Tag Archives: gay marriage

A Correct Conservative Position on Gay Marriage

From Bruce Carrol, AKA “Gay Patriot”:

…As a gay conservative, I’ve always been conflicted about the issue of gay marriage. I guess it is because my political and moral philosophies are not dictated by the desire to be loved by the president or the federal government. I believe that my rights as an American citizen come from my Creator, not Barack Obama, John Roberts or Nancy Pelosi. But the reaction from most gay liberals today to the overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act and reversing the California voters’ decision in Proposition 8 has been the opposite. The gay political class is celebrating Big Government waving its haughty approval like King George III waving his hand over his colonies.

In the words of our current ruler, “Let me be clear.” If someone wants to engage in a civil contract with someone they love, nothing stopped them from doing so last week. I have consistently urged that public policy adopt civil unions with strong religious liberty protections as a balance to resolve the gay marriage issue. Instead, the gay political class decided that they would expend all their energy, time and millions of dollars for the last decade quarreling over the word “marriage.” Bravo…

This is something I don’t think that any of us on the right can disagree with.  As free born citizens of the United States, we all have the right to enter in to whatever contracts we wish – and if there is some legal difficulty which prevents, say, two men from entering in to certain, legal contracts then I don’t think any of us on the right would oppose reforming the laws as necessary.  But marriage is what it is – and it isn’t the union of two men, period.  Hasn’t been.  Isn’t. Can’t be.  Attempts to make it otherwise in law are merely an attempt to enforce a falsehood upon the people.

Carroll does go on to point out that because we are being forced to re-define what the word “marriage” means, there is a great deal of risk that our leftists will use this new definition to persecute people because of their religious beliefs.  To me, this is the actual purpose of gay marriage – not so much to help out that tiny number of gays who wish to unite themselves life-long, but to have a handy club to beat down Christians with.  This is borne out by the fact that our leftists don’t make so much as a peep about the possibility of “orientation-selection” abortions (ie, if we can identify genetic markers for homosexuality, then almost all homosexuals will be aborted…except, oddly enough, those of devoutly believing Christians) or the vast sums of money we provide to cruelly anti-gay Muslims.  By its fruit is the tree known – and the only fruit we get from the leftist gay rights supporters are those which can be used to attack Christianity.

My view is that gay marriage would best remain banned – but I’ve also come to the conclusion that marriages, themselves, should not be sanctioned by the State in any way, shape or form.  My desire is to as swiftly as possible separate marriage and State (thus making the push for gay marriage moot) while at the same time enacting laws which put very long, sharp and powerful teeth in to our First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion (boiled down, the laws would come out to hold that when in doubt, a person’s claim to free exercise trumps State requirements).  As for marriage, itself, that is for Christians and Jews who actually practise their faith and it is up to us – as believers – to make it work as God intended.

The Stunning French Campaign Against Gay Marriage

Absolutely unexpected:

…Ludovine de la Rochère, president of La Manif Pour Tous, the movement opposed to France’s recently enacted same-sex marriage law, delivered a speech at a mass rally on May 26th- France’s Mother’s Day- before hundreds of thousands of advocates…

…According to de la Rochère, the traditional marriage movement has taken hold in her country “because our fundamental and universal values unite us.”

Determined that those “fundamental and universal values” focus on the “well-being of children,” de la Rochère has turned her movement into the multitude that it has become.

The activist explained:

“The truth is that we do not have the same notion of equality as our opponents do. Our belief, held by most of the country, rests first on the equality of children, equality before the right to have a father and mother, that is to say, an origin and real heritage, rather than a false heritage. Based on that we have come together as atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, right, left, straight, gay. For all, the truth that we owe to the child is sacred. We do not want children’s lives to be woven around lies, nor do we want gender studies ideology to triumph.”

“France has awoken!” de la Rochère exclaimed to the crowd, noting that her movement has history on its side. “All the generations are here and among them, fathers and mothers and youths, each one keeping watch over us, over all of France…

I don’t really have an explanation for it.  Perhaps it is the fact that France has a Catholic heritage and thus a heritage of applying reason to issues?  Could be.  There is no actual reason to enact same sex marriage – the only reason anyone can provide, in all my years of arguing about it, is a version of “’cause I wanna”.  Marriage is not a right; marriage is about the formation of families for the natural procreation and rearing of children; marriage is the cornerstone of the primary building block of civilization, the human family.  There is in this no place for a same sex union – not out of meanness, but out of the simple fact that the union of two men is not the same as the union of a man and a woman.  At least a great deal of the people of France have figured this out – and have bravely marched in support of their views.  As it pointed out in the linked articles, the same sort of protests in the United States would require millions of people to show up in DC.  Do we even have the courage to do that?  Imagine the amount of hatred and muck which would be hurled at us, if we did.

But, we should.  As patriots, we daren’t fall behind the French in being reasonable.

