Skip to comments.The Argument For “Marriage Equality” Is Not A Conservative One
Posted on 03/27/2013 4:39:25 AM PDT by IbJensen
Supreme Court Decides Whether Of Not To Review Challenge Of California's Prop 8.
This week the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on same Californias Prop 8 and a section of the Defense of Marriage Act which deals with benefits for same sex couples. Same sex marriage is front and center once again and Ive heard some interesting arguments on how supporting government involvement in defining marriage is a conservative ideal. During the Sunday morning talk show circuit, former Bush communications adviser took the moderate position emerging within the GOP against American Values Gary Bauer. Nicole Wallace tried to argue that supporting marriage equality is a conservative position. No, it is not.
Ive never understood how anyone who spent the past four-plus years lamenting the size of government could then argue for its increase by inviting it into the discussion of marriage. We complain about government in health care, we complain about government in education, we complain about government regulating soft drink size, but suddenly some of us have no problem with more government in peoples relationships with one another. Marriage is a covenant between a man, woman, and God before God on His terms. It is a religious civil liberty, not a right granted by government. It should never have been regulated by government in the first place, and government shouldnt have an expanded reach in further regulating it now. There is no allowance constitutionally that invites our government to define the religious covenant of marriage.
Ive no issue with same sex couples entering into contractual agreements with each other or sharing benefits (the military decisions should be made by those with the credit of service day in and day out, not civilian advocacy groups). Isnt that the goal of this conflict? If so, to me, thats an issue separate from marriage. In suing over marriage itself one is demanding that God change His definition of the union between a man and a woman. If recognition of status, ease with other contractual obligations, and other issues are the issues, why the need to force people of faith to alter recognition of Gods Word on the matter? The people may bend as reeds to lawfare, but God will not. Frankly, I see no point in being on any side other than Gods on any matter, and God is more small government than any player in the scene.
In suing over marriage one is demanding that others modify their beliefs to accommodate another. Do not people of faith retain their First Amendment liberty of freedom of religion?
California voters in Prop 8 are awaiting to see if elections in their state matter. Advocacy groups vilified Mormons yet according to numerous local media reports based on exit polling data, black and latino communities provided key support in the passage of Prop 8. The left had a more difficult time vilifying these voting blocs because its harder to ask them for votes later. Despite democracy in our constitutional republic working as it should, voters were sued to have their votes in a taxpayer-paid-for election overturned. The gap in the door will widen for lawsuits if the goal of homogenization isnt realized. Prop 8 is just the beginning. Do you doubt?
Here are a few recent examples:
- Christian photographers Elane Photography in New Mexico were approached by a same sex couple looking to hire a wedding photographer. Elane Photography politely declined citing their Christian faith and were sued by the couple under the states anti-discriminatory laws, and won. In New Mexico you apparently have no right to your free expression and practice of faith any longer. (Read even more about this case here.)
- In Lexington, Kentucky, a t-shirt shop called Hands On Originals was approached by the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization about printing shirts for the group. The t-shirt company politely declined and even sought out quotes and gave the group referrals to other t-shirt printers along with comparable prices. They were promptly sued by the group under Lexingtons anti-discriminatory laws and forced to comply with a lengthy investigation. The citys power-drunk human rights commission said this:
Raymond Sexton, the executive director of the Human Rights Commission told Fox News that Hands On Originals will be required by law to participate in the investigation. We have subpoena power and have the backing of the law, he said. We are a law enforcement agency and people have to comply.
Leftist groups are trying to get the company evicted from their premises, the city now has school districts freezing their business with the privately owned company. Meanwhile, the owner of the company tried to defend his faith and decision in an op/ed in the paper.
- A Methodist church in New Jersey was sued for not offering its facility for use during same sex weddings. A judge ruled against them.
- A same sex couple from California sued a Hawaiian bed and breakfast privately owned by a Christian woman for not allowing them to rent a room. A bed and breakfast in Alton privately owned by a Christian couple was sued when they would not host a same sex civil union ceremony. Owners of a small, privately-owned inn in Vermont declined to host a same sex wedding reception due to their religious views and were sued. An employee of Allstate insurance wrote an essay online disagreeing with same sex marriage and was reportedly fired from his job as a result.
- Catholic Charities was barred from assisting in adoptions in Massachusetts, Washington DC, and Illinois and excluded from future contracts because they declined to consider same sex couples. Sorry kids, but the agenda impresarios need to make an example.
There are even more examples, some listed on this page, some not, as they are numerous. Pastors in Canada are already facing lawsuits for simply preaching about marriage from the Bible. Tolerance is demanded of Christians but in this pluralistic society, little, if any, tolerance is afforded to Christian beliefs. Christians arent the antagonists here, but they do seem to have fewer rights than those engaging in lawfare to bring about forced acceptance.
