Skip to comments.A Conservative Case for Marriage Equality and Zots
Posted on 03/13/2014 3:56:08 PM PDT by Aqua Buddhist
Within a few days, a federal district judge in my home-state of Virginia will likely rule on the constitutionality of the commonwealths Marshall-Newman Amendment, which only permits marriage between one man and one woman. Frankly, as a conservative Republican and as a Christian, I hope that the amendment is struck down.
Republicans value marriage so highly because it encourages people to live according to conservative values. For instance, by enabling two people to share resources, marriage makes couples more financially secure, thereby reducing their dependence on government. In addition, marriage binds people into permanent, monogamous relationships, enabling couples to more effectively raise children. Although gay couples cannot reproduce, today there exist multiple other ways for same-sex couples to acquire offspring, such as in-vitro fertilization or adoption (which is often cited by the pro-life movement as a viable alternative to abortion). Numerous studies have confirmed that gay parents are just as capable as heterosexual ones. The benefits of marriage exist regardless of a couples sexual orientation, and therefore conservatives have an interest in ensuring that as many couples as possible enter the institution, whether heterosexual or homosexual.
Due to the separation of church and state, Christian doctrine cannot explicitly guide any court opinion, but faith no doubt motivates many peoples core principles and underlying values. As Christians, we are taught to love our neighbors as ourselves. Since you most likely want the ability to gain the benefits of marriage for yourself and enter into an expression of commitment with the one whom you love, I believe it is inherently un-Christian to deny other adults that privilege. Also, we are all creatures of God- whether gay or straight- and God does not make mistakes. By denying certain individuals the ability to marry their loved ones, you are telling them that their relationship (and, by extension, their sexual orientation) is somehow inferior or not as good as your own. Not only does the government lack the authority to make or enforce such a claim, but by condemning someones God-given traits, that sentiment also criticizes the actions of their divine Creator.
Admittedly, marriage today is threatened- not by the gay couples trying to get INTO the institution, but rather by the straight couples opting OUT. Only 51% of Americans are married, compared with 72% in 1960. Luckily, same-sex partners can actually help save the institution of marriage by making it relevant again and reversing a downward trend in marriage rates. I hope my fellow Virginians will join me in supporting this necessary step to guarantee human rights and save the future of marriage for future generations.
Virginia should be for ALL lovers.
The use of the term, “marriage bequality,” means people who don’t agree are evil.
The author of this article should read Stanley Kurtz’ old pieces about gay marriage and civil unions. Scandanavian country’s that allowed gay civil unions and/or marriages found that after they were legal ALL couples deprecated marriage.
I smell ozone.
Try to fix your plumbing with two MALE pipes!!!! DOESN"T WORK.
Why use the term, “marriage equality,” not samesex marriage?
The fact that people in general are depreciating marriage is a bigger problem than the “gay” sideshow.
With respect, nearly everything in the second paragraph is either outright false or couched in terms that cannot be falsified and hence are logically invalid. Try again. Or not.
> Virginia should be for ALL lovers.
Does that include pedophiles and animal-violators? After all, they were born that way.
I think the lights just flickered.
You, a Buddhist, calling us UN-Christian for not supporting demonic, unnatural behavior in order to bring down America’s values???? There is NOTHING conservative about you, DU er....nothing,
Er, I’m not actually a Buddhist. I’m mocking one of the stupid attacks on Rand Paul from the 2010 campaign.
Same-sex marriage, like counterfeit money, cheapens and devalues true marriage.
I guess you are just a run of the mill gay person then......go back to DU, Newbie.
Why don’t you actually read the research, instead of just parroting what big business and the government tell you? Why the fear of thinking for yourself?
There already is “marriage equality”. Preference is not a right. Homosexual men have an exactly equal “right” to marry a woman (if she is agreeable) as does a heterosexual man. It is only his preference that stops him, not the law.
It sounds like the conservative argument for socialized medicine and carbon credits. Real conservatives don’t make those arguments.
Where in the Constitution does it forbid Christian based moral laws? Secularism is a religion as well.
Lots of non sequiturs, errors, and wrong.
As a particular is “Numerous studies have confirmed that gay parents are just as capable as heterosexual ones. “. If you actually look at what is compared to what, then what you see the predominance of studies purporting to say that actually say is that rich white lesbians in a supportive community do no better than Randomized minority single mothers...which is to say that they do MUCH poorer than do children of married heterosexual parents.
I smell bullshite.Go back to du.
I understand you hate Rand Paul, but isn’t that kind of juvenile?
Typical manipulative and twisted reasoning. I’m not surprised but I am still amazed at the extent that homosexual activists go try gain our approval for their perverted behaviors.
They won’t settle for tolerance. They won’t stand for our simple acceptance. They will continue to hammer normalcy until we embrace their sick & depraved lifestyle.
The most despicable aspect of this is to suggest that it’s okay to put children in the midst of their cesspool.
“Numerous studies have confirmed that gay parents are just as capable as heterosexual ones”
Numerous studies have confirmed that when both parents are homosexuals the children grow up without a MOTHER. Numerous studies have confirmed that when both parents are lesbians the children are FATHERLESS.
As Christians, we are taught to love our neighbors as ourselves. Since you most likely want the ability to gain the benefits of marriage for yourself and enter into an expression of commitment with the one whom you love, I believe it is inherently un-Christian to deny other adults that privilege. Also, we are all creatures of God- whether gay or straight- and God does not make mistakes
Right here above false theology. God created marriage to be between one man and one woman. Jesus loved the sinner so much he told them to sin no more. Jesus never went to celebrate the adulterous woman’s next marriage John 4(kjv).
And heterosexuals don’t go around suing bakers for not helping them celebrate their ceremony
Good luck with that....
I take the government with a big grain of salt -- but I pay more attention to big business (they didn't get to be big by being dumb).
On the contrary -- that particular attack, such as it was, was idiotic, and I chose my username for the purpose of mocking the Democrats who came up with it.
The “gay sideshow” is an assault on Christianity. Gays don’t want to be married. They want to force society to approve of their evil & disgusting behavior. There is nothing ‘natural’ about sticking your penis in another man’s butt. It is a repulsive perversion, not an equally admirable act to marrying and staying married and raising a new generation of citizens.
“Gay rights”, at their root, are about taking away from Christians the right to obey God. It is a weapon to attack Christians, and use the force of government to make Christians pretend that homosexuality is not a disgusting sin.
there is no case for something that is just made up
That argument forgets the aspect of the mutual bonding of heterosexual acts which change the whole beings of both man and women to the benefit of the husband and wife, the childten and society at large. Those effects can never be even approached by two people with the same body soul and spirit no matter how much they love each other.
Further. real love for children recognizes their right to heterosexual, biological parents and all the natural effects mentioned, a right that should not be violated by the voluntary acts of any of we adults.
Hmmm. You picked the most insulting possible term for Rand Paul and you want me to believe you like him? Would you tell Rand Paul that name to his face? Would you have me believe that all the Freepers with names that insult Clinton and Obama are fans of them?
Ooo wee. Pro queer marriage AND anti big business?
Nice (not) knowing you.
You even lie with your tagline. Troll.
Not sure about your terminology, but do you know why marriage declined? Start with no fault divorce laws. Marriage is a contract, and the government decided to stop enforcing it. Throw in birth control and abortion. So the people pushing samesex marriage pushed those things.
Say what? It's a particularly insightful direct quote from one of the most insightful leaders of our time.
Yes, but not their sins. There is nothing Christian about same-sex "marriage", which flies in the face of God's word in Scriptures that have already been well documented. This was written by someone who may have read Mark 12:31 but understands neither Christ's mission nor His purpose.
Christ came to save the homosexual, and all sinners, from perdition and damnation. He did not come to endorse their sin.
Liar. You took a quote out of context. Try posting the entire two paragraphs Reagan made in connection with libertarianism.
R. Reagan was not a lib, nor did he favor what liberaltsrianism was.
Follows the homosexual agenda talking points word for word. If this guy is truly a “conservative Republican and Christian,” I’ll eat my hat.
Well, "all" seems pretty inclusive, don't you think?
Call me an old fuddy-duddy, but marriage is a gift from God, a holy union between a man and a woman. Any other unions or "partnerships" are not marriages.
Dude, I had to abbreviate to "R. Reagan" because the sigline wouldn't hold the full name.
If the food is human feces. What a load of CRAP.
“you are telling them that their relationship (and, by extension, their sexual orientation) is somehow inferior or not as good as your own.”
That’s exactly what we’re saying. How in the hell can you compare sodomy, which is an unnatural, biologically useless act, to the love of a husband and wife?
“Not only does the government lack the authority to make or enforce such a claim”
Then the government can have ZERO authority to make or enforce any such moral claim. The government cannot deny bestiality, incest, polygamy, necrophilia, heroin use, the list spirals on. These are all moral judgements.
I’m sick of this ‘separation of church and state’ garbage too. This concept has been so twisted and stretched that now a grieving family cannot put up a cross for their dead son on a roadside. It’s time somebody exposed this fraud.
Here’s a little history course. The Founding Fathers and early Americans based our legal structure largely on the British legal structure, by extension, the Magna Carta.
Allow me to quote.
“John, by the grace of God king of England, lord of Ireland, . . . to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justiciars, foresters, sheriffs, reeves, ministers, and all his bailiffs and faithful men, greeting. Know that, through the inspiration of God, for the health of our soul and [the souls] of all our ancestors and heirs, for the honor of God and the exaltation of Holy Church, and for the betterment of our realm, by the counsel of our venerable fathers [11 named ecclesiastics], of our nobles [16 named nobles], and of our other faithful men”
So the basis of our legal system directly recognizes God as the inspiration of Civil Law. And not just any god, but the god of the Abrahamic tradition. Were some of the Founders deists, yes. That does not change the facts of the nation’s heritage and what the Founders sought to create.
They never referred to such a ‘separation’. Again, to people like Sheila Jackson Lee, this will go right over their heads, but there is a historical context to the Establishment Clause. That being that certain sects of Christianity were being ruthlessly persecuted across Europe during this period, where Protestants murdered Catholics, Catholics murdered Protestants, and there were a myriad of smaller denominations who were targeted for destruction by both.
The Founders saw this and recognized that the state’s enshrinement of a government church (i.e - the Church of England) was a detriment to the citizens and the faith itself. Persecution was rampant among the citizenry and corruption was rampant among the ecclesiastic and noble classes. But this did not mean they wanted a French style republic, where the revolution devolved into years of terror and desolation at the hands of a madman, where God was pushed out of society along with the priestly class.
This was not very complicated. The Founders clearly recognized that our rights come from our divine Creator, and most of them felt that that Creator was the entity who spoke to Moses and through Jesus Christ. The Establishment Clause was merely a clear declaration that the country was not to have a state church with tyrannical power to persecute others. It wasn’t a license for persecution by Jacobin malcontents! It wasn’t a call to expunge God from every area of our society. If that was what Washington wanted, then why the hell did he dismiss Lt. Frederick Gotthold Enslin from military service for the crime of attempted sodomy? Jefferson wanted him castrated! Sodomy is a very clearly Biblical crime. Its very name is a reference to the Biblical city of Sodom, destroyed by God for (among other reasons) the rampant sexual deviancy between men. Someone please explain this to me!
No Biblical statements on military dorms? No crosses in public places? No prayer for school children? Who the hell thinks the Founders intended this?! No, they would not approve same-sex marriage. They would have found the notion warrant for incarceration.
You can make all the damn appeals you like for this insane concept. By all means, appeal to the United Nations, appeal to the American Psychiatric Association, appeal to your ‘warm fuzzies’ for all I care. But DO NOT appeal to the Founders and the Constitution. It’s not in there. It never was.
I’d post it for you, but I’m in a smart phone and can’t cut and paste. But you know dam well what I asked you to do.
Trolls (probably a retread) like you, trying to link Reagan as a lib piss me off.
> Call me an old fuddy-duddy, but marriage is a gift
from God, a holy union between a man and a
woman. Any other unions or “partnerships” are not
Hate speech! /s