 

Same Sex Marriage at the Court

Allahpundit has a nice run down of early tea-leaf-reading regarding what the Court may do – some are arguing that the Court will just side-step the issue (which would have the effect of invalidating Prop 8 in California but not asserting a constitutional right to same sex marriage – a half victory and half loss for both sides), while others are still pretty certain that Roberts will ensure the Court comes down on the side of same sex marriage on the Ruling Class theory that its inevitable and thus the Court better not find itself in a Plessy situation.  This is the view I hold – while three of the Justices (Thomas, Scalia and Alito) actually understand the Constitution and law and other such trivialities, the other six to a greater or lesser degree are more influenced by what is fashionable and so will go with what they perceive elite opinion desires (yes, we may get on this – as we have on other issues – a ruling which merely ensures that a Justice won’t have to be embarrassed when asked a question at a DC cocktail party).  While there cannot be a right to marry – because marriage requires the voluntary consent of at least two people – I believe we’ll have a 6/3 ruling in favor of a constitutionally protected “right” to marry, which means all laws prohibiting same-sex marriage will be invalidated.  The people have voted and voted and voted and made their views clear – and 6 Justices will soon ignore all that and just do what the Ruling Class wants…and they’ll do it without even for a moment thinking of the ramifications of their action (two or three years from now we will start getting the cases where a man is suing to be able to marry his brother, etc).

But, what of it?  Its a Phyrrhic victory by a dying Ruling Class.  Yesterday I came across a quote attributed to the Prime Minister of Luxembourg regarding the ongoing financial crisis in Europe – in effect, the man was quoted as saying that of course everyone knows what to do, but none of them know how to get re-elected after they do it.  In other words, with the failure of the system already apparent and everyone already knowing what needs to be done, they still won’t do it because they don’t want to be booted out of office at the next election and lose their pathetic, little place at the public trough.  These are the people who are in charge all around the world – and they are finished.  Clinging to power like Bourbons or Romanovs, they will soon be swept away.  Here and everywhere around the world.

Why gay marriage?  Not because the people want it – their votes show otherwise.  Not because even most gay people want it.  No, its only wanted because it allows the twits who run our society to continue to view themselves as brave, advanced people who are taking on the corrupt Powers…namely, the Christian Church, which hasn’t had any real power in centuries.  Of course, none of these brave souls in favor of gay marriage will actually go out and try to stop Muslims from murdering gays…because that would take some genuine guts.   100 or so years from now, no one will be marrying people of the same sex – because only an irrational, dying society would allow such a thing…and by 100 years from now, this irrational society will be dead, and its replacement, being rational, won’t go in for such nonsense.

UPDATE:  Bit of a humorous note on the cowardly Senate Democrats who are “evolving” on gay marriage now that they don’t have to face their voters for 6 more years.  The first two were firm against it, back last fall when it could have cost them re-election…

UPDATE II:  And if we can get 10,000 people to march in favor of marriage when gay marriage is allegedly popular, then just wait and see what happens if the SC rams it down our throats…in a few years, we’ll get a million…

Can Gay Marriage be a Conservative Position?

Allahpundit notes a Supreme Court brief signed by a lot of Republicans urging the Court to affirm a right to same sex marriage – from the New York Times article, we get this quote:

“We are trying to say to the court that we are judicial and political conservatives, and it is consistent with our values and philosophy for you to overturn Proposition 8,” said Ken Mehlman, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, who came out as gay several years ago. He is on the board of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which brought the California suit, and has spent months in quiet conversations with fellow Republicans to gather signatures for the brief.

There are two issues here for me:

1.  Is there a right to marry?

2.  Would legalizing same-sex marriage strengthen the institution of marriage?

Continue reading

Gay Rights Activist: Dissenters Not Welcome in Chicago

That is the only way to read this – from the Chicago Tribune:

…Ald.Proco “Joe” Moreno announced this week that he will block Chick-fil-A’s effort to build its second Chicago store, which would be in the Logan Square neighborhood, following company President Dan Cathy’s remarks last week that he was “guilty as charged” for supporting the biblical definition of marriage as between a man and woman.

“If you are discriminating against a segment of the community, I don’t want you in the 1st Ward,” Moreno told the Tribune on Tuesday…

Thing is, Christians, orthodox Jews…even Muslims…are also “guilty as charged” in supporting the biblical definition of marriage.  If the standard for being allowed in to Chicago is “be in favor of gay marriage” then Chicago has just said that millions of people – especially believers in traditional religions – are not allowed in Chicago.  Want to build a new church in Chicago?  Don’t bother – you’re not welcome as you don’t fit in with Chicago values…which, I guess, revolve around gay marriage, political corruption and an amazingly high murder rate.

I’ve never eaten at  Chick-fil-A, but you can bet your bottom dollar that I will as soon as I can.  This is just a disgusting, fascist attempt to suppress people for merely dissenting.  You don’t see people on our side trying to stop a gay rights group from opening an office – even in heavily Christian areas.  Free speech is free speech – everyone is allowed to speak their mind and there’s no call for anyone to deny a person or group the right to operate simply because they have views one disagrees with.  But that is not how our liberal fascists operate:  so filled with hatred they demand that anyone who disagrees shut up and go away.

