Gay Patriot: “Why do gays need a Big Government hug?” #DOMA #Prop8 #religiousliberty


A view not often vocalized or seen of the gay marriage mandate given to us courtesy of the California and Supreme Courts….and against the will of the people. And with great risk to the religious community….

“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.”…..

…..The gay political movement is bound and gagged to the progressive left. So ….we will see demands for public accommodations for gays and infringement upon the religious liberty of many faiths. I am confident that this attorney general, or the next one, and the Obama IRS, will put pressure on churches and synagogues to marry gay and lesbians. After all, there is a track record of such behavior over the past four years.

So for those of my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters who needed the federal government’s emotional approval of their relationship: Congratulations. I just hope all gay and lesbian Americans take a moment to stop and thank Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush for nominating Justices Kennedy and Roberts so the Clinton era of discrimination could come to an end Wednesday.”

Read it all here.

5 Responses

  1. I would go a step further. The government should get out of the marriage business completely. leave it to religious [or other private] organizations. Why should the govt care whether people are married when they file their tax return. Why should insurance companies care whether people are married for health, life, or death benefits? The more people in the household, the more they should charge for benefits.

  2. By the way, welcome back!

  3. Boria, thanks….I tend to agree with you on getting government out of marriage…with the small exception that I believe our form of government and our stability is founded upon a perpetually strong family of man/woman/children. That should be supported when/if necessary to perpetuate it. That may not be tax breaks but the notion of family and true marriage should be a priority in government.

    And thanks on the welcome back…I really just have not had time to post here much any more, but am going to try to get back in the groove….you are so loyal to read and offer great commentary!!

  4. Though I only accept marriage as the union between one man and one woman for religious (Judeo-Christian) reasons, I have the hardest time finding good secular arguments to support this stance. I have no doubt they are there, but I’m still looking.

  5. Here is a secular article:
    Gay marriage, then group marriage?
    By Robert P. George and Sherif Girgis and Ryan T. Anderson, Special to CNN
    updated 10:24 AM EDT, Thu March 21, 2013
    Redefining marriage would weaken an institution already battered by widespread divorce, say the authors.

    Editor’s note: Robert P. George is a visiting professor at Harvard Law School and McCormick professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University. Sherif Girgis, a recent Rhodes Scholar, is a philosophy Ph.D. candidate at Princeton and a J.D. candidate at Yale Law School. Ryan T. Anderson is William E. Simon Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. They are authors of a new book, “What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense.”

    (CNN) — The attractive civil rights rhetoric of “marriage equality” masks a profound error about what marriage is.
    Of course, if marriage were simply about recognizing bonds of affection or romance, then two men or two women could form a marriage just as a man and woman can. But so could three or more in the increasingly common phenomenon of group (“polyamorous”) partnerships. In that case, to recognize opposite-sex unions but not same-sex or polyamorous ones would be unfair — a denial of equality.

    But marriage is far more than your emotional bond with “your Number One person,” to quote same-sex marriage proponent John Corvino. Just as the act that makes marital love also makes new life, so marriage itself is a multilevel — bodily as well as emotional — union that would be fulfilled by procreation and family life. That is what justifies its distinctive norms — monogamy, exclusivity, permanence — and the concept of marital consummation by conjugal intercourse.

    It is also what explains and justifies the government’s involvement in marriage.
    The government takes no notice of companionship for its own sake, romantic or otherwise. But it has powerful reasons to ensure that whenever possible, children have the benefit of being reared by the mom and dad whose union gave them life.

    All human beings are equal in dignity and should be equal before the law. But equality only forbids arbitrary distinctions. And there is nothing arbitrary about maximizing the chances that children will know the love of their biological parents in a committed and exclusive bond. A strong marriage culture serves children, families and society by encouraging the ideal of giving kids both a mom and a dad.

    Indeed, if that is not the public purpose of marriage law, then the “injustice” and “bigotry” charges comes back to bite most same-sex marriage supporters.

    If marriage is just the emotional bond “that matters most” to you — in the revealing words of the circuit judge who struck down California Proposition 8 — then personal tastes or a couple’s subjective preferences aside, there is no reason of principle for marriage to be pledged to permanence. Or sexually exclusive rather than “open.” Or limited to two spouses. Or oriented to family life and shaped by its demands.
    In that case, every argument for recognizing two men’s bond as marital –equality, destigmatization, extending economic benefits — would also apply to recognizing romantic triads (“throuples,” as they are now known). Refusing such recognition would be unfair — a violation of equality — if commitment based on emotional companionship is what makes a marriage.

    But don’t take our word for it. Many prominent leaders of the campaign to redefine marriage make precisely the same point. (We provide many more examples, and full citations, in the amicus brief we filed with the Supreme Court on the harms of redefining marriage.)

    University of Calgary Professor Elizabeth Brake supports “minimal marriage,” in which people distribute whichever duties they choose, among however many partners, of whatever sex.

    NYU Professor Judith Stacey hopes that redefining marriage would give marriage “varied, creative, and adaptive contours …” and lead to acceptance of “small group marriages.” In the manifesto “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” 300 leading “LGBT and allied” scholars and activists call for the recognition of multiple partner relationships.
    Influential columnist and “It Gets Better” founder Dan Savage encourages spouses to adopt “a more flexible attitude” about sex outside their marriage. Journalist Victoria Brownworth cheerfully predicts that same-sex marriage will “weaken the institution of marriage.”
    “It most certainly will do so,” she says, “and that will make marriage a far better concept than it previously has been.”
    Author Michelangelo Signorile urges same-sex partners to “demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.” They should “fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, because the most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake … is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.”

    These leading same-sex marriage advocates are correct.
    Redefining marriage would, by further eroding its central norms, weaken an institution that has already been battered by widespread divorce, out-of-wedlock child bearing and the like.

    People who think that would be good for children, families and society generally should support “marriage equality.” People who believe otherwise shouldn’t be taken in by the deceptive rhetoric.
    Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.
    Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 252 other followers

%d bloggers like this: