Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Opposing Gay Marriage Is a Waste of Your Time
National Journal ^ | May 14, 2014 | Ron Fournier, Senior Political Columnist & Editorial Director

Posted on 05/15/2014 1:31:50 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

Edited on 05/15/2014 3:42:23 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

Like those who stood against civil rights for African-Americans, gay-marriage foes are fighting a battle they can't win.

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. Nine slender statues stand beneath a window to the Arkansas governor's office bronzed, life-sized images of the black children who integrated Little Rock Central High School on Sept. 25, 1957 and helped ignite the Civil Rights era. "They defied prejudice," says Gregory Donaldson, an African-American Baptist minister from St. Louis visiting the display with his wife Nanette. "They defied bigotry."


(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: arkansas; civilrights; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; homosexualmarriage; judicialactivism; ronfournier; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last
And didn't Idaho just have a judge declare it legal the other day?

Fournier began his journalism career in 1985 at The Sentinel-Record in Hot Springs, Arkansas. Two years later, he moved to the Arkansas Democrat in Little Rock, Arkansas. He stayed there for another two years before joining the Little Rock bureau of the AP in 1989. While there, he covered Bill Clinton during his final term as Governor. When Clinton was elected President, Fournier moved to the AP's Washington bureau.[2]

Fournier first left the AP in 2004 to take a Harvard Institute of Politics fellowship. During this period, he also co-wrote the book Applebee's America with Matthew Dowd, a Republican strategist, and Doug Sosnik, a Democratic strategist. In 2006, he took a position as editor-in-chief of a new Internet website called Hotsoup.com, which aimed to foster discussion on a number of topics including politics. The site failed to catch on, however, and Fournier returned to the AP in March 2007 as its Online Political Editor, after considering “a senior advisory role” with Republican Senator John McCain's presidential campaign.[3]

In May 2008, Fournier was named the acting Washington bureau chief, replacing his "mentor" Sandy Johnson.[citation needed] Since taking over the position, Fournier has led a dramatic shift in the AP's policy, moving it away from the neutral and objective tone it had become known for and toward a more opinionated style that would make judgments when conflicting opinions were presented in a story.[4]

Fournier has won the Society of Professional Journalists' 2000 Sigma Delta Chi Award for coverage of the United States presidential election, 2000.[citation needed] He is also a three-time winner of the White House Correspondents' Association Merriman Smith award.

In July 2008, while investigators for the House Oversight Committee were looking into the death of Pat Tillman, they uncovered a 2004 email from Fournier to Karl Rove encouraging him to "keep up the fight."[5]

On August 23, 2008, following U.S. Senator and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's announcement of his selection of Senator Joe Biden as a running mate, Fournier wrote a widely circulated piece titled "Analysis: Biden pick shows lack of confidence".[6] A Washington Monthly columnist described the piece as "mirror[ing] the Republican line with minimal variation".[7] Editor & Publisher noted that Fournier's article "gained wide linkage at the Drudge Report, Hot Air and numerous other conservative sites...." and was targeted by MoveOn.org for alleged bias.[8]

In February 2013, Fournier wrote a column about breaking ties with a White House official after a pattern of "vulgarity, abusive language" and "veiled threat(s)", but did not identify the official due to his policy of granting blanket automatic anonymity to all his sources.[9] Fournier received some criticism from commentator Glenn Greenwald for behaving in a "petulant" manner and for his policy on anonymity for sources.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Fournier

1 posted on 05/15/2014 1:31:50 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Come out of the closet, Ron! It’s not too late for a trans-sexual operation!


2 posted on 05/15/2014 1:34:51 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

RE: Opposing Gay Marriage Is a Waste of Your Time

Is opposition to BEING FORCED TO celebrate gay marriage a waste of your time too?


3 posted on 05/15/2014 1:39:27 PM PDT by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Whether we speak against it or not shouldn’t be a matter of whether it will succeed or not but of whether it is right or wrong.

The homosexual lobby hopes to silence us. But some of us will never be silent. If we can’t speak from the center of the crowd anymore, then we will speak from the edge of it. Our voices will echo from corners, from the wilderness, if necessary from prison. Our voices will echo from the grave. They will never be silent.

Never.


4 posted on 05/15/2014 1:39:28 PM PDT by Engraved-on-His-hands (Conservative 2016!! The Dole, H.W. Bush, McCain, Romney experiment has failed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Give me a damn break. Objecting to perverted forms of sex is not the same as despising skin color. Suggesting that it is is beyond insulting to the memory and plight of those who were beaten and hanged from trees or burned out of their homes.

Shove it where the sun doesn’t shine, Ron, you twit.


5 posted on 05/15/2014 1:39:54 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Making Queer 'Marriage' part of the
Civil Rights Movement
was just a damned brilliant PR move.

However, I will never understand why the Negroes don't object. In the 'hood, if flamboyant queers had gotten on the front of the bus, Rosa Parks would have willingly walked to the back ... or gotten off.

6 posted on 05/15/2014 1:41:22 PM PDT by Kenny Bunk (A gay Muslim foreigner as POTUS? Sure. What could go wrong?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Marriage is not a Right. Try marrying your sister to see that FACT.

Its not related to interracial marriage either as that was about genetics and protecting women. There are no issues with kids born of a HomoFacist Union nor is there a weaker sex that society normally protects.


7 posted on 05/15/2014 1:41:26 PM PDT by Mechanicos (When did we amend the Constitution for a 2nd Federal Prohibition?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

>> Judge Chris Piazza, who ruled that a constitutional amendment overwhelmingly passed by voters in 2004 banning gay marriage was “an unconstitutional attempt to narrow the definition of equality.”

In reality, judge, your ruling is an expansion of the word “marriage”.


8 posted on 05/15/2014 1:41:31 PM PDT by Ray76 (True change requires true change - A Second Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

Opposing homosexual marriage is a waste of time, if the liberals keep getting their way, and homosexual marriage continues to be imposed by the courts.

Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on whether there is a constitutional right to homosexual marriage. They carefully sidestepped that core question in last year’s rulings dealing with homosexual marriage.

To me, a key issue with homosexual marriage has been the issue of exactly who gets to define marriage. Is marriage to be defined by the people, by state legislatures, by churches and religious faiths, or only by the courts? Should marriage relationships be recognized at all by government, or only by religious faith traditions?

Another issue is that, every time the courts rule for homosexual marriage, they are changing the definition of marriage. There is no equal protection argument as such, because under traditional marriage law, everyone is treated equally. I understand a homosexual man doesn’t want to marry a female, but he has the right to do so. To arrive at homosexual marriage being a civil right, the courts have to invent this new right, and change the definition of marriage, not just rule on issues of equal rights.

Another legal issue the courts are simply ignoring, is the fact that this whole area of sexual identity/sexual orientation, is not a protected class under federal civil rights laws. So the courts are deciding that homosexuality SHOULD be a protected class under such laws, when they then decide that we should have homosexual marriage.


9 posted on 05/15/2014 1:41:52 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

How could this country have fallen so quickly? Helped by RINOs. I’ll be long gone by the time the history of this is written with truth, power and eloquence...


10 posted on 05/15/2014 1:42:30 PM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

No doubt that the libs are overwhelming winning this one, soon we wont even be able to say that we oppose it : reference NFL.


11 posted on 05/15/2014 1:43:03 PM PDT by sickoflibs (Obama : 'I never said that you can keep your doctor . Republicans lie about me ')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Like those who stood against civil rights for African-Americans, gay-marriage foes are fighting a battle they can’t win

Now that is disgusting and insulting. Stop comparing a persons choice to act as a pervert to that of a person born with black skin..... How hateful.........


12 posted on 05/15/2014 1:44:30 PM PDT by SECURE AMERICA (I am an American - Not a Republican or a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Like those who stood against civil rights for African-Americans, gay-marriage foes are fighting a battle they can't win.

Fighting for God's priorities is NEVER a waste of time. We will win eternally. Sorry, Ron.

13 posted on 05/15/2014 1:44:48 PM PDT by Colonel_Flagg ("Compromise" means you've already decided you lost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Fine. I won’t oppose homosexual marriage...just say homosexuality is sinful behavior that is utterly and obviously unnatural.

Do you think the homofascists will let me work in peace? Do you think homofascists will ‘tolerate’ me?


14 posted on 05/15/2014 1:45:42 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
However, I will never understand why the Negroes don't object.

No Left faction will ever oppose any other Left faction on the grounds that it might jeopardize their government cash flow. They play as a team because they have a clear concept of what the reward is for doing so.

15 posted on 05/15/2014 1:48:24 PM PDT by Mr. Jeeves ([CTRL-GALT-DELETE])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

Good points.


16 posted on 05/15/2014 1:48:55 PM PDT by Ray76 (True change requires true change - A Second Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The difference is that there are decades worth of objective clinical evidence that homosexuality is a dysfunctional compulsive behavior. Unfortunately, the objective evidence has been successfully shouted down for a few decades now, so that the only ones still opposing it are doing so based on moral considerations.

The pro-homosexual activists have created a cult of denial and fostered a society of enablers because we stopped having any conversation regarding what actually underlies the behavior.

And that’s why it’s fundamentally different from segregation.


17 posted on 05/15/2014 1:48:58 PM PDT by william clark (Ecclesiastes 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mechanicos

“Marriage is not a Right. Try marrying your sister to see that FACT.”

Well, that’s this year... next year who knows?


18 posted on 05/15/2014 1:50:37 PM PDT by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

He is another thought control commissar telling everyone that their beliefs are wrong and that you must comply with his. No mention of reeducation camps, like the NFL. Pray for guidance.


19 posted on 05/15/2014 1:51:11 PM PDT by phormer phrog phlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The real battle line is when the queers try to outlaw the practice of Christianity because the religion views their behavior as sinful and improper. That is what they are really after.

Legalizing queer marriage is step one. Step two will be a personal threat to many, many Americans, not to mention one more giant step along the continuum of widespread cultural decay and depravity. From a morality point of view, we are a dreadfully sick nation.


20 posted on 05/15/2014 1:54:32 PM PDT by RatRipper (The political left are utterly evil and corrupt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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