Really, this isnt about gay rights. The left doesnt give a damn about gay rights. Remember, it was the left that instituted Dont Ask Dont Tell and it was a Republican group that led the charge to repeal it. The left hasnt done anything for the gay community except to offer it lip service and inaction. While leftist groups fight for marriage equality the Obama administration makes marriage an economic hit with horrible policy. You got bait and switched, leftists! No, the left cares nothing for gay rights, but theyll pretend to if they can use the bloc as a wedge to pry the populace from the influence of the church. Why? because its easier to convince people that their civil liberties fall under the dominion of man, of government, if the church is portrayed as inept and anachronistic. This is the entire goal. Once man, sinful, awful man controls your rights, your existence as an individual ends and your life as a statist serf begins.
So no, marriage equality is emphatically not a conservative value or tactic. Anything where the solution is an invitation for government intervention should be viewed with utmost suspicion.
The culture war we conservatives may be losing is the war to be controlled by tyrants. Same-sex "marriage" advocates haven't sought to convince people, except in a couple of states run exclusively by hypocritically evolving Democrats, about their cause. Same-sex "marriage" advocates wet their knickers like pre-teen schoolgirls at a Beatles concert and cry to an unelected judge as if that judge were mommy and daddy; "Mommy, Daddy, the bad people won't let me take financial advantage of me playing sodomy!!!"
We are losing that war. And if we do lose it, the country is gone. And it will be our fault just as it was our fault that Americans lost the last two elections!
Wrong. Gay marriage was imposed by Mr. Romney
(who also imposed RomneyCARE/ObamaCARE).
Romney FORCED gay marriage down the throats of the
Clerks who refused the Court’s suggestion
c/w the Mass. Constitution
(which requires the Legislature to decide).
Romney overruled the Law.
It was the RomneyWAY.
GWBushie Nicolle Wallace has come out and shown herself a liberal(progressive) and is making her rounds on all the MSNBC shows (even Sharpton) and the network Sunday shows preaching ‘marriage equality’ laughing saying how those like us who believe in marriage are dying off and dont matter anymore..
The networks and MSNBC give HER a BIG break by never letting the camera go below her neckline, usually she's behind a BIG table
Here's a hard to find picture of her below the neck smiling laughing at us dying fools (how she is portraying us on TV):
Many of us who have raised their children properly have furnished a new crop of Conservatives who will prove this skanky piece of crap a liar.
Prop. 22 passed by 61% in 2000. Prop. 8 passed by 52% in 2008. If the judges do uphold prop. 8 it is probably repealable by popular vote, there was a 9% gain in 8 years for ‘gay marriage’ in CA.
Again, with the polls on gay folk ~ they don’t relate to reality.
“Again, with the polls on gay folk ~ they dont relate to reality.”
They’re as valid as the polls for November 2012. We ignore that at our peril.
Putting our heads in the sand is no answer. We need to acknowledge the enormity of the task before us if we want to effect our own real change.
The Judeo-Christian sanctity of marriage ultimately became ‘common law’ in early Western society - to establish ‘legitimate and illegitimate’ heirs to property and wealth.
The income tax code was the first US Government intrusion of contractual marriage: dependent children and non-working spouses.
States imposed licences and blood tests.
With the number of divorces, remarriage and men & women having children with several partners, without the committment of a marriage ceremony - the modern state of heterosexual matrimony could be considered ‘polygamy’.
The parental unit for children should be the overriding concern - however, adoption, egg and sperm donations, rental wombs and other experimentation has existed for years without ‘legal homosexual marriages’. Legalizing homosexual marriage or not - this manipulation of ‘children as commodities’, will not change.
Homosexuals should support the equal rights of the unborn.
Not sure what you mean. Yes, opinion polls are flawed on this issue, for a number of reasons, in my opinion. The results of popular voting on the issue are not opinion polls, they are actual voting results.
I mean last year NC tied CA’s prop 22 with 61%. So NC is around the same place CA was 13 years ago on the issue. Not a good sign, in my opinion.
It is currently not possible to do a random sample telephone poll that reflects aggregate public opinion on anything.
Marriage was hardly invented in Europe
Statistics is a science ~ polling is an art. Gallup blew it this year ~ so did others, and some didn’t. So what tricked all those smart guys?
There is no scientific way to adjust for the fact that half their samples return null information.
If a poll reflects true public opinion it is pure luck.
You’re welcome to pretend so.
Myself, I prefer to face reality as it is.
If you are getting your “reality” from a poll you are living in a fantasy world.
Why is it the GLBT version of equality reminds me of Animal Farm? You know-some are more equal than others. For all their cries of equality under law has any one seen them demand Hate Crimes Laws be repealed since it treats some one who commits a crime against me one way and some one committing the same crime against them treated more harshly?
Have they demanded that the tax code be made flat so that every one pays the same rate and has the same deductions if any?
Pedestalizing homosexuals and their sinful behavior creates sycophants who will follow the sodomites into hell.
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.