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

Skip to comments.

Disaster Looms If GOP Changes Course On Gay Marriage
Fox News ^ | August 26, 2010 | Ken Blackwell and Ken Klukowski

Posted on 08/26/2010 6:28:21 PM PDT by DesertRenegade

Same-sex marriage is back as a front-burner issue in American politics.

First, on August 4, a federal judge in San Francisco held that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, striking down part of the California Constitution defining marriage as one man and one woman. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ordered an expedited schedule to consider this case, with arguments to be held in December.

Second, former RNC chairman and 2004 Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman came out this week, announcing he’s homosexual, and pushing the Republican Party to support the homosexual-rights agenda. Republicans leaders are beginning to weigh in on where they stand, including on the agenda’s centerpiece: Redefining marriage.

The Republican Party has an official position on same-sex marriage. It’s found in the 2008 GOP platform, which is the clear and uncontestable Republican position until the 2012 convention. When one of your authors (Ken Blackwell) was serving as vice chairman of the GOP Platform Committee, there was a singular focus on producing a party platform that fully reflects the vast majority of Republican Party members.

The GOP platform could not be more explicit: Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The fundamental institution of human civilization should be preserved as it has been known through the entirety of American history and Western civilization. Supporters of same-sex marriage had the full opportunity to make their case to the party. They made it, and they lost.

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aids; bostonglobe; homosexualagenda; kenmehlman; margaretmarshall; newyorktimes; romney; sodomites; sodomy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-120 last
To: little jeremiah
'Conservatives on FR understand clearly that your comments are of the variety of “how many lawyers can prance on the head of a pin” and realize that your purpose is to obfuscate and pontificate as though you were the smartest kid in the class."

Is what someone says when they don't posses the intellectual horsepower to supply a cogent and compelling argument. Just saying.

"Most people just skip over your effusive self-important word jugglery-ism leftist twaddle."

Most people may. You don't. How about that?

101 posted on 08/27/2010 8:43:16 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Well, they’re doing a piss-poor job of it. Screaming for the government to pass a law/change the constitution in regards to gay marriage hands the power to define marriage *TO* politicians.

If conservatives wanted to leave marriage to the realm of religion, we’d be fighting to keep marriage *AWAY* from government.

And about the only people out there that even talk about that sort of thing are libertarians.

:-(


102 posted on 08/27/2010 8:56:38 PM PDT by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla

Marriage has always in the history of civilization, had recognition by the state, whatever kind of government large or small. This is natural. Married couples have their own status which is different from single people or dependent children.

The only group of people at fault are homosexual activists, their assistants on the left, the fools who are taken in by sentiment (ooh, those poor gays, victims, we shouldn’t be mean to them) and liberaltarians who just want a hedonistic free for all.

Which of course would quickly become chaos, than barbarism, than totalitarianism. Since libertarianism is akin to an opium cloud dream that has never and can never exist in the real world.


103 posted on 08/27/2010 9:05:52 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

I generally do; that comment of yours I replied to happened to meet my gaze.

I’ll continue on my normal path of ignoring your “how many lawyers can prance on the head of a pin and gosh I’m the only genius here” self-puffery.


104 posted on 08/27/2010 9:07:18 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Marriage has always in the history of civilization, had recognition by the state, whatever kind of government large or small. This is natural. Married couples have their own status which is different from single people or dependent children.

Recognition is different than the regulation/definition of marriage.

And I'm not seeing any conservative movement to simply have the government recognize marriage. Heck, Proposition 8 in California was a flat-out *DEFINITION* of marriage codified into state constitutional law. That's dangerous to do, for you are placing the control of marriage into the hands of politicians. (Heck, now that precedence has been set, just wait until the loony left give it a go. Wait, they already are.)

If we were serious about returning to the original intent of marriage, we'd be campaigning hard for your original statement... that the only role government has is recognition of marriage. Which then would mean that government would not have the power to conduct *ANY* marriage at all. No more court-clerk marriages. No more government marriage certificates.

You'd submit proof of marriage to the government, who'd then simply grant a recognition of marriage claim. And that's a *MAJOR* difference, for the former denies you a marriage without government approval... while the latter is a 'ex post facto' statement of past action.

That would return all marriages to religion. And if you can find a religion that'll marry gays... well, I'm thinking that's going to be pretty hard to do.

105 posted on 08/27/2010 9:45:29 PM PDT by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

I see no one else seems to believe you.

I do.

Your prediction and understanding of the electorate and the political realities are exactly on target.

Without a doubt, exactly as you said, and for the exact reasons you stated, you are correct.

Sodomy, outright, far extreme sexual deviation will be normalized and likely within less than 10 years.

And all those who are saying you are “just giving up” and that it is “the end of America forever”. They are right too.

It is.

We lost.

Like the headless chicken, we lost a long time ago, and the reality of the spiritual death of this nation has not caught up with the economic and political body.

It will.

By 2020, if we are still here, in name, as a nation, it will be one totally unrecognizable to those a generation before it.

And folks, I haven’t given up.

FR’s posting rules don’t let me tell you what needs to be done and how to do it. And I won’t even hint at it, other than to say I have had said posts removed recently for saying it.

But it is coming. It is coming FAST!

And we are soooo not ready for it....

But the OldDeckHand, he is right. We LOST.

This election, we will win 35 or more Governors seats, 100+ in the congress. A HUGE victory. Biggest in history.

And you know the saddest part?

It will be too little. It will be too late.

The frog that feels the heat enough to jump, is already dead by that point.

The electorate that turns out to turn back the abuses, is already past the point where, by the ballot box, they can do so.

And it breaks my heart to post it.

But you all better get with the program. Because it doesn’t get pretty after what I have just pointed out, occurs.

2010 is going to be the MOST Euphoric election result in generations!!

And 2011 the worst governing in our nation’s entire history.

:::sigh::::


106 posted on 08/27/2010 9:58:58 PM PDT by RachelFaith (2010 is going to be a 100 seat Tsunami - Unless the GOP Senate ruins it all...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: RachelFaith
"But the OldDeckHand, he is right. We LOST"

I would just add this caveat, "we lost" for the foreseeable future. who knows what the future holds 40-60 years down the road (or even less). In 1970, the conventional wisdom was that abortion would be the law of the land forever.

Things change. And, while there are still abortions, there are fewer of them and you can begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel. And this is underscored with how young people view abortion compared to their parents. For the first time - perhaps in the history of the Republic - the youthful generation is more conservative on an issue than their parents. More young people believe abortion is wrong, than believe abortion is right. Just like the writing is on the wall for homosexual marriage, it's also on the wall for the end of abortion.

Eventually, after a protracted period of failure, you could see the prevailing opinion turn back to traditional families and traditional marriage.

107 posted on 08/27/2010 10:07:13 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

As a potential, sure.

As a reality, from the same hard cold logic of your main post?

No.

From the objective lessons of history?

No.

No nation which did embrace sodomy, ever recovered.

Here is why: The Word of God is very specific when it comes to Sodomy. It speaks of it, vastly different than murder, theft, adultery, fornication. All those sins, you repent, and you are restored. David, Moses, murderers. Solomon, Fornicator. But the Sodomite, is blinded by lust. Blinded by a driving deed. So much so that God Himself says He will “give them over to do that thing”. God never gives up on a murderer, but He will wipe His hands and walk away from those who defile themselves in such manner. Their very mind, soul, lost. Self deceived, to the point of “no longer retaining the very knowledge of God”.

My FRiend, once we cross that line, and I agree with you, we ARE going to cross it.

This nation is DONE!

We may, by some force, power, providence, remake a new nation, but this one, this constitution, this government, this way of life, OVER!!


108 posted on 08/27/2010 10:18:43 PM PDT by RachelFaith (2010 is going to be a 100 seat Tsunami - Unless the GOP Senate ruins it all...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

I think you’re flat out wrong. I don’t believe Kennedy will compound the astounding stupidity of Roe v. Wade with a decision of the same endlessly contentious effect. Upholding Proposition 8 will NOT mean the end of homosexual marriage in America. Kennedy can realize his misguided “progressive” dream of homosexual marriage by upholding Proposition 8 and allowing the states to decide the issue politically within their respective legislatures. Or, he might just vote to void the lower court-ruling and send it back for Judge Vaughn to start all over again. Either outcome is more likely than another Roe v. Wade result.


109 posted on 08/27/2010 10:24:21 PM PDT by behzinlea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: behzinlea
"I think you’re flat out wrong. I don’t believe Kennedy will compound the astounding stupidity of Roe v. Wade with a decision of the same endlessly contentious effect."

Are you saying that just because you believe Kennedy will want to avoid the "endless contentious effect", or do you base you prediction in some element of law - that is to say how Kennedy sees the law? I don't necessarily care how you think Kennedy should rule, but why he'll rule the way you predict.

It just seems to me like you're projecting. I wouldn't. Kennedy's opinion in Lawrence v. Texas (worth reading, as is Scalia's dissent, where he specifically worries about the majority opinion moving us closer to homosexual marriage) is pretty telling with respect to how he views rational basis scrutiny in equal protection and due process cases. Vaughn laid out a detailed case under rational basis scrutiny (in fact he opines it - Prop 8 - doesn't even survive rational basis review), which from my study of Kennedy, will likely be enticing to him.

O'Connor wrote a separate concurring opinion in Lawrence specifically because she didn't like where the majority opinion might lead with respect to marriage - and she says so in her opinion.

Remember, this isn't about how you think or how I think, but how Kennedy thinks - and it's pretty clear that Kennedy gives great deference to rational basis scrutiny in equal protection cases.

110 posted on 08/27/2010 11:11:19 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
After reading Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans along with Gonzalez v. Carhart, I'm actually not certain how Kennedy would view gay marriage.

He may view public morality differently than private morality. This would actually square with how Blackstone explained the dichotomy in Book IV Chapter 4.

I'm no mind reader, of course, and I am not predicting one way or another how Kennedy would view gay marriage as a matter of law. However, I don't think it's certain that Kennedy will come down in favor of the proposition that the 14th Amendment requires gay marriage. He could certainly come up with an intellectually and legally consistent way to distinguish a gay marriage case from Romer and Lawrence, if he is so inclined.
111 posted on 08/28/2010 12:20:28 AM PDT by The Pack Knight (Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and the world laughs at you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla

You’re irrational. The definition of marriage is written in every cell in every male and female body. It is irrefutable, unchangeable Natural Law.

It is the perverts and their helpers who want to artifically change the meaning or definition of marriage, and conseravtives are just playing defense and catchup.

One can by law or judicial decision artificially change the definition of marriage to mean two men, two women or whatever and it has as much reality and common sense and truth as changing the definition of water to “a dry powder”.


112 posted on 08/28/2010 11:30:18 AM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla
If the government recognizes marriage, then it must, by necessity, define exactly what marriage is in order to do this. This is only common sense. A universal understanding of what marriage is has held sway for millennium, making official codification unnecessary, until the anarchist thugs gained a measure of control in the courts and legislatures. Now, sadly, we must define up, down, black, white, in, out, etc. All casualties of political correctness.
113 posted on 08/28/2010 2:39:18 PM PDT by fwdude (Anita Bryant was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
If the government recognizes marriage, then it must, by necessity, define exactly what marriage is in order to do this. This is only common sense. A universal understanding of what marriage is has held sway for millennium, making official codification unnecessary, until the anarchist thugs gained a measure of control in the courts and legislatures. Now, sadly, we must define up, down, black, white, in, out, etc. All casualties of political correctness.

Very well stated and right on target!

114 posted on 08/28/2010 6:19:31 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
The definition of marriage is written in every cell in every male and female body. It is irrefutable, unchangeable Natural Law.

No, that'd be that the definition of procreative sex is written into our DNA.

Marriage is the sanctification by G-d of the union between 1 man and 1 woman.

And there isn't anything in our DNA that forces 1 man to only sleep with 1 woman. Heck, if we want to pull out 'natural law', then it's in the best interest of a male animal to impregnate as many females as possible, to ensure the continuation of his genes/bloodline. And *THAT* is most definitely *NOT* marriage.

115 posted on 08/28/2010 7:27:34 PM PDT by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
If the government recognizes marriage, then it must, by necessity, define exactly what marriage is in order to do this.

No, it doesn't. Government can and has previously 'contracted out' to religion to provide the definition. You would remove religion from that and place it squarely in the lap of politicians.

Which do you think would be more honest, moral, and just about that? Think about it.

It would be best if government simply stated that it grants recognition to whatever religion declares as marriage. Period.

As religion doesn't recognize marriage between gays/lesbians, then neither will the government... *AND* they will not have the vested power to change that (see above paragraph).

116 posted on 08/28/2010 7:33:02 PM PDT by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla

There are different meanings to natural law. Humans are meant to follow a natural law that has choice embedded in it - God given free will. I’m not referring to anything Darwinist or based on evolution theories.

Animals do not have the choice, that free will.

Marriage has always and will always mean a man and a woman. Some cultures, religions and times have permitted polygamy, but that is still man+woman.

It has never been and will never be man+man or woman+woman or any other sicko combination. If humans pretend it means that, they may play at that for a short while, but it is foolish, insane and against both the law of nature in the cells, and the law of nature inscribed in everyones’ hearts, by God.


117 posted on 08/28/2010 7:45:34 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla
As religion doesn't recognize marriage between gays/lesbians, then neither will the government...

You can't be serious, can you?

118 posted on 08/28/2010 10:21:56 PM PDT by fwdude (Anita Bryant was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
"If there is no natural right, no natural family, no ways of God reflected in the nature of mankind, then there are no unalienable rights; no principle of justice that requires their security; no authoritative basis for the rightness of government based on consent; no claim to self-government, of, by and for the people."

-- Alan Keyes, August 26, 2010


119 posted on 08/28/2010 10:26:10 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (I don't believe in atheists. And nihilists are nothing to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

How so? As long as we keep the government from having the power to do something about it, it will not and cannot have the power to do something about it should some-one get a ‘burr stuck under the saddle’ about it.


120 posted on 08/29/2010 5:35:57 PM PDT by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-120 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