Showing posts with label Gay Marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gay Marriage. Show all posts

Saturday, August 18, 2012

Changing Marriage by Force


Traditional marriage quote of the day:
When a married couple encounter others, here or abroad, they expect to be treated as a married couple, in virtue of the oath they swore. This is because the couple expects others will honor the understanding that a man and woman who mate are a couple…

The change in the definition of marriage [to include homosexual couples] is not only a difference in the kind of two people it joins, but it must also change the way society (every society) and the couple interact. Supporters are thus not asking for the right to join, but are asking the government to force everybody else in society who don’t support gay “marriage” to change their behavior.

Saturday, August 14, 2010

A modest proposal to resolve the gay marriage debate


--Guest post by Lilac Sunday, who is solely responsible for any annoyance created by the sentiment below


A bill permitting unilateral no-fault divorce has passed the New York state legislature. With Governor David Patterson's signature, the last holdout will fall, and every state will permit no-fault divorce in some form.

And that right there is the heart of the problem with the gay marriage debate. At the hands of straight couples, marriage has already ceased to be the institution that opponents of gay marriage are trying to defend.

Proponents of traditional marriage are fighting an uphill battle against the damage that has already been done to the institution of marriage by 24-hour wedding chapels in Nevada, Liz Taylor and Larry King, the cult of single parenthood, and, most importantly, no-fault divorce. Although there are still (and God bless them) couples who believe the words "until Death us do part" as they utter them, the idea of marriage as an institution is extinguished when one party can end the marriage clinically and without consequence via a stack of documents presented to a judge.

I therefore submit this modest proposal to resolve the gay marriage debate in a manner that preserves the institution of marriage while putting gay couples on parity with straight couples:

The only couples who are "married" are those whose union is performed by a religious institution which does not recognize no-fault divorce, and the state will have no authority to end the marriage by no-fault divorce. Everyone else, gay or straight, whose union can be ended by no-fault divorce, has a civil union. Because, when you get right down to it, an agreement whose conditions and boundaries are determined by legislative and bureaucratic fiat is a government dictat, not an institution.

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Intemperate Thoughts


Intemperate thoughts on issues of the day:


Liberal blogger calls for a strike!

“On September 3rd and 4th, two days before our Labor Day Weekend, Americans across this country should refuse to work, unless a universal health care bill is in place.”

My question: Should health care workers participate in this strike? I think they should. It will help lefties see what the waiting times will be like if ObamaCare is implemented.


John Conyers (D-Mich), Sees No Point In Reading The Health Care Bill.

“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

HA! This would be funny if it were a joke. Unfortunately, Conyers provides no evidence to suggest that he was joking.

1. I don't see the point in having a Congress if they're not going to read their own legislation.

2. If you need two lawyers, hire two lawyers. House members get a government expense allowance of $1.3 million to $1.9 million a year. Senators get $2.9 million to $4.5 million. You can afford to hire some help.


The Gay Marriage Slippery Slope Is Back

I think the slippery slope arguments are quite persuasive. Either society defines marriage narrowly (in the interest of strengthening and stabilizing the family), or marriage becomes some kind of god-awful chimera pieced together by various special interest groups.


Warning

The overwhelming majority of Americans who voted for Obama thought they were voting for a moderate Democrat. They did not think they were voting for the government to take over the auto industry, to commandeer the financial sector and to destroy private insurance. Wake up lefties, if you continue to overreach, you’re going to regret it.


August Recess

I've said this elsewhere, but it bears repeating. Please tell members of Congress, "If you plan to support ObamaCare, use your August recess to begin planning for a permanent return to your home district."


More


More on the wackjob science czar the MSM ignores

Join the nationwide Recess Rally (August 22) to make it known that we will not stand for socialized, gov controlled healthcare.

10% of the cost of healthcare is attributable to ambulance chasers. What can be done? Nothing, as long as BO is in charge.

To protect ObamaCare, Dems continue their assault on the First Amendment.

AG Holder caves in to ‘Shoe Bomber’ demands

K.I.S.S. is the cure for healthcare reform

From Gateway Pundit: Compared with other nations, health care costs are rising modestly in USA. Where's the crisis!

Love this convenient tool! Take out Obama's message, put in your own. Tweet Senators to defeat ObamaCare ➔ http://tr.im/uH0t

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Proposition 8 and the Bigoted Anti-Mormon Boycott

Proposition 8 passed, but the fight continues.  For those who live outside of California, here is the official summary of proposition 8 as it was presented to California voters by their attorney general:
  • Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
  • Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Reaction to the passage of California Proposition 8 has been intense.  By now you've heard stories about the insane rage of the same-sex marriage mob, which has consisted of physical violence, relentless intimidation, open hostility toward minorities, legal challenges and boycotts.

Activists who object to the passage of Proposition 8 say that equality, freedom, and fairness have been trampled; that homosexuals in California have been denied dignity and respect; and that religion is being forced upon them. Initially, anti-Proposition 8 activists directed their hostility to a broad range of Proposition 8 supporters—including minorities (who supported Proposition 8 overwhelmingly).  But over time, activists have taken care to assume a more politically correct posture and have focused their attention on a specific target: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  In the words of one prominent blogger, "the Mormons dumped tons of money into California to take away the rights of gay Californians to marry. They won. Now, we fight back... If they want to force their religious beliefs on others, there should be consequences."  

The following is a list of businesses and groups that have been targeted for their support of Proposition 8 by various leftist organizations:
  • All Marriott Hotels
  • All Cinemark Theaters
  • Franklin Templeton Investments
  • Prince Group 
  • Blackwater 
  • Manchester Grand Hyatt, San Diego, CA 
  • Grand del Mar Resort, San Diego, CA
  • Whitetail Club and Resort, McCall, Idaho
  • The Polynesian Cultural Center, Honolulu, Hawaii
  • Hoehn Motors, Carlsbad, California
  • A-1 Self Storage Company, San Diego, CA
Many of these businesses have been targeted because of their indirect support of Proposition 8 through their connection to the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am not a Mormon, but I believe this boycott is bigoted and that it should be actively opposed.  I also believe that "homosexual marriage" is an ill-conceived idea, so I am speaking in support of those who fought for the passage of proposition 8.

There are many reasons to preserve marriage in its conventional form, but a thorough exploration of the issue is beyond the scope of this discussion.  Suffice it to say that conventional families are the fundamental building blocks of our society and that children receive irreplaceable psychological benefits from living with a married mother and father. The more broadly we define marriage, the more unlikely it is that children will enjoy the psychological benefits of being raised by two parents, one of each gender.  Moreover, if the definition of marriage becomes too broad, marriage itself becomes meaningless.  

What happens when polygamists begin to demand their "rights"?  Their rhetorical argument would be simple: Shouldn't people involved in polygamous relationships be allowed to enjoy all the same rights enjoyed by homosexual and heterosexual couples, e.g., employment benefits, hospital visitation, and the right to adopt children?  I don't see any way to avoid this question—and because of the precedent set by the institution of homosexual marriage, there would be only one logical answer: yes.  Then marriage becomes whatever social arrangement you want to imagine it to be.  Equality is for EVERYONE, right?

If you agree with those who gave generously to support Proposition 8, and who are now under attack, perhaps you should consider undertaking efforts to support the supporters.  Where you have the opportunity, reverse the boycott by doing business with the victims of the bigoted anti-Mormon Boycott.  To paraphrase Michelle Malkin, inaction will yield an entirely predictable outcome: more intimidation of private businesses that hold views deemed unacceptable by the Equality-at-All-Costs Brigade.


More

It's Time to Speak Out Against The 'Mormon Boycot'

The Insane Rage of the Same-Sex Marriage Mob

The eHarmony Shakedown

Daily KosBoycott Mormon businesses and Anyone else who Supported Prop 8

Proposition 8 Opponents

Let The Mormon Boycott Begin

Prop. 8: Official Arguments and Rebuttals

Gay