Skip to comments.George Will: “Opposition to Gay Marriage is Dying—It’s Old People”
Posted on 12/10/2012 5:39:44 PM PST by Olog-hai
Syndicated columnist George Will, appearing Sunday on ABCs This Week, said opposition to same-sex marriage is quite literally dying, because opponents tend to be older Americans.
There is something like an emerging consensus. Quite literally, the opposition to gay marriage is dying. Its old people, Will said.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
“eventually, it will be accepted by society at large”
Sin is sin. That won’t ever change. Any society which celebrates sin will die.
Most of the young people I know (under 35, think that the government has no business in the marriage business.
One told me, “listen the government doesn’t license my baptism, they have no business in a spiritual activity at all”.
Marriage is a spiritual act, I agree the government has no business having anything to do with it.
“And there’s absolutely nothing that can be done to stop that.”
Yes, there is. Gay marriage does not produce fruit. As was said earlier, it tends to be the dalliance of a wealthy but reckless nation before it collapses of it’s own largesse.
Gay marriage does not provide for the fundamental undepinnings of civilization beyond one generation. That’s all it takes to bring about national ruin. All the nations that adopt it will collapse. They will go bankrupt.
What it will take is something boomers haven’t ever done. Stand up for something beyond themselves. Stand up for truth, stand behind God. There is hope.
and you still think this is America?
The leftist, unionized education system needs to be abolished
It’s all those stinking racist, sexist, homophobic World War II vets, Mr. Will...
“Marriage is a spiritual act, I agree the government has no business having anything to do with it.”
I’m 31. I believe that one of the fundamental roles of government is to preserve the rights of men as outlined by the English Common Law, among which are trial by jury and Habeous Corpus. Part of the ECL is the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. This is all in the constitution, and is referenced probably strongest in Reynolds v the United States, where this interpretation was given. The federal government has the right to enforce and set a standard marriage law banning polygamy, and banning homosexual marriage.
We can survive 5% of the population being gay. We can survive 5% being batcrap insane too.
We cannot afford government treating it and as normal
I’m 42 going on 90, I guess.
Same sex marriage perverts are 'quite literally' an abomination to the ONE who is LIVING. So George your opinion next to God's Word is laughable.
"The wicked plot against the righteous and gnash their teeth at them;but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for HE knows their day is coming." Psalm 37:12,13
Marriage will be a spiritual act when government stops granting it bennies
Why is government in the medical business?
Why is government in the education business?
Trying to get it all under their control, much like Islam does. Politicians are the Mullahs of the West.
That's very true when defining "marriage" in a religious sense.Anyone has the right to declare,in the name of God,or satan,or Flip Wilson that Bruce,his German Shepherd and his hamster are married.But legally...in terms of tax law,inheritance rights,parental rights and other legal issues...the government *does* have a legitimate say.
Civilization is dying, Mr. Will. Doesn’t that bother you?
What this blow hard MEANS to say is "The consensus view that homosexuality is wrong is CHANGING."
There was consensus that homosexuality was abnormal.
The "new consensus" is that it is to be celebrated over heterosexuality and promoted in the media, academia, and workforce above and beyond those boring white guys who once were considered "normal" but now are only wage slaves to support everyone else.
There is some truth to that, but with age and experience, people also change their viewpoints on many things. I suspect you are right in part, not so much because it is just ‘old people’ that have this opinion, but other factors. For one, younger generations - 50 and under - are much more likely to have gay people in their social circles. This was not true in earlier generations. Regardless of personal opinions on the issue, it becomes personalized as people we know that are directly asking for it. My parents knew few outwardly gay people, whereas people in the younger and middle generations have many friends.
There is also a libertarian aspect, which raises the question about how much someone else legally married really impacts others. While I don’t support gay marriage, I do share that feeling. I do think free-willing couples should have the same legal, government rights, but IMO it should not be a marriage, as that is a biblical role. I sort of feel like others here that government needs to get out of the marriage business all together, and just have legal partnerships/civil unions, etc. Then, those married in a church apply for the legal contract, and others can too if they so choose.
schools, media etc portraying it as “normal”
government doing that is the beginning of the end
I think he may be right unfortunately. Nevada passed its amendment by 67% in 2002. North Carolina passed its amendment by 61% in 2012 and was hailed as a very impressive victory. If NC had passed its amendment in 2002 it probably would have been in the mid-high 70% ranges, if you go by the other states around NC that passed amendments in that timeframe.
I am beginning to think that the states that only passed their amendments in the mid-low 50% ranges in the last decade might simply repeal their amendments by popular vote if the judges dont do what the homosexualists want. They dont need pols or judges if they have a popular vote majority, and for their purposes 51% is all they need.
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.