Religious Freedom & ‘Gay Marriage’ Cannot Coexist

When the republican party ran the Governor who gave the nation “gay marriage”, and who has campaigned for almost 20 years to homosexualize the military and the Boy Scouts, and who ran pro-choice ads in some states, then we knew that 2012 was a year of moving the entire political discussion left.

“For some voters it might be enough for me to simply match my opponent’s record in this area. But I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will.

We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which I have agreed to co-sponsor, and if possible broaden to include housing and credit, and the bill to create a federal panel to find ways to reduce gay and lesbian youth suicide, which I also support. One issue I want to clarify concerns President Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share.

As we begin the final phase of this campaign, I need your support more than ever. By working together, we will achieve the goals we share for Massachusetts and our Nation.

Sincerely,

W. Mitt Romney”

What is being debated is the ability to force third parties to provide them with benefits based on that status.

I have said this many times, and I wish conservatives would shout it from the rooftops. The left has been able to spin "gay marriage" as "giving gays the same freedoms as everyone else", rather than as a "forbidding people's right to voluntarily offer benefits to those they like without forcing them to offer such benefits to those they don't."

I'd like to see some "gay marriage" advocates asked a relatively simple three-part question:

Does a mother who is considering voluntarily giving her child up for adoption have the right to refuse any prospective adoptive parents for any reason whatsoever she sees fit?
Should such right apply even if the mother couldn't articulate any basis for such refusal other than a desire to have her child raised by one parent of the same sex and one of the opposite sex, and a belief that particular candidates would not provide that?
Should a mother who is seeking the help of an agency to find adoptive parents for her child be allowed to ask such agency to filter applicants using any criteria she sees fit, subject only to the constraint that if her criteria are unreasonable the agency may not find any candidates that meet them?

I don't know that many people would want to go on record as opposing a mother's absolute right to refuse prospective adoptive parents for any reason whatsoever that she sees fit. On the other hand, gay-power groups are already pushing to punish adoption agencies that want to supply each child with both a mother and a father. While I don't think that states should restrict adoption to married man-woman couples (in some situations, such as where an orphan's only surviving relative is gay, adoption by that relative might be better than adoption by a husband and wife who are not related to the child), that doesn't mean they should restrict private agencies' ability to do so should the mothers who place children with such agencies desire them to apply such criteria.

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.