Posted on 08/31/2010 5:37:16 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
Memo to conservative defeatists: Surrender on gay marriage is surrender on marriage – which is surrender on the family and, ultimately, surrender on civilization.
Last Saturday, Glenn Beck held his Restoring Honor rally in Washington, D.C. An estimated 300,000 to half a million people came from all over the country. The Fox News host made the event an interfaith revival. "America today begins to turn back to God," Beck declared.
But while America turns back to God, Beck turns his back on God's law. Hey, that's catchy!
A guest on the "O'Reilly Factor" in early August, Beck was asked, "Do you believe that gay marriage is a threat to the country in any way?" Answer: "No I don't. Will gays come and get us?" Apparently, this jocularity was meant to belittle the bumpkins who oppose turning marriage into a free-form institution.
Beck then quoted his hero, Thomas Jefferson (who thought the French Revolution was groovy): "If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket what difference is it to me?" Apparently, demolishing the institution of marriage, and undermining the family, should be matters of supreme indifference to those fighting to save America from the clutches of Obamaism.
Beck is one of a growing number of conservative opinion makers who are either agnostic on the issue or have decided to earn tolerance-points with the establishment by backing here-come-the-grooms. They include The View's Elizabeth Hasselbeck. ("I actually support gay marriage.")...
Then there's Ann Coulter who's speaking at Homocon, the September extravaganza sponsored by GOProud, which seeks to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, paving the way for the imposition of same-sex marriage nationwide, and the Republican congressional leaders who are falling all over themselves to attend a Sept. 22, D.C. fundraiser for the Log Cabin Republicans.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Ping...
I am no prophet, but if the United States legalizes gay marriage, God will permit the darkness of Islam to overthrow - or overtake - our nation just as he allowed the Babylonian armies to overrun Jerusalem.
A great darkness will descend on this land unless we stop this.
Why is it up to the government to sanction a sacrament?
If we do not want to impose a state based religion, then why do we allow the government to have a say in how religions establish their unions.
It is my opinion that we should be working within our churches to not perform gay marriages. I know the catholic church is not going to do it, but there are ministers and priests out there who will perform them.
We need to get the government out of church, and at the same time, change the government’s role in codifying sacraments.
Amen.
The government has an obligation to defend and promote the underpinnings of its own existence. Government can no more get out of the "marriage business" as some say, as it can get out of the "justice business".
To provide for the Common Good.
I am guessing this is the new suckup strategy at WND. Pick a fight with Ann and score brownie points from Farrah.
The radical gay activists stand and cheer when they hear those views expressed. Literally. I’ve seen it.
Either we defend the natural law everywhere in this country, or the underpinnings of our civilization and form of government will be swept away.
Rethink.
You know absolutely nothing about Don Feder if you think that has a single thing to do with what he’s saying.
The voters in CA voted against it. They voted “one man, one woman” by nearly 60%! To pass gay marriage and ignore the will of the people is the end of “the rule of law”. The constitution will be rendered useless and pointless. This will be it’s precedence
Througout history every government or when the government wasn't around, the Church, regulated marriage and promoted it. This is what civilization is built upon. Somehow, we now think that we are so damn smart we can have a civilization without marriage being its foundation. I don't think so.
Is it no surprise that with the slow removal of God from the public square that our nation is crumbling? This freedom of worship B.S. mentality that the administration is spouting, instead of freedom of religion, is a result of this erosion.
A little over the top. Marriage is created and regulated by God, so governments can’t really do anything to it anyway.
As you can see, this article is about homosexual marriage and special rights for deviants.....which, btw, you seem to support by posting single comments on every thread.
Excellent!
Get married by a Justice of the Peace if you want, but it still maintains the definition of Marriage.
Marriage describes a relationship between a man and woman.
Based on recent experience, I'd say there are a lot of Freepers who want the government to impose their religious views on other people.
This article is just another way to divide any budding coalition among those who agree on a return to Constitutional government.
OK, blast away SoCons.
I’ve just been having this discussion with an “atheist agnostic” on FB. “Why are you so upset about a “word”, marriage? It’s just a word!” No, it’s an institution ordained by God. It’s a losing argument in some cases. IMO, marriage ceremonies should never have been allowed to be performed by civil servants. Marriage should be confined to those of faith. All others can have their civil unions, if they insist.
It's not a sacrament but a contract and that is the domain of the government -- contract law in pursuit of the common good.
Homosexuals are not conservatives. They are first and foremost homosexuals. Their lives revolve around their sexual habits. If faced with a choice between conservative values and their deviancy, they'll pick their deviancy.
I submit that the institution of marriage was undermined, perhaps fatally, decades ago when the divorce laws were changed. It went from 'What God hath joined let no man break asunder' to an agreement of convenience good only until something better came along. To say that allowing gays to marry demolishes the institution overlooks that.
Well, those governments can destroy themselves.
Do you want our form of government to be destroyed?
Because it is.
If you think gay marriage has a thing to do with Constitutional government in the American sense you know nothing about the Constitution.
No fault divorce certainly cracked the foundations, with that I will agree. But “gay” “marriage” obliterates them.
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 ]
Removing ALL Federal Law Regulations on Marriage
Permit consenting Adults to define for themselves their relationships, as a
Private, Law binding Contract defined by themselves,
including escape clauses and penalties
Removing ALL Federal Law Tax advantages on Marriage
Removing ALL Federal Law Regulations on
Contractual Obligations of Insurance, Etc.
Except those Voluntarily entered into by the "Parties"
The "Association" and the any those that chose, on their own,
to enter into any agreement with it.
Define, in Contract, Jointly held Property, obligations, and Rights
of individuals in the "Association" toward any "Product" (Children)
And get the government out of it entirely
Since Abortion is currently the law of the land,
Children born by women, not in an "Association"
Are the sole property of the Woman,
with NO other person having any Rights, Counter Claims, or Obligations
Except as defined by both the Woman and the "Other" Voluntarily
and without coercion by Law
Were Abortion to cease to be the Law of the Land,
An "Implied Contract" would be established, in Law,
Regarding the Rights, Counter Claims, and Obligations
Of the "Partner" as established by Genetic testing
Toward the "Product" ONLY
There, that should stir things up...
And Ruffle some feathers
Hear, hear!!
Not true. Religion no longer seems welcome in our government. If government says that two of the same can mate and they call it marriage, it blurs what marriage really is. And marriage is the basis for society. Marriage is the foundation of a family. And family shapes laws and societal morals. Destroy that and a moral society is lost. Welfare families with no father has chipped away at what family and society is. This will be the death knell.
***********************
Yes, and that is the goal.
The family is the bedrock of America. As goes the family; so goes America.
More than our economy, more than our laws, more than our elected officials; Mom, Dad and the kids must take center stage in our cultural priorities.
This is not open for debate. If we as a country choose to legalize (or even tolerate) gay marriages, we are doomed.
Sadly, libertarians like Beck and Coulter are not helping.
A guest on the “O’Reilly Factor” in early August, Beck was asked, “Do you believe that gay marriage is a threat to the country in any way?” Answer: “No I don’t. Will gays come and get us?”
Glen is doing a lot of good things, but his lack of understanding in this area is stunning. The principles found in the Constitution can easily be perverted to conform to selfish desires and perversions, which should by now be evident to anyone paying attention.
The founders were well aware of this vulnerability, that liberty can easily turn to license which is the mortal enemy of freedom. Adams understood this danger and the necessity of true morality when he noted that “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
The founders unlike Glen, understood very well that adherence to Natural Law or the Laws of Natures’s God are essential if were are to live as a free people.
That does not mean you can use the Constitution to enforce morality. That's not what he was saying. He was saying only a moral people can be self-governed. If we're not, then we'll fail.
Nonsense on both points. Government has defined and limited roles. Promoting social beliefs is not one of them.
And government could easily get out of the marriage business. A religious marriage has nothing to do with joint tax filing.
I agree that marriage has been under attack for decades by liberal divorce laws and prenuptial agreements, but that doesn’t justify sitting back as marriage is thoroughly destroyed.
I think that's only an assumption on your part. People were getting married whether or not they had a government that "promoted" it. I don't think it's something most governments in history needed to promote.
The founders unlike Glen, understood very well that adherence to Natural Law or the Laws of Natures’s God are essential if were are to live as a free people.
Bears repeating.
A million times, until people get it.
It's obvious from reading some of the comments on this thread already that many don't. The Libertarian disease has deeply infected a large portion of the body politic.
The institution of marriage is the first building block of civilization and of government.
What you're saying is equal to saying that that homebuilders should get out of the business of laying foundations.
Watch people blast the government, politicians, talk show personalities, media and others while they never address the Churches they belong to where the responsibility of marriage belongs.
The Churches in America have abdicated their responsibilities to the Government on too many issues. They renege on their responsibility for helping the poor and all other moral issues. The Bible says “what God has joined together” so it could well be said that the Church has allowed the government to replace God in marriage.
It’s the Churches where the blame lies. If the Churches don’t stand firm on Biblical teaching they become irrelivant.
Your post is spot on.
No one that I’m aware of is stating you can enforce morality via the Constiution. Adams very well understood that, hence the quote. However, the freedoms the Constitution was designed to protect will ultimately be destroyed along with order and strutcture unless the true moral code is observed.
Yep.
CB: “The Churches in America have abdicated their responsibilities to the Government on too many issues.”
More like the government seized power from the churches. Why would a person go to a church to request help when they can go to the government and demand it?
NS: “Marriage has lost its meaning in our society.”
That is simply not true. It may be battered in some quarters, but marriage is still meaningful to millions upon millions of couples. The divorce rate is about 50%, meaning about half of all marriages LAST. It’s even better than that, because people who are serial divorcers account for a large portion of the failed 50%.
Also, implying gay marriage won’t hurt the institution because its already “lost its meaning” is ridiculous. If it HAS lost its meaning, you seek to restore that not destroy it further. What you are implying is the similar to liberals excusing Obama’s spending because Bush spent. Well, if over spending is bad, then doing more of it is worse, right?
My Dad was a JP in Vermont when they introduced civil unions. We had several discussions about this very issue. I boiled down to a few points, many of which I am sure there is lots of viewpoints on. But here they were:
*There are two discussions to be had, one is the governmental one—the contract law one—and the religious one.
*Being gay is generally not a choice, but the way you are “wired.” Yes, there are some cases where that is not the case, but for a vast majority it is true.
*They are able to love and care for each other in a similar way that a traditional hetero couple can—with obvious exceptions. You may find the relationship abhorent personally, but that is not part of this discussion.
*Traditional marriage provides the couple with significant financial and personal benefits without the need for engaging a lawyer or other steps. It is, in essence, a one-stop shopping stop for those “contractual” benefits (inheritance, power of atty, tax and benefit situations, etc.) Those benefits may be created between any two people, but there are expenses and “hoops” that must be jumped in order to make it happen. Not so if they are “married” in the eyes of the state.
So, based on the equal protection portion of the constitution, are we not obligated to provide all couples with the same opportunity to gain these benefits through the same manner?
Therefore, it is my proposition that the “state” get out of the marriage business and get into the contractual benefits business. Leave marriage to the churches to define and support as their members please. This accomplishes the equal protection for all people, and yet retains the sacrament before God.
In the end, my Dad let his JP status expire because of his personal beliefs that he would not perform a civil union. I supported him on that decision, but I know that I would not have made the same one.
Before everyone starts jumping ugly on my because of my ID here, I am not from Vermont. I use it because I went to military school there. I am extremely pro life. I am very strong in my conservative beliefs. This does not have a single thing to do with my thoughts on whether or not being gay is an appropriate lifestyle. I have seen, second hand (meaning people close to me—but not my life) what a difficult lifestyle it is. I would not “wish it” on anyone.
BUT, I think we must keep the line very thick and bold in terms of keeping the state out of my church—and keeping my church out of the state.
We constantly talk about how the left twists the constitution to meet their needs. We cannot have it both ways.
Yes it is.
"What exactly was Jefferson doing if not "enforcing morality"?"
We were discussing the Constitution and what Adams said. Your response is a non sequitur.
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.