Mine isn't the standard republican position on gay marriage, but then I'm a libertarian.....
From WashingtonTimes -- House Republicans and conservative groups are working together behind the scenes to fill the legal void created Wednesday when the Obama administration announced that it would no longer defend the federal law banning gay marriage.
The House leadership likely will introduce a resolution early next week to intervene in the four lawsuits pending against the Defense of Marriage Act, better known as DOMA, the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, conservative leaders say.
This is a total setup by the administration and reflexive, social republicans have fallen for it. Republicans are going to get distracted by these silly, social-conservative issues like gay marriage and DOMA, when they should be concentrating on cutting the budget and international affairs. Getting bogged down in pointless social issues only lets the democrats, media, and late night comedians poke fun of how hypocritical conservatives are. And they're basically right....who has made a bigger mockery of the institution of marriage than heterosexuals? Which is worse, conservatives who lecture everybody on morals, then cheat on their wives(Newt Gingrich), solicit gay bathroom sex in airports(Larry Craig), or exchange dirty gay texts with interns(Mike Foley) or two gay people who love each other and want to be married?
We should accept that gay marriage is inevitable and get away from the distractions of what I consider to be silly social issues that set us up for ridicule from the Left.
Hook, line, and sinker.....idiots!
*A word of caution....be very careful before searching the web for images of "lesbian brides".....wow! Just sayin'.
8 comments:
I totally disagree with you on this, Ed. It's the law; every state that has had a referendum has voted for real marriage; and this is a cheap stunt by 'bam, not any genius strategery.
If they need legal protections, civil unions do the job. It is not, and never can be, marriage.
I know Bill, this is probably the issue where I depart from republican/conservative theory the most. Legalization might be a close second.
I just find it hard to get worked up over people doing something that I can do, that doesn't affect me in any way when they do it.
I have a question. Where does one draw the line? Seriously, would it be OK to "marry" your sister? How about your daughter, a mixed gender group, or an animal? How do you justify your prohibition, if any?
Once you go down the road of throwing out thousands of years of traditional marriage, how do you draw any lines?
Well, there are laws already against polygamy, incest, bestiality, and pretty much anything else besides two consenting human beings being married or even entering into a marriage-like relationship.
My question is, besides tradition, what harm could come from two gay people entering into a contract that's called marriage? If it's for immigration, insurance, or other financial reasons, heterosexuals do those things all the time. And there's no evidence to suggest that gay people cannot raise kids to be perfectly well-adjusted and "normal", if the objection is regarding adoption or child-rearing.
Yes, all those things are now illegal, as was homosexuality until quite recently. So, I'm afraid I don't see that as answering my question. Why only two unrelated humans?
I'm not trying to pick a fight, just can't decide where one draws the line when you go down this road. Obviously, I didn't invent this dilemma, I just can't recall to whom I should give credit.
Ed,
I would prefer that government take no position on this issue. Gays should be allowed to marry, and I should be allowed to socially shun them. By taking this position, government will make it illegal to follow your religious convictions.
Bill, a spirited but respectful debate is exactly what I intended when I started TRR 3 years ago. I wholeheartedly welcome challenges to my beliefs and positions, as they force me to reconsider them as I defend them. Sometimes I see sides that I had not considered, even if I don't agree, and that's always a good thing.
As a libertarian, I don't think the government should be in the business of making illegal any activity to which adults consent, provide no other laws are broken and nobody's right to pursue happiness is infringed upon, including homosexuality.
To your point, it would be easy enough to limit "marriage" to two adults. I guess I just don't see the objection from heterosexuals, I mean other than religious.
Anon, you are allowed to shun anybody you wish on whatever grounds you wish, religious or otherwise. The government or the Supreme Court will have to take a position on this sooner or later on civil rights grounds.
The government cannot abridge your Constitutional right of association. It can limit the extent to which non-private institutions can restrict associations. Are you suggesting that your church would tell a gay couple that has entered into a marriage contract that they cannot worship in that building? Do you think that's a Godly way to behave toward people who've done you no harm? Just asking.
once upon a time when independants didn't want to mess with what people did in the bedroom or who they married. I guess you all have aligned with the ultra conservatives!
Post a Comment