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

Skip to comments.

How Ryan T. Anderson Responded to a Gay Man Who Wants to Redefine Marriage
http://dailysignal.com ^ | July 25, 2014

Posted on 07/26/2014 3:27:07 PM PDT by NKP_Vet

Commentary By

Daily Signal Commentary Video

“Why should I, as a gay man, be denied the same right to file a joint tax return with my potential husband that a straight couple has?”

Anderson also talked about the differences between the law’s interest in contracts and in marriage

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda
The sodomite's head was spinning after a few minutes. He acted and sounded like an idiot, which he is. "Why can't I get married, why can't I get married. I'm taking my marbles and going home, you old meanie you".

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/about/ryan-t-anderson-editor/

1 posted on 07/26/2014 3:27:07 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

I believe the idiot is going to find out that married people pay higher taxes. And if you’re married and file separate then you REALLY pay higher taxes.


2 posted on 07/26/2014 3:38:49 PM PDT by VerySadAmerican (Liberals were raised by women or wimps. And they're all stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
Owned.

Nice use of calm rationality. Where was this presentation? The crowd was obviously impressed as well.

3 posted on 07/26/2014 3:41:11 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

I think marriage, in the traditional sense, and by definition, has been abolished. It started when governments, local, state and federal first started injecting themselves into the marriage process. It was finished when gays were given the right to participate in the marriage contract in relationships that redefine marriage. ...Marriage was never a civil rights issue, but the government has treated it as one to accommodate sexual perversion and continue its assault on Western culture.


4 posted on 07/26/2014 4:02:25 PM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Great handling of a “Gotcha” question.

I don’t know anything else about Ryan Anderson, but I know this... anyone that is this smooth, collected, rational and affable at handling these type of questions has a bright future in politics.


5 posted on 07/26/2014 4:10:58 PM PDT by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet; All
As a consequence of the parents of the gay man in the video likely not making sure that their son was taught about the reason for constitutionally enumerated rights, their misguided son seems to think that rights can be created out of thin air in the constitutional republic.

In other words, the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect the so-called gay rights that are now wrongly being legislated from the bench by activist judges.

Also, another thing that the gay gentleman doesn't seem to understand is this. The federal government is arguably going to make up for lost revenues on tax credits for married couples when the children of the staight couple grow up and become taxpayers.

And let's not forget that the corrupt federal government is also wrongly laying taxes which it cannot justify under Congress's constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers. In fact, Justice John Marshall had clarified Congress's limited power to lay taxes as follows.

“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

6 posted on 07/26/2014 4:13:03 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

A bright young man.

Great post.


7 posted on 07/26/2014 4:17:23 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

New rendition of an old fairy tale, The Emperor’s New Clothes.. Calling a gay relationship a marriage does not make it a marriage, any more than calling a a nude man a dressed one. Even a law that forces you to recognize this under penalty of death does not make it so. All that is left is to redefine the terms...
Great video but the discussion underneath was depressing..... We have slipped so far...


8 posted on 07/26/2014 4:19:20 PM PDT by ArtDodger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pallis

Would it not have been easier, in hindsight, to have changed the applicable clauses in the IRS regulations, and the entire rest of the government, to cover persons who have taken a vow of “civil union” as accepted under the regulations, and left the definition of “marriage”, with all its historic connotations, alone for the purpose it was created in tradition and the law, the union of one man and one woman?

But NOOOO, they had to get all “in your face”, in their frenzied haste to “throw off” all the symbols and trappings of a settled and generally comfortable arrangement that had worked perfectly well, even antedating the Christian traditions, and extending well back into tribal and clan roots, even before an agricultural society existed.

There ARE no new “family unit” arrangements that have not been tried over and over in history, only to come back to the generally accepted arrangements, of “one man, one woman”, with all its taboos and restrictions, that make for a much more civil and polite society, with its measured and defined roles. Of course family extends far beyond the “nuclear” model, but at its heart, the traditions are passed along from generation to generation, and no society goes far outside these traditions except at its own great peril, personally and for the broader community.


9 posted on 07/26/2014 4:20:50 PM PDT by alloysteel (Most people become who they promised they would never be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

bttt


10 posted on 07/26/2014 4:57:10 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
Would it not have been easier, in hindsight, to have changed the applicable clauses in the IRS regulations, and the entire rest of the government, to cover persons who have taken a vow of “civil union” as accepted under the regulations, and left the definition of “marriage”, with all its historic connotations, alone for the purpose it was created in tradition and the law, the union of one man and one woman?

Interesting idea.

11 posted on 07/26/2014 4:58:47 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

The homosexual should have just said, I think we should pay the same tax so that politicians can buy our votes.


12 posted on 07/26/2014 5:10:38 PM PDT by right way right (America has embraced the suck of Freedumb.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Bump


13 posted on 07/26/2014 5:11:17 PM PDT by WashingtonSource
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

The needle on my gaydar pegged as soon as the “Gay Man” started talking. In about 15 seconds, it began smoking and smelled of burning electronics.


14 posted on 07/26/2014 5:23:53 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Love this!


15 posted on 07/26/2014 5:26:03 PM PDT by FamiliarFace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

In other words, “You can do whatever you like. Simply don’t expect special treatment (i.e. special marriage arrangements), don’t redefine marriage to suit you, and leave our children alone.”


16 posted on 07/26/2014 5:47:36 PM PDT by Jan_Sobieski (Sanctification)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

17 posted on 07/26/2014 6:07:24 PM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
left the definition of “marriage”, with all its historic connotations, alone for the purpose it was created in tradition and the law, the union of one man and one woman?

Marriage wasn't created "in tradition and the law." It was created by God, at the very beginning. In just the same way "up" and "down" were created by God. It is what it is. Tradition and law are forced to deal with these realities, and to be just and non-destructive they have to conform to them, but they didn't create them.

This is not a nitpick. It's very important. The camel's nose in the tent is the idea that men, or governments, have any kind of legitimate choice in matters of natural law.

18 posted on 07/26/2014 6:20:19 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Thanks for posting this. I usually don’t watch these because I can’t stand the argument in the first place. Shad my the first minute had my stomach turning, but Mr. Anderson knocked it out of the park. Cool.


19 posted on 07/26/2014 6:34:46 PM PDT by stevio (God, guns, guts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VerySadAmerican

That was the stupidest part. He currently gets to file as two individuals. That is cheaper than filing married, even with the marriage “penalty” adjustment. Occasionally married people have gotten divorced just to say tax dollars.


20 posted on 07/26/2014 6:34:59 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: VerySadAmerican

There’s a lot more than that. The entire population is declining in terms of being married in the Netherlands, which was among the first nations to recognize SSM. I believe that even plenty of homosexuals are resorting to cohabitation for about the same reasons that the general population are. Divorce, like Karma,is a #$%^#.


21 posted on 07/26/2014 7:00:13 PM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

The camel’s nose in the tent is the idea that men, or governments, have any kind of legitimate choice in matters of natural law.

...man has no legitimate choice in matters of marriage...?


22 posted on 07/28/2014 9:08:09 AM PDT by IrishBrigade (')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: IrishBrigade

Not in terms of defining what it is.


23 posted on 07/28/2014 9:36:26 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: IrishBrigade

You can try to redefine “up” and “down,” but when you jump off eighty foot cliffs the rocks at the bottom won’t care.


24 posted on 07/28/2014 9:40:00 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Up is up, down is down, marriage is marriage, no matter how silly your redefinitions might be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Anderson is a clear thinker and an excellent advocate for marriage.


25 posted on 08/02/2014 4:28:17 PM PDT by kinsman redeemer (The real enemy seeks to devour what is good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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