of the population distribution's misgivings.

The right answer, IMHO, is Social Security reform including appropriate provisions about dividing the surviving spouse benefits amongst all the surviving spouses. That would lessen the attractiveness of gay marriage.

9 posted on 01/25/2005 9:58:15 AM PST by Woodworker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory
SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

She had to get THAT in there, eh?

10 posted on 01/25/2005 10:01:00 AM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edweena; two134711; traviskicks
... it would be a waste of time for President Bush to put all his energy into passing a constitutional amendment that would prevent gay marriage nationally. It would ensure that all gay sex would be extramarital, but would do nothing to legislate morality. As you point out, a large number of Americans do not worry about other adults' sex lives anymore. Only religious and social institutions CAN effectively control private behavior in this climate.

It would also protect us from being forced to recognize their deviant practices as normal. It would allow us to protect children from being adopted into sodomite households by requiring adoptive parents to be married. It would protect the 38 states with Defense of Marriage laws from being overruled by one liberal court in mASSachusetts (due to the 14th ammendment). It would protect my tax dollars from going to support perversion via spousal benefits to sodomites. It would save millions of insurance dollars in medical costs to self-inflicted aids patients who "married" someone just for the coverage.

It would not legislate morality or prevent perverse sexual relations. But that is not the goal of the ammendment (directly at least). If we do not protect marriage, making the institution and the benefits of marriage available to any couple no matter what the make-up, then we are encouraging people to stay trapped in a dangerous and damaging lifestyle. That would certainly not help the situation. Remember that Marriage is a social institution and that it does regulate behavior. It must be protected.

While it is true that most Americans don't care about others sexual behavior it is also true that most Americans care about others sexual behvaior when it affects them. They are welcome to behave however they want as long as they keep it in the bedroom and out of our face. "gay marriage" waves it right under our noses

There are more urgent matters on which Republicans can achieve a consensus, and legislation will actually achieve its end.

Protection of marriage is the most important issue facing America today. Everything else pales in comparison. If we lose the family, we lose the country.

President Bush was elected on moral and values issues. If he deserts us on this most important issue then why should we support him on less important issues? Who cares about social security if the country is going to hell in a generation anyway? Why bother securing the borders if America as we know it is already dead? etc

Republicans win when they run as conservatives. Over 60% of the American population (as seen by the recent election) supports a protection of marriage ammendment. It's a no lose situation for the President. He can cement his party's position and, at the same time, do the right thing with the approval of a vast majority of the citizens.

11 posted on 01/25/2005 10:22:02 AM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Woodworker
The right answer, IMHO, is Social Security reform including appropriate provisions about dividing the surviving spouse benefits amongst all the surviving spouses.

Fortunately we don't have legal polygamy in this country (yet) so we don't have surviving spouses. We only have a surviving spouse.

Of course if 'gay marriage' is legalized we'll have legal polygamy within a year.

12 posted on 01/25/2005 10:24:42 AM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory

The amendment will not work at least until prior to the next election when moderate senators and reps will have reelection reasons for supporting it. In any case, the Republicans do not have the required 2/3 vote in the Senate, and they will not have it anytime in the near future. They certainly cannot overcome a filibuster in the Senate.

Their only recourse then is a called "constitutional convention." That is too dangerous even for them to contemplate, although they might get mischievous liberals to support such a call.


13 posted on 01/25/2005 10:56:47 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John O
you're right. Now we have only a surviving spouse. For Gay marriage, we need to have surviving spouses (speece?). Then divide amongst them. I'll bet there will be "speece" in the background of most parties to a gay marriage.
14 posted on 01/25/2005 11:42:01 AM PST by Woodworker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory

Good! I hope they can tie the PR campaign to include this as protecting grandmother's social security from the government paying fo the recreational sex of homosexuals.


15 posted on 01/25/2005 2:30:53 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edweena

The implication of the quote is that "a large number" equals a majority.

Remember the homosexuals called 3% a large number to justify their demands.

There is no reason for social secuirty to pander to homosexual lifestyle choices.

Today social secuirty, tommorrow the want IMMIGRATION VISAS. That will open the door to gut or remove DOMA sooner.

We need the FMA just as much as SS reform.


16 posted on 01/25/2005 2:33:10 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: John O
Fortunately we don't have legal polygamy in this country (yet) so we don't have surviving spouses. We only have a surviving spouse.

If a marriage has lasted 10 years, the surviving spouses may collect if he/she has not remarried even if the deceased spouse has remarried. So yes, we can have surviving spouses.

17 posted on 01/25/2005 2:38:33 PM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom

but only proportionate to the duration of the marriage. It is a pie divided.


18 posted on 01/25/2005 2:53:05 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: All

folks homosexual marriage is now a federal issue.

Should a homosexual "fiance" in Mass be able to apply for a FEDERAL immigration visa?

How about immediate family visas?

A US citizen is ENTITLED to bring a "fiance" into the USA. (even overcoming felony excludability)

The law NEVER inquires as to love, it is not relevant to the debate.

It is a federal debate because the FMA will put marriage back to the states.


19 posted on 01/25/2005 2:58:47 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
but only proportionate to the duration of the marriage. It is a pie divided.

No, the pie is not divided. Check the SS web site for rules regarding surviving spouse.

20 posted on 01/25/2005 3:06:51 PM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: John O; edweena; two134711


My response is simply that I disagree. To be honest, I'm opposed to this constitutional amendment anyway. But even if I supported it I would still not rank it anywhere near the importance of SS reform.

We have literally trillions of dollars of future wealth at stake and the growth and power of this country at stake and these groups want to give it up? For what?

This is my opinion on this as posted elsewhere here on FR:



If a judge throws out a referendum or declares a state law unconstitutional it can always be appealed and will likely be overturned if it is without merit (like the 9th court of App always is).

Say it turns out that, for whatever reason, it cannot be appealed (I'm not a lawyer and don't know exactly how the appellate process works). It is my understanding that the legislators of that state pass the laws by which the state courts rule, and if it is the people's belief that gay marriage not take place then their elected state legislators must respond by passing laws that state this or the people will vote them out.

However, if activist judges take a step further and declare a law banning gay marriage null on the basis of it's unconstitutionality, then the people of that state, through either referendum or their legislators, can take the steps needed to re-write their state constitution. Every state in the United States has option available to modify their state constitutions. Also, many States elect their state Supreme Court justices. I know NC does. (I actually disagree with this cuz of the corruption issues and think governors should appoint judges, but I digress)

A state judge cannot rule a law unconstitutional if it is in the state constitution.

So, I hope you all agree that up till this point the process of state government covers all bases.

The only issue arising of concern is one where a FEDERAL judge, such as the Supreme Court, rules that gay marriage is not consistent with the law. There is a federal law, 'the Defense of Marriage Act' - which states marriage is between a man and a woman.

So, the only way the Federal government could overturn the popular opinion of people in a state is by either A) rewriting 'the defense of marriage act' or B) by a Federal Judge determining that the 'defense of marriage act' is unconstitutional by the national constitution.

A) can happen only if people elect a majority of Congressmen who are very sympathetic to gay marriage

and

B) can only happen if a President, elected by the people, appoints enough like-minded judges to rule on this.

So, the danger of gay marriage coming to pass is the Danger FROM the Federal government, yet you all seek to increase its power! What you giveth can be taken away. Imagine if 50 years from now most of the country is in favor of gay marriage and only a few conservative states oppose it. Guess what? Taking the attitude you all are taking will result in the Federal Government imposing these standards or some other standard back on all of you when the tables are turned and forcing states to accept gay marriage.

This is what happened to Utah with Polygamy. The federal government actually seized Church property at one point and imprisoned hundreds of Mormons and stripped them of their voting rights.

The Conservative platform is for state's rights and limited Federal government and it's like that way for a reason - its what this country was founded on. Heading down this path is a slippery slope, and the dog may one day bite the hand that fed it. This is why Dick Cheney and many prominent Conservatives have endorsed my position and still do (although quietly now).

Some might argue that this is different issue then slavery or polygamy because (ostensibly) gays are not denied any 'civil rights' type issue because they can leave the state to go to a state where gay marriage is legal. I tend to agree.

Or, if gay marriage is not legal in any state, they could all move to a state and campaign to get gay marriage passed in that state. As American citizens this is their right. I don't believe a Federal Court will accept that gay marriage tramples on the rights of others if a majority of people in the state are for it (either by voting in legislators or amending the state constitution). Again, this is different then slavery state rights.

I also think the biggest threat to the family unit is not gay marriage, but government spending on Welfare. Here you can see a brief excerpt illustrating this:
http://www.neoperspectives.com/summary.htm
but more is on the larger paper.

I think many of our Republican leaders know all this and went ahead with it anyway just to get voter turnout up. I think this is shameful.

One last remark. Obviously the media supports gay marriage and it is a bit strange to be angry at the media bias and gay demagauging activists for the typical liberal bias that is forced on everyone and in this case actually agree with them (in principal) while still remaining just as angry at the bias! A bit of a juxtaposition.

--

If the Constitutional amendment was to ban the federal government from ever forcing a state to recognize the marriage laws of another state I would support it. This isn't what the amendment is about.

What this amendment does is make it impossible for the population of a state to live the way they choose. If all the gays in the country moved to Massachusetts and the citizens of that state voted 95% to pass gay marriage laws and elected pro gay politicians and judges the state could have its population imprisoned, fined, or whatever by Federal law enforcement agencies, or federal troops if they went ahead with gay marriage in that state. This is wrong.

DOMA is enough. The big point of contention SHOULD be whether states who pass gay marriage laws can then have those couples fall under federal benefits. For some reason the debate is not on this. But, this issue should be treated as a normal law making issue by Congress. DOMA is this law - if a majority of states with large populations pass gay marriage laws then the DOMA will probably be repealed and gay couples in those states that have gay marriage will be treated under the Federal law as a marriage.

I would then think that married gay couples that then move to a state where gay marriage is not allowed would still be defined as married under federal law, but not under state law.

But this is all speculation that a shift like this will ever take place.

This has nothing to do with classroom education (although its another argument for school choice) and all of these extraneous arguments about bestiality, incest and pedophilia don't qualify because harm is being done to another individual or animal or unborn in those instances - which would give the Federal Government the right to supersede states rights IF a population of a state ever got wacky enough to actually support those propositions (which I doubt).

I don't see the need for a Constitutional amendment. I guess we just agree to disagree... All and all I think it is a minor issue of little importance. The main thing that digs me is the politicking over principal that normally doesn’t accompany the Republican Party.


21 posted on 01/25/2005 4:10:08 PM PST by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/blackconservatism.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

I am a lawyer and we DO need a constitutional amendment to shut the entire debate down. It removes marriage from the federal arena by limiting marriage to only the common law definition. It leaves the individual states to decide what to do about marriage-lite laws.

There IS a need for the FMA because as http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1328306/posts?page=11 AND http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327284/posts indicate, the homosexuals are going to pursue a longer term agenda. They see recruiting children as the key to overturning laws in the future.

As the first FR thread indicates, the HRC and PFLAG and GLSEN intent to forum shop to more sympathetic federal districts to impose the Mass. ruling upon the other states. This also includes efforts to impose civil unions from other states.

You have to fight the fight on all fronts not just one. Social Security reform is a now a part of the political landscape. I think the very FIRST question that has to be asked and answered IS: "Whose money is it?"


22 posted on 01/25/2005 6:31:56 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
If a marriage has lasted 10 years, the surviving spouses may collect if he/she has not remarried even if the deceased spouse has remarried. So yes, we can have surviving spouses.

from my viewpoint that's insane. Sinxce I don't belive in divorce except in cases of proven adultery, why should the adulterer get anything. (of course the adulterous party should lose everything in the divorce)

23 posted on 01/26/2005 10:42:42 AM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
If a marriage has lasted 10 years, the surviving spouses may collect if he/she has not remarried even if the deceased spouse has remarried. So yes, we can have surviving spouses.

from my viewpoint that's insane. Since I don't believe in divorce except in cases of proven adultery, why should the adulterer get anything. (of course the adulterous party should lose everything in the divorce)

24 posted on 01/26/2005 10:43:07 AM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator

I diagree. This is an important idea. It won 11-0 on election day. Bush is supposed to be championing it, but he is not. It helped get him elected. This is one way to get his attention, since social security reform is probably one of the three biggest ideas he has.


For sure, and this time of year, tax time, is when the Fed Govt is going to get all the cries from the gays about so called confussion over how to file, and their right to file as married. They will continue to push it in regard to filing status for their Fed Tax Returns. It's already all over the papers.


25 posted on 01/26/2005 10:50:36 AM PST by gidget7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: two134711
that the Federal government must now legislate morality because our religious & social institutions were too weak to do so.

Well put! And the Amendment also addressed Judicial Tyranny, and stated no court could force states to enact gay marriage rights. So it is definitely needed.
26 posted on 01/26/2005 10:53:11 AM PST by gidget7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: John O

"It would allow us to protect children from being adopted into sodomite households by requiring adoptive parents to be married."



Not just that, it will allow us to keep it from being taught as normal in our schools. They are going through this in Canada as we speak!


"Protection of marriage is the most important issue facing America today. Everything else pales in comparison. If we lose the family, we lose the country."



I have to agree with this. And if the issue of how gay marriage effects SS, it only makes sense that the issue be addressed as well. On the other hand, some gays have declined to marry in CA due to the current SS benefits rates, and it would effect them adversely to do so.


27 posted on 01/26/2005 11:00:17 AM PST by gidget7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

As the first FR thread indicates, the HRC and PFLAG and GLSEN intent to forum shop to more sympathetic federal districts to impose the Mass. ruling upon the other states. This also includes efforts to impose civil unions from other states.