And they wonder why we don’t like them…wonder why we are working hard in 2012 to utterly crush liberalism at the polls.  We’re doing it to save America…if these fascist twits get their way, we’re all doomed.

UPDATE:  I edited this blog entry because I don’t want the argument to become about what is a Christian.  This case is a matter of a fascist attempt to suppress people for dissenting.

Cheapening The Institution Of Marriage

I really have no idea who Kim Kardashian is or why so many find who she is and what she does even remotely important.

Nevertheless, the reaction to her 72-day marriage has proponents of gay marriage using her as an example of how heterosexual on their own “cheapen the institution” of marriage more than legal gay marriage does.

So, can someone tell me, how this doesn’t cheapen the institution:

Conan O’Brien hosted his shows under a different moon this week, one hanging in the Beacon Theater. For his weeklong filming stint in New York, O’Brien packed his shows full of surprises culminating in an on-air wedding of his costume designer Scott Cronick and his partner David Gorshein, which the late show host officiated.

As the homosexual community pretends to be the new gatekeepers of the sanctity of the institution of marriage, I want to know how having your wedding on late night television, officiated by a media personality respected the sanctity of marriage.

This is hardly the only thing that bugs me. As homosexuals claim the higher ground on respecting the institution, I must ask how planning mass gay weddings doesn’t cheapen the institution.

The issue of who/what cheapens the institution of marriage is certainly up for discussion, and I would argue that short marriages, show weddings, etc. etc, are symptoms of the actual problem, which in my opinion is a cultural thing which likely comes from Hollywood. But, that’s a bigger topic for another time.

If homosexuals want to claim they do more to respect the institution of marriage than their heterosexual counterparts, the least they could do is take the institution seriously, and not treat gay marriage like a contest they’ve won, and find all sorts of ways to flaunt it, like the only reason they are getting married is to rub it in the faces of gay marriage opponents.

Is Tolerance an End, or a Means?

Lots of continuing commentary going on in the blogosphere, especially the Catholic part of it, regarding the Accepting Abundance “public morality” post we discussed here yesterday.  Over at Little Catholic Bubble, Leila posted an interesting quote:

We need to remember that tolerance is not a Christian virtue. Charity, justice, mercy, prudence, honesty — these are Christian virtues. And obviously, in a diverse community, tolerance is an important working principle. But it’s never an end itself. In fact, tolerating grave evil within a society is itself a form of serious evil. – Archbishop Chaput

The left long ago learned the trick of using a nice-sounding word to cover a wicked agenda.  The key is to find a word that is hard to argue against, claim that the word covers some desired, liberal goal and then say anyone who opposes this goal is opposed to the nice-sounding word.  “Tolerance” is one of those words being misused – like using “choice” for abortion; if you are opposed to abortion you are not opposed to murdering babies, you are opposed to people choosing, you see?  These days, the left uses the word “tolerance” as the nice-sounding word to cover the concept of homosexuality being morally the same as heterosexuality.

Just as the left would never get anywhere advocating for baby killing, so they wouldn’t get anywhere trying to convince common-sense people that gay and straight sex are morally the same…so, “choice” instead of “baby killing” and “tolerance” instead of “gay same as straight”.  And if you oppose the concept of homosexuality being morally the same as heterosexuality, then you are being intolerant…even though you’ve never said anything against gay people and, indeed, strongly advocate that every sign of unjust discrimination against them be removed (as all believing Catholics, for instance, hold).

We need to scrape away the lies which have grown up in our society -the various words and phrases the left has twisted to cover the bad and unpopular things they wish to impose on us.  Tolerance is a means, not an end – it is something we do because we wish to live in a peaceful, civil society…but it must not and cannot mean approval.  I am not being intolerant when I say that homosexual sex is inherently disordered…I am merely stating the truth as I understand it.  If the left wants to persist in using that word, then we have to force them to use it properly…and right now, if “tolerance” is the goal, then they’ve won…gay people are broadly tolerated in the American populace and none but a few kooks would dream of putting the slightest legal disability upon homosexuals (good to keep in mind, liberals, that I and plenty of other conservative Christians are, for instance, not opposed to openly gay people serving in the military…and until you went and tried to judicially impose gay marriage, most of us were in favor of some sort of civil union legislation). But that is as far as we can go – to go beyond that, especially for a Christian, is impossible.  We can’t say that what is wrong is right – we are, indeed, supposed to die rather than do any such thing.

Let us start having debates without lies – no more code words, twisted phrases or rhetorical misdirection.  Words mean what they mean, and we should use them as they were intended.  Truth is not subjective – what is right is not dependent upon the ideological viewpoint of the individual.  There is a truth to adhere to – to discover as best we can and then attempt to apply it as best we can in our lives.  To do otherwise is to sink in to a morass of dishonesty where reason cannot exist…and to play the liberals game of undermining us by the clever tricks of the propagandist.