Open letter to conservatives who back same-sex marriage

Just two years ago, supporting homosexual marriage was such an extreme, politically radioactive position that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton – both Alinskyite progressives and long-time gay-rights supporters – saw fit to publicly and repeatedly declare their opposition to same-sex marriage.

Today, as the homosexual newspaper the Washington Blade puts it, "conservatives have taken the leadership role in achieving marriage equality."

That's right. Not only have high-profile conservatives like Glenn Beck, "The View's" Elizabeth Hasselbeck, Laura Bush, Dick Cheney and many others publicly offered their ringing endorsement of men marrying men and women marrying women, but some on the right are, as the Blade reports, actually leading the charge.

Case in point: George W. Bush's solicitor general Ted Olson has been dedicating his time as one of the two lead attorneys who successfully challenged California's Proposition 8, which had enshrined in the state's constitution the fact that, as Hillary Clinton put it, "marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman."

Indeed, proclaims the Blade, when it comes to the battle to legalize same-sex marriage, it is conservatives who "have achieved the most important success so far as they are the most willing and most able to take the case to the Supreme Court."

And S.E. Cupp, a young conservative Daily Caller columnist and frequent Fox pundit, goes so far as to say, "Conservatism and gay rights are actually natural allies. Conservatism rightly seeks to keep the government out of our private lives, and when you strip away the politics of pop culture, it's this assertion of privacy and freedom that the gay rights movement is essentially making."

Having homosexuals as co-workers does not make one competent to judge their parenting skills. To make such a judgment one must be in a position to follow the children over a long period of time and objectively evaluate many different factors. Even though most studies of homosexual parenting have built-in biases, certain negative effects have nonetheless come to light - including sexual orientation confusion. This alone can seriously disrupt normal childhood development.

The term “militant homophobia” is often used to refer to anyone who voices opposition to the gay agenda. However, it is the gay activists themselves who are “militantly” opposed to and “intolerant” of the traditional understanding of marriage and the family.

Have you honestly considered whether your homosexual co-workers are happy in their lifestyle? The research clearly indicates that homosexuals are at much higher risk for emotional and psychological illness, including suicide. The best research is also controlled for so-called perceived hatred by heterosexuals - i.e., it is not the result of the lack of societal affirmation. In fact, some countries which are the most “gay friendly” in their public policy and social attitudes, have the most unhappy homosexual populations.

I once did a research paper on the negative health effects of homosexuality, which catalogued literally dozens of diseases that are rampant in the gay community, some of them incurable. One study indicated that the lifespan of homosexuals is up to 20 years less than heterosexuals, again as the result of behavior-based disease.

Is - I ask you - the mere pointing out of such facts, and the questioning whether such a lifestyle ought to be granted full affirmation and even promoted by society, to be considered “militant homophobia”? Are we not then guilty of the biblical warning regarding those who “call good evil - and evil good”?

Come on, you’re engaging in silly talk. Are the rights enshrined and protected by the Constitution “God-Given?” OK, I’ll say yes.

But what is the point of this sort of discussion? Presumably “God-Given” rights apply to everyone, right? So go tell Kim Jung Il that his subjects have the God-Given right to a jury trial. Tell me how that works out for you.

The Founders believed certain rights were inalienable and God-Given. But they didn’t stop there, did they? They very carefully constructed a framework to implement that belief, which quite clearly isn’t self-executing. If it were, they would have just said: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and been done with it! Obviously that wouldn’t have worked. So they carefully developed a system to safeguard liberty and natural rights the best way they knew how - with a written Constitution.

Hank

There are one or two Dems who have publicly renounced SSM support. I want to say David Blankenhorn is one, but I can't find the primary source.

"Glibertarians" don't realize how anti-discrimination laws function. If SSM is instated, and you as a worker or an employer don't recognize your fellow worker's "marriage", you can be fired or sued for discrimination and creating a hostile work environment in many locales.

Also a limited government cannot redefine a natural institution like marriage and still be limited. When words lose their meaning, the people lose their freedom.

It seems that you haven't read the Constitution. The founders did say exactly that. The only difference is that they used the more explicit construction of protecting, "life, liberty, and private property."

From the Fifth AND the Fourteenth Amendments:

"No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
" No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

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.