I must agree. If the federal DOMA is challenged and the Court says it is unconstitutional, then the gays will do exactly what they did in MA< and immediately go out and marry. They won't wait for an amendment to be argued and proposed to the people for a vote.

That is exactly what happened in MA, there was no time to get an amendment to the ballot. It needs to be done Before, any challenge.


28 posted on 01/26/2005 11:06:59 AM PST by gidget7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory
A coalition of major conservative Christian groups is threatening to withhold support for President Bush's plans to remake Social Security unless Mr. Bush vigorously champions a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

They can either get on board, or they can have their agenda kicked out of the "big tent" altogether. They don't have much time to grow up and choose the former.

29 posted on 01/26/2005 4:14:44 PM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John O
President Bush was elected on moral and values issues.

Replacing the government's Ponzi Scam with a sound retirement security arrangement is the most important moral and values issue on the table.

It is certainly far more important than indulging these WAAA WAAAA ME ME ME GIVE ME WHAT I WANT RIGHT NOW!!!!! crybabies.

30 posted on 01/26/2005 4:17:45 PM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator

Yes it won, it is an important issue, but linkage is the sure way to get nothing done. Let's try to not make changing the nation so complicated. Leave it to the states to settle.


31 posted on 01/26/2005 4:18:55 PM PST by damper99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: John O
I don't belive in divorce except in cases of proven adultery

Political decisions are based on the opinions of sane people. Someone who thinks that one ought to stay in a marriage while being beaten to a pulp need not apply.

32 posted on 01/26/2005 4:21:19 PM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
Political decisions are based on the opinions of sane people. Someone who thinks that one ought to stay in a marriage while being beaten to a pulp need not apply.

So I made the mistake of not including criminal behavior. If someone is assualting their spouse they are criminals and need to be imprisoned, not just divorced.

I could build a biblical case that such a criminal has already committed adultery against their spouse in this case

33 posted on 01/27/2005 4:11:40 AM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
Replacing the government's Ponzi Scam with a sound retirement security arrangement is the most important moral and values issue on the table.

If you lose the family it really doesn't matter what else the government does. You've already lost the foundation this country was built upon. Without the traditional family none of our other laws or institutions make any sense whatsoever. It's somewhat akin to the fact that without God there is no true morality. Without the family there is no United States.

Defending the family is the single most important issue today

34 posted on 01/27/2005 4:15:02 AM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: John O

I totally agree with you. If the leftists keep weakening the family and morallity in the country, it will soon be on the ash-heap of history because Christians will no longer be able to support this government. Secularists have no chance of saving it in a moral vacuum.


35 posted on 01/27/2005 4:20:19 AM PST by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: John O

Nope. The sanctity of private property is the foundation this country is built upon. This is demonstrated by the fact that one stable property-owning single person contributes orders of magnitude more to society than a welfare brood mare (even if she has all the kids with the help of her husband).


36 posted on 01/27/2005 7:11:57 AM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
Nope. The sanctity of private property is the foundation this country is built upon. This is demonstrated by the fact that one stable property-owning single person contributes orders of magnitude more to society than a welfare brood mare (even if she has all the kids with the help of her husband).

Oh really? If the mother is married she is most likely not on welfare anyway (as you get much more $ when dad is not there). So lets compare apples to apples shall we? A married man (even one who owns no property) is more stable and tends to earn more. He is more active in his community and usually does not partake in hazardous activities like homosexual behavior or public drunkeness. He tries his best to raise his children to be good citizens. When he dies he leaves a lasting legacy called the next generation.

A single property owner is more likely to be sexually promiscuous, more likely to be a partier and less likely to affect his community for the better (why partake in Parent Teacher Organmizations or any other community bettering activity without children?). When he dies his property gets sold off or parcelled out and he is remembered no more. He has removed himself from the gene pool and has no lasting effect on society.

The traditional family is what made this country great. Without the traditioanl family property ownership means nothing. (who cares what you own if you have no children)

(BTW, I oppose welfare because it attacks the traditional family. Welfare, more than any other thing, is responsible for poverty and illegitimacy in the black community)

37 posted on 01/27/2005 9:58:24 AM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: John O
A single property owner is more likely to be sexually promiscuous, more likely to be a partier and less likely to affect his community for the better

Nonsense. He supports the capitalist system (which is synonymous with all that is good in America).

38 posted on 01/27/2005 10:59:09 AM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
Nonsense. He supports the capitalist system (which is synonymous with all that is good in America).

As does the traditional family who doesn't own property. The difference is that the family will survive and provide the next generation of capitalists while he is just a dead end consumer. He gives no lasting contribution back to the system

Without the traditional family, even capitalism will die out.

39 posted on 01/27/2005 11:10:47 AM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson