Skip to comments.Conservatives target Republicans who back gay marriage: 'You could lose your career'
Posted on 06/24/2012 4:53:45 AM PDT by scottjewell
Brian Brown, executive director of NOM, doesn't shy away from the fact his group is hoping to intimidate wavering lawmakers into opposing gay marriage.
The message is clear, that supporting same-sex marriage is a losing issue, not a winning issue, Brown told msnbc.com. You could lose your career over supporting same-sex marriage.
He also doesn't buy the argument that gay marriage is a settled issue in New York, even though a May 2012 poll by Quinnipac University found the state's voters support same-sex marriage 54 to 37 percent.
"If we dont get a vote this year, were going to work to get one next year. Were not going away," Brown said. "I think its just wishful thinking to say that once you have same-sex marriage the fights over. Its not."
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.msnbc.msn.com ...
Problem is, what do you do about the religious sects/groups that have supported same sex “marriage”?
The solemn affair you refer to is the religious ceremony, conducted in a church. From the government's perspective, the religious ceremony isn't required, therefore any judge, justice of the peace, or in many states a county clerk can perform a "marriage" ceremony. My argument here is very simple: the state (in this case the Federal Government and the State itself) tax marriage for purposes of generating revenue.
I don't think there's much dispute between you and I on that point.
"Marriage" from a State perspective requires a Marriage License. Inherent in the Marriage License (besides the revenue collected by the state) is a set of laws which govern what happens if the Marriage dissolves. That is, how is property divided up between the two parties? Who pays for child support and how much? How are retirement accounts and other assets divided, etc.. etc.. etc..
In reality, the "marriage" license is therefore a CONTRACT between the parties involved in the license: the couple and the State. This isn't just me saying it's a CONTRACT, any good divorce lawyer would say the same thing.
So where is the marriage actually performed? In the church itself, and it has nothing to do with the CONTRACT that the local States require for purposes of creating a revenue stream for themselves, and providing a legal framework for the disposition of assets acquired during the marriage should that marriage dissolve.
I would argue Marriage as a Religious institution and protected from Government interference by the First Amendment is a completely SEPARATE issue from the CONTRACT that States require (the "marriage license.")
The fight IS and SHOULD BE about keeping the Government OUT of the Church first, and rejecting the term "marriage" from being used. The homosexual agenda is about CORRUPTING the term "marriage" and thereby corrupting the Church itself.
If they're allowed to continue fighting on their terms, Church's across this country will be forced to perform "gay marriage" the same way the Government sponsored Church of England is now required to do.
To stop that, we must get the Government OUT of the Church and OUT of the "marriage" business. That means asserting our First Amendment rights to the fullest first, and rejecting the corrupted use of the word "marriage" when the reality is that "marriage licenses" are really CONTRACTS between the state and two individuals.
One does NOT need to be married (using the Religious term here) to enter into a CONTRACT with the state.
BTW: In my opinion, that is NOT a "libertarian" view, it is a solid, Conservative, strict Constitutionalist interpretation and view.
As it's Sunday morning, I'm off to Church and I wish you peace.
Simple: stop recognizing them as religious groups and call them what they really are.
It's like those folks who ask on here daily "What right is the government going to take away next?"
Aside from the fact that they're asking the wrong question, they're also demonstrating a lack of critical thinking skills which sadly, is in ever decreasing supply in this country.
The question should be "what Constitutional basis does the Government have to try and take away that right or regulate that behavior?"
That's just my view though, and I seem to be a member of a shrinking population here on FR and in this country. (Sigh...)
I also think what you are saying here amounts to what is said in this essay on the end of Western Civilization: Although the author is not speaking about gay invaders here, one can easily think of the host as being America, and the invaders as being gay agents, among others: in any case it can be applied to immigrants, feminists, socialists, gays and a host of other cultural “invaders”.
In short, I really think the below is exactly what you are asserting:
“Initially, while the invaders are present only in small numbers, they will treat their host with care and respect. The contempt they must feel about their host’s culture will be dissembled, along with their intention to exploit the wealth of their host while avoiding any demands the host may place upon them.
They will naturally subscribe to those laws of the host that carry the real threat of penalty or offer profit, but only because of convenience, and not for respect for the notions underpinning those laws; while all other laws of the host community will be silently treated with contempt except in those rare instances where they match their own culture.
Incompatible Nature Of Invaders Will Eventually Be Revealed
As the invaders numbers grow so will their confidence and their own culture will start to publicly assert itself. The invader’s general contempt for the culture of their host will become evident and will generate resentment between the different cultures, but while this may fester and flare from time to time, the host will confirm the decaying nature of its own culture by being unable to take effective action against the invaders.”
Granting the government the power to determine which religious groups to recognize/not recognize would be the end of religious freedom.
Yes. You are right on all counts.
That your view would appear Libertarian (while being solidly conservative and constitutionally based ) attests to just how far Republicanism and conservatism in general has fallen away from its natural premises and roots.
Good Sunday to you.
I didn't say I'd want the Government to stop recognizing them as religious institutions. That's up to you and I to call them what they really are and shine the light of truth on them.
Think of it this way: What do you think will happen (and I say WILL, because it's going to....) to the first Church of any denomination that performs the first "gay marriage?"
Do you think Church's around the country won't be speaking up calling that an abomination and against God? Do you think members of that Church won't up and leave and that eventually that Church would collapse?
That is what I meant when I said "stop calling them religious organizations and start calling them what they really are."
Good Sunday to you, I've over-stayed my time this morning and shall look for a response from you later.
I think you would also be interested in this, as it supports your thesis, (as do I), gzzimlich:
Here is another good quote by a scholar which bears repeating and is relevant to this thread :The very first paragraph would seem to uphold US Conservative’s stance, while the rest of it is a reaffirmation of the general argument:
“. . . Government does not have the right to reorder this most basic institution of human organization. Marriage predates the establishment of government, and any governmental authority that would presume to redefine marriage apart from its inherently heterosexual nature will do so at great peril.
Furthermore, advances toward legal recognition of same-sex relationships have been propelled by the action of courts, rather than legislatures. This is another example of the “judicial usurpation of politics” that threatens the integrity of democracy itself. A government that would claim the right to redefine marriage in this way demonstrates an arrogance that would cause Rome to blush and Babylon to quiver.
Inevitably, once marriage is redefined as something other than a heterosexual pair, there is nothing to stop further redefinition but sheer arbitrariness. Once marriage is no longer “one thing,” but now “another thing” as well, there is nothing to stop marriage from becoming virtually “everything.” Put simply, if marriage can be redefined so as to allow same-sex pairings, there is nothing in the logic of this transformation that could justify discrimination against those who would transform marriage in other ways. Why just two people? If the consent of all partners is all that is requisite, why laws against incest, polygamy, or any number of other alternative arrangements? We can be certain that proponents of these transformations will be waiting in line for their turn to use the courts to reverse what they claim to be unlawful discrimination.
Marriage has already been weakened to the point of dire social peril. The acceptance of “no-fault” divorce laws, the ethic of sexual liberation, and even the rise of new reproductive technologies have weakened the foundation and superstructure of marriage to the point that this most basic molecule is hanging together by a thread. The redefinition of marriage in order to accommodate same-sex relationships would not mean the mere transformation of marriage—but its dissolution. The very concept of marriage cannot survive such a denial of its inherent meaning and historic structure.”
Sorry, here is the link to the above quote:
If I Were the Devil: Paul Harvey... by the late Great Paul Harvey
.... to everything you said.