Skip to comments.The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage [retread pinko zot]
Posted on 02/22/2012 12:01:42 PM PST by NoPinkos
click here to read article
Don’t sweat it.
It’s like when trolls scream “Bullies” or “Tattle tale!” at the Viking Kities or other such when caught.
What does being a "Goldwater guy" have to do with being an actual conservative? Barry Goldwater's first wife Peggy served on the national Board of Directors of Planned Barrenhood from about 1940 until her death in the mid-1970s. His last wife was another baby-killing enthusiast. Barry bragged publicly about bringing his daughter Susan to abort his grandchild and said that anyone who did not like that could kiss his ass. Barry betrayed Ronaldus Maximus regularly because of Barry's refusal to support a restoration of Western Civilization. Barry supported feckless Gerald Ford (as did Ayn Rand) because Ford and wife Betty were cheerleaders for abortion and Barry even cut a commercial for the 1976 California primary asking whether Californians REALKY wanted Reagan's finger near the nuclear button (the only thing missing being the little girl and the daisy).
Barry was also a persistent supporter of male homosexuality since at least two of his otherwise male descendants were sexual perverts of that sort.
Ted Olson, like Goldwater, is straight personally but is an enabler of the social perversions. Next we will be hearing how abortion is part of the "American dream" and something intended by the Founding Fathers when it is entirely more likely that they would have found abortion to be a pretext justifying them in tarring and feathering abortionists and riding them out of town on a rail as a preliminary to burning them at the stake.
The New Haven Colony (which joined with the Connecticut Colony to form the State of Connecticut), had a 17th century ordinance providing the death penalty for mere homosexual orientation, no actual sexual performance being necessary to qualify for such condemnation to capital punishment. Neither the Rev. Mr. Jonathan Davenport nor his immediate successors were confused or to be trifled with on this subject.
Thus abortion and sexual perversion posing as "marriage" are morality issues and never "rights" issues.
We are conservatives and NOT libertoonians.
Hello, Mr. Vader. Did you ping Godzilla when you used his picture?
OMGoodness, I get to ping my two favorites!!
My feewings are hurted.
Fret not, I get that kind of treatment from trolls and their enablers quite often.
Hey nut case. Tell you this much. Put ALL the lesbos on one island, ALL the queer men on another and see which one survives more than one generation.
Are you the several times zotted Loren C, and are you still a homo?
Godzilla - accept no substitutes
Yeah, like state-sanctioned sodomy. Now THAT's Conservative.
I stopped reading this waste of space right there.
Society consents to elect the government the arbiter of marriage when it fails, because it is the logical, presumably objective, party to do so. (Who else is to be the decider of things that MUST be decided when things go wrong in a marriage or one party dies?) And to arbitrate, it must define the substance of the case: marriage. What it defines (and marriage is ALREADY defined by eons of societies) it has every right to license, which isn't really a "license" in the proper use of the word, but a recording fee.
First of all Government should not be recognizing any marriages. They should only deal with contract law. Marriage should be stricken from any Government lexicon, thats what I am trying to say. If I want to have 10 wifes,why cant I? Why government wont recognize it?! King Solomon had many wifes,and I can have children with all of them. (Unlike homosexuality, having multiple wifes is natural and was done by kings in Biblical time) However, I can sleep and have children with 20 woman,and Government says nothing. But No,if I wanna register It officially,it becomes Illegal. Why? As conservative, I want government to have very limited effect on my life,including who I can or can’t Marry.
Governments have been recognizing marriages for over a thousand years.
You sound like a libertarian troll who wants to allow same-sex marriage while pretending to oppose it.
If I want to have 10 wifes,why cant I? Why government wont recognize it?! King Solomon had many wifes,and I can have children with all of them.
The libertarian cesspool expands.
As conservative, I want government to have very limited effect on my life,including who I can or cant Marry.
Newbie, YOU ARE NOT A CONSERVATIVE.
The Founders set up our government according to Godly principles. What you are pushing is anarchistic.
Marriage, and the natural family it produces, is a God-given institution, our most fundamental civilizing one. It is the foundation stone of all civil society. It is the basis for organized human government. It is the most important wellspring of economics.
To destroy that is to destroy America.
There is a name for those who are not allowed to have government recognize and pay due regard to the civil marriage contract: chattel slaves.
Thus abortion and sexual perversion posing as “marriage” are morality issues and never “rights” issues.
We are conservatives and NOT libertoonians.
Boy, these certainly are difficult threads to post on. Everybody seems to be looking for a “gotcha you’re a gay lover” thing.
I merely responded to a post wondering who Olson was. Regardless, of how anyone on this thread feels, Olson was a Goldwater guy in 1964. That was “Conscience of A Conservative” Goldwater. He worked for Reagan. He was involved in Bush v Gore.
The point I made later in the thread was this background made Olson more credible when he tries to make his arguments to the general public. That is dangerous, because it can influence a significant group of people who may be ambivalent on the subject like many are. That means keep pushing states on anti-gay marriage amendments and keep on the offense. That also means a full-scale anti-Obama attack because the wrong Supreme Court picks can negate all the work done at the state level.
The battle to defend marriage is on three fronts. If one gets lost, it will fail.
Yes name calling is the best defense and very mature!
Why should government encourage any type of behavior. Should government encourage for people to buy health insurance,or send their kids to public schools,or buy houses on credit?! I agree that marriage is Godly that’s why its up to Rabbis and priests to marry people. Understand, any time you think the government should encourage /discourage or force some type of behavioral. This power can be used by the Libs to force behavior which you find distasteful to yourself. Fundamentally, Government should stay out of persons affairs UNLESS it significantly effects other people. As of today marriage is just a formality, why is it so hard to understand. Take an atheist do they care to get married, NO! What changes to them if they married,or not- NOTHING. The only people who care about marriage are religious, thus its between them and G-D. If you bring Government into the Holy union they will turn it unholy,as they usually do.
It would open a can of worms, too. for instance... teens can be able to wed with their parents or guardian permission. Does that mean that teens can't be married? Or are you going to ban teen marriages?
I'm not an autority on marriage, but there's only one AUTHORITY on it ---GOD!!
“And to arbitrate, it must define the substance of the case: marriage. What it defines (and marriage is ALREADY defined by eons of societies) it has every right to license, which isn’t really a “license” in the proper use of the word, but a recording fee.”
The definition the state uses, at least in modern times, is simply whatever judges, pols or the majority think it can be at any one time, though. Many have been conditioned to think that the institution comes from the state, 40% in a recent poll. This is wonderful for statists and homosexualists. Because if folks think marriage comes from the state, they will accept whatever impossibility the state puts forth as marriage that year, and society can then be manipulated through gubbermental rewards and punishments that already exist concerning gov’t recognition of the institution.
Marriage will never be let go by the state, in my opinion. They will never give up the power to punish those who look to their faith to define the institution, intead of pieces of paper issued to folks the state claims can be married. Same thing with charity and education, in my opinion. Although I think you are right in that there is more of a case to be made for state involvement in marriage to some degree than in charity and education.
Maybe a few quotes will explain WHY.
Government recognizing a timeless truth such as marriage, and acting accordingly: honoring the inviolate relationship between husband, wife and the children they bear; seeing the uniquely unifying nature of marriage; acknowledging how marriage is critical to the continuance of society through optimally replenishing society, recognizing the inseparable religious component of marriage by allowing clergy to activate it - none of these things constitutes "creation" by any stretch of the imagination.
Government recognition of marriage has been the norm since nearly the establishment of this nation and has never been a problematic issue in the least until the very recent interventions by anarchist usurpers enabled by a profligate government court system.
If you need to attack something, attack the anarchists, not marriage as we have known it. Your energies are much more needed there.
Even if he/she DOES oppose same-sex “marriage,” you can be he/she is a strong advocate of “civil unions.” I’ve heard enough from these types to know this for certain.
James Baker worked for Reagan as did Howard Baker. Neither was anything vaguely resembling a conservative. In James Baker's case, he was as corrupt as many Demonrat counterparts like Clark Clifford and his only observable purpose for being in politics was to facilitate the special interests which he had always represented as an attorney. Michael Deaver was another non-conservative in Reagan's administration. In fact, Reagan regularly chose his enemies to be high up in his administrations in Sacramento and in DC. It was the living embodiment of Vito Corleone's wisdom: Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
Whatever Olson may THINK Olson is, his partnership with Al Gore's lawyer David Boies in advocating that somehow the Constitution enshrines sexual perversion posing as "marriage" as an equal right which must be enforced by the states or by the fedcourts, is a suggestion either that neither is capable of reading the actual text of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause (rather unlikely) or that they are mutually attempting to pull a professional fast one and get SCOTUS to do for sexual perversion posing as "marriage" what Herod Blackmun and his SCOTUS colleagues did for baby-killing in Roe vs. Wade.
BTW, David Boies was lead counsel for Al Gore in Bush vs. Gore and is a gonzo leftist. The image presented is that Olson allegedly from the Right and Boies surely of the Left are in agreement that there is some sort of constitutional right for Adam's johnson to be roaming Steve's Hershey highway and to call it "marriage" complete with Steve sharing the perks of Adam's employment, Social Security coverage, insurance coverage, Medicare, etc. all funded by OPM as though Steve were an actual wife despite his total lack of qualifying body parts.
The next GOP administration should avoid this sort of embarrassment by naming Jay Sekulow as Solicitor General and we may rest assured that, after he has left office, Sekulow will not be joining some Leftist lawyer to advocate mandatory abortion or the equal rights of the polygamists or of sexual twelvesomes or of those seeking sex with household pets or farm animals or whatever.
Either Gingrich or Santorum, if nominated and elected, can be counted on to do what is necessary.
“What I have been stating is the absolute antithesis of saying “marriage comes from the state.”
I never thought you were. I think few if any on FR think that, although I have seen one or two.
“...none of these things constitutes “creation” by any stretch of the imagination.”
Not to you or me, but many have been conditioned to think that the institution does exist by the sufferance of Man and thus the state, 40% by a recent poll. So they accept whatever the state tells them is marriage. “Gay marriage” would never have found such acceptance if folks looked to their faith to define the institution. The same goes for most divorce and remarriage.
“Government recognition of marriage has been the norm since nearly the establishment of this nation and has never been a problematic issue in the least until the very recent interventions by anarchist usurpers enabled by a profligate government court system.”
It was always a danger, as the state’s definition of marriage is simply what judges, pols, or the majority think it can be at any one time. That works fine, up until the state’s definition departs from the actual definition, and society has become used to letting the state determine what a marriage can be.
“If you need to attack something, attack the anarchists, not marriage as we have known it.”
Anyone can look at my posts and see the only thing I have attacked are statists and homosexualists. They are the ones who are going to punish those who disagree with them about what marriage can or can’t be. That’s what all this is about.
Typical libertarian/leftist/anarchist CRAP!
The PURPOSE of government is to protect our God-given rights, one way this is done is by encouraging some behavior and discouraging other behavior. By YOUR convoluted system, governments wouldn't even encourage people not to rape and murder.
I agree that marriage is Godly thats why its up to Rabbis and priests to marry people.
And there are plenty of leftist ministers who are all too happy to marry sodomites and that is EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE PUSHING.
Government should stay out of persons affairs UNLESS it significantly effects other people. As of today marriage is just a formality, why is it so hard to understand.
The militant homosexual agenda DOES affect all of us, it IS NOT a "formality" no matter how much you wish it to be so.
Nothing DOMA did changed anything that wasn't already true, although the Left wants us to believe the fantasy that DOMA and like laws somehow "took away civil rights." DOMA was the law before ANY state counterfeited marriage. The homo-Left leaves that part out.
I guess the government shouldn’t recognize gravity either.
“The government action of sanctioning marriage can be seen as not the creation of prohibitions, but the preventing of usurpers from coming in to redefine and, thereby, destroy.”
The state recognition of marriage has good elements, true. And bad elements. The whole civil rights argument for “gay marriage” is completely wrong. But I can understand the argument, as many simply look at marriage a collection of benefits and strictures that can be ended and resumed between any two (or more) people as long as the state agrees. Which is a bad result of state involvement, in my opinion.
That has to be a sentence that you really don't believe and that you want to have a chance to explain. Otherwise, it's just irrelevant in the entire world of thinking people. As a stand alone sentence, it doesn't have a leg to stand on.
alex2011 - Stupidity for $200
What is ZOT.
my turn! my turn!
NoPinkos is not red -
because he P P'd in his bed.
And it has been said -
that is why he's never wed.
Now if I incur any blame
for taking on this silly game
I'll have no option but feel ashamed
and then will have to change my name.
(hurrying off to catch a plane)
Another Liberaltarian gets the ZOT!
Just as a general rant regarding the so-called conservatives on this thread that seem enraptured with leftism....
I have found that purging every liberal/moderate ‘wannabee conservative’ from my life has resulted in such an improvement in my well being.
Friends? True friendship not possible with a diametrically opposed philosophy. It is a lie.
Family? Well, let then change over to YOUR way of thinking. Their choice.
Co workers/boss? Really want to work in that environment with a lib in charge of your check?
Romantic interest? Plenty of likeminded people to be found.
Sure, your social circles change dramatically - for the better,; get smaller - and thus closer; and I’m really not seeing the downside to any of this.
Has served me well for a number of years now. People call me crazy, but I’m not the one compromising everything I believe to ‘get along’. And I sleep the sleep of angels.
That was horribly wonderful!
Nice Z O T......well-deserved!
Now that you read it, do you know who has FR eraser?
Thanks. I didn’t know that about Goldwater. And now he wishes it weren’t true.
>> Olsen: Legalizing same-sex marriage would also be a recognition of basic American principles
“Legalization” ultimately translates to incarceration of the non-believers.
What a statist punk.