Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Do Traditional Marriage Supporters Deserve to Be Treated with Dignity?
Heritage Foundation ^ | 7/2/2013 | Jim DeMint

Posted on 07/06/2013 10:47:35 AM PDT by IbJensen

Some people can’t seem to understand why anyone would support marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Indeed, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued last week that the only reason Congress had for passing the Defense of Marriage Act was to “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” others. Justice Kennedy says we’re denying dignity to people in same-sex relationships.

But it is his ruling that denies dignity to those who don’t think a same-sex relationship is a marriage. His ruling denies dignity to the millions of Americans and their elected officials who have voted to pass laws that tell the truth about marriage.

The rhetoric from the Court attacking the goodwill of the majority of Americans—who know marriage is the union of a man and a woman—is not helpful. The marriage debate will continue, and all Americans need to be civil and respectful.

Already, however, we have seen that those in favor of redefining marriage are willing to use the coercive force of law to marginalize and penalize those who hold the historic view of marriage—even if it means trampling First Amendment religious liberty protections along the way. This is already evident in Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington, D.C., where Christian adoption agencies have been forced to stop providing adoption and foster care services.

Legal challenges have been brought against wedding-related service providers who believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, after they declined to participate in ceremonies that would have violated their consciences. A photographer in New Mexico, a florist in Washington, and a baker in Colorado have already been victims of such intolerant coercion.

Our interest in marriage policy from the beginning has been to ensure that a man and woman commit to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children they create. This gives children the best chance at a flourishing future. When children have that, liberals are less likely to succeed in their efforts to grow the welfare state. It is impossible for the government to redefine marriage to make fathers optional and for society to insist at the same time that fathers are essential.

In its ruling last week, the Supreme Court refused to wrestle with any of the serious scholarly arguments that support marriage policy as the union of a man and a woman, and instead declared that Congress acted solely out of ill will.

It is outrageous to suggest that 342 Members of the House, 85 Senators, and President Bill Clinton were all acting on the basis of anti-gay bias in 1996, when the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was enacted. As Chief Justice Roberts says in his dissent, “I would not tar the political branches with bigotry.”

Indeed, as Heritage has argued repeatedly, there are valid reasons to oppose the redefinition of marriage—which those House Members, Senators, and President Clinton took into account. Marriage matters for children, civil society, and limited government, because children deserve a mother and a father, and when this doesn’t happen, social costs run high.

Citizens and their elected representatives have the constitutional authority to make policy that recognizes marriage as the union of a man and a woman. States will lead the way even as we work to restore clear marriage policy at the federal level. And in the states, support for marriage as the union of a man and a woman remains strong.

The Heritage Foundation will be joining with millions of Americans to ensure that support for marriage continues to grow and that marriage proponents can express their views in this debate. Go to today to download your free copy of our e-book on marriage. And continue to speak out boldly about why marriage—that union of one man and one woman—is important for children, civil society, and limited government.

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: cockroaches; homosexualagenda; homosexuals; lebians; marriage; traditionalmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last
Minority groups have become the majority since this piece of mystery meat was elevated from the sewers of Africa, Indonesia, Hawaii and Chicago to the White Hut.

Idiotic liberal politicians and judges are afraid of offending the homosexuals, lesbians, negros, Mexicans, Muslims and the entire gaggle of ingredients that poison this melting pot we call America.

Contrary to leftist crowing: Diversity is NOt our strength. These groups have the biased press and cowardly politicians bashing Christians and Jews that demonstrate that their goal is to attract as many subhumans as possible to the Democrat party where they'll all swim along the bottom like a bunch of carp eating up all the crap!

1 posted on 07/06/2013 10:47:35 AM PDT by IbJensen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
the only reason Congress had for passing the Defense of Marriage Act was to “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” others.

Homosexuals do that to themselves.

Or is Kennedy declaring the "assless chaps brigade" the new normal?

2 posted on 07/06/2013 10:56:22 AM PDT by Iron Munro (The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

“You must realize that at its inception and in continual practice marriage is simply a license to f***. Without this and the resulting children the institution of marriage would not be necessary nor would it exist.” — Captain Compassion

3 posted on 07/06/2013 11:00:33 AM PDT by Captain Compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Compassion

Assuming this is an original quote, Captain, I must assume that you are a homosexual marriage sycophant, or perhaps practice the unusual method of getting your jollies.

4 posted on 07/06/2013 11:02:28 AM PDT by IbJensen (Liberals are like Slinkies, good for nothing, but you smile as you push them down the stairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

You, sir, are a scholar and a poet.

5 posted on 07/06/2013 11:07:32 AM PDT by ransacked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

How much respect for a mans dignity do I have for a man who places his sexual organ in the rectum of another man? Or who kneels in front of this man to give him a Monica/

With all due respect for Justice Kennedy I have no respect for their dignity whatsoever. Nor do I have any respect for a Justice of the Supreme Court who thinks such queers deserve dignity.

I have no respect for a woman who slops at the Y either.

These are sick people, if they admit their sickness and try for a cure then they deserve respect.
Not when they try to convince others that their sickness is normal.

6 posted on 07/06/2013 11:13:42 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

What is interesting to me is that the same people who would on principle claim teaching children alternative theories to evolution such as creationism would be a dire travesty have little problem with a redefinition of marriage that is based on something that is patently incorrect even if one doesn’t see it explicitly as morally repugnant. These same types can summarily suspend reason when it comes to human sexuality and refuse to even measure the pros or cons of such a redefinition or even whether it is worth the hassle.

We have no problem at all dissuading a child from doing incorrect things. We correct them when they are bad at math, we stop them from eating poisons, we teach them not to put peas up their noses but instead of teaching them the most commonsense and intuitive ideas about sex and gender that if you are born a girl then you should mate and marry boys and vice versa these same people who get enraged over teaching kids an alternative to evolution take an entirely different counterintuitive path.

Instead of doing what is logical and indeed conservative which is deal with those special cases where individuals insist on expressing gender non aligned desires we have this expectation that the whole of culture should be rewritten to not just tolerate but to force the 96% to embrace gender nonconformity even when it is harmful or the result of abuse. So instead of taking the same limited government approach dealing with the exceptions and aberrations for what they are we are now embarking on a path to force everyone into the same boat. Already we are seeing increasing efforts to make simply believing in biologically correct gender aligned sexuality as bigotry when it is nothing more than the most intuitive and commonsense position.

The irony is that Darwinism by its core concepts is non supportive of homosexuality. Anything that interferes with the reproduction of an organism is inherently harmful to it from an evolutionary standard but of course this like the misanthropic global alarmism highlights the cognitive dissonance and cultural opportunism of the left which has little to do with equality but in creating a world where they are the maintainers of the exceptions and the suppressors of the natural emergent rules.

Much like Obamacare which instead of simply trying to address the small percentage of Americans without some form of healthcare they instead aim to force everyone into the same bucket with the exceptions and make the exceptions the basis for the rules. Its idiocy whether you are talking about sex or healthcare and it illustrates the core problem we face in America today which is an inherent irrationality.

7 posted on 07/06/2013 11:21:44 AM PDT by Maelstorm (If all are treated as suspects it will not long before we all are treated as prisoners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

IbJensen, how are we to be civil when cultural barbarians are storming the gates?

Consider President Obama. Does any intelligent person doubt for a moment that he favored Sodomite marriage all along? In other words, he openly lied to us about evolving on the issue. He lied to get elected. Now he unabashedly supports the Sodomites.

I’d really love to be civil, but that’s hard when one side of the debate repeatedly lies. I suppose I could even learn to be civil with that, but that’s not the half of it. The Sodomites and their fans aren’t interested in tolerance. They seek to silence anyone who disagrees with them. Their intentions are quite clear.

In some ways, America is like Egypt. We think we’re electing leaders who will respect the diversity they claim to love. We think they’ll respect us as fellow Americans even if they don’t agree with us, and we hope they won’t their voting majorities and the law as cudgels against us. Well, that’s just not how the left fights.

I think the right just doesn’t yet understand they are dealing with people who don’t think like us. We keep trying to engage in civil debate against people who have no intention of being civil to us. They only use civility as a means to get power, and then the masks come off.

8 posted on 07/06/2013 11:23:34 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (Why celebrate evil? Evil is easy. Good is the goal worth striving for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

As Saul Alinsky wrote, ridicule is powerful. Its time we use it on gay “marriage”.

9 posted on 07/06/2013 11:24:28 AM PDT by RginTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
And I must assume that you can't understand complicated concepts. To simplify. Marriage has but one reason for existing. The creation and maintenance of children for the benefit of church, state and society.


10 posted on 07/06/2013 11:31:00 AM PDT by Captain Compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks IbJensen.
Justice Anthony Kennedy argued last week that the only reason Congress had for passing the Defense of Marriage Act was to “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” others.

11 posted on 07/06/2013 11:31:15 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (McCain or Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Of course, the former Senator is right, so far as he goes. But he does not really address some of the strongest arguments against what is obviously an oxymoron. To anyone who understands the traditional function--indeed the very concept--of marriage, to sanctify the procreation of a coming generation, and build an ongoing family structure, you must also understand that "same sex marriage" is a biological impossibility.

For one thing, it cannot be consummated by a reproductive act, and under traditional principles is void at its initiation.

Frankly, I wish Heritage & Jim DeMint would get over the idea that they need to tread cautiously in affirming values & protecting American interests. I am still very troubled about how they handled the Jason Richwine Incident. There can be no taboo subjects, where the survival of American values & purpose are concerned.

William Flax

12 posted on 07/06/2013 11:32:14 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
The Supreme Court has begun the legal 'normalization' of homosexual behavior and it will continue to metastasize in the body politic until churches are legally required to perform 'marriage' ceremonies for same-sex couples and will face big financial penalties if they do not comply. They'll be charged with Civil Rights violations and prosecuted by the Justice Department. The constitutional conflict will be interesting to see played out. If America continues on this path - and the many supporters of 'gay marriage' will ensure we stay on it - I fear that the clause in the First Amendment barring any prohibition of the exercise of religion will be distorted by the Supreme Court to make it inapplicable to opposing same-sex 'marriage'. Wanna bet that when the homos start 'testing' their new 'right to marry' they won't be trying it at a Islamic mosque? I'm just saying.
13 posted on 07/06/2013 11:38:45 AM PDT by Jim Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
It's hard to play fair when the other side keeps changing the rules (laws). We are at the point where there will only be only 1 rule (law) soon. Hard to be a nation of laws when a minority of the population does not adhere to that ideal, and the other side does not enforce it and does not care (until their ox gets gored*)...

*Warning: Violent video link of woman being kicked in the head while down after robbery by black assailant(s)...

14 posted on 07/06/2013 11:39:30 AM PDT by Dubh_Ghlase (Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls, It tolls for thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Captain Compassion; IbJensen

Ib Jensen is doing just fine. He’s able to express himself without using foul language, which puts him well ahead of you.

15 posted on 07/06/2013 11:42:02 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Jim Scott

We won’t comply. We didn’t comply when a tyrant tore down our monasteries, killed our priests and executed our bishops.

We won’t comply when a similar tyrant tries the same.

16 posted on 07/06/2013 11:43:00 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm
the core problem we face in America today which is an inherent irrationality.

You are absolutely correct. Much of Academia, and the talking heads & mimicking keyboards of the mass media, who repeat what they never had the sense to challenge in College, are caught up in a compulsive need to postulate various forms of human interchangeability or equivalence. Whatever challenges the accepted foolishness must be vilified & suppressed. (See, Compassion or Compulsion?)

The "issue" over marriage, is only a reflection of the irrational mindset to which you refer.

William Flax

17 posted on 07/06/2013 11:44:46 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: trisham

I use the F-word because it has the express meaning of

co·i·tus (k-t s, k—) n. Sexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina. [Latin, from past participle of co re, to ...

This is the usual way that children are created. This is inpossible in a same sex marriage.


18 posted on 07/06/2013 11:47:33 AM PDT by Captain Compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Captain Compassion

I doubt that very much. I think you just have a foul mouth.

19 posted on 07/06/2013 11:51:59 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Yes, supporters of traditional marriage deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.

Are they treated so? No, they are not.

Was the Miss USA contestant who said she believed marriage was a man and a woman treated with dignity and respect? The homosexual pageant judge in that case took it on himself to launch a campaign of harrassment and character assassination against her. A compliant media gave him lots of air time,on programs such as The Today Show,for his ranting and raving against this girl.

What about the Chick Fill A case? The owner of the company says that he personally believes marriage is a man and a woman. His company does not discriminate against homosexuals or anyone else. His company complies with all laws regarding discrimination. Yet his company was targeted for boycotts and vandalism, because of his view that marriage is a man and a woman.

We are past the point of no return on this issue. Anyone who indicates belief that marriage is a man and a woman, and that this definition should prevail in our laws, is now to be targeted as a “hater”, “homophobic”, and any other pejorative term. Liberals will seek to destroy such people. You can’t just disagree with liberals on marriage any longer. Now we have reached a point in which such people are targeted for destruction.

20 posted on 07/06/2013 12:11:33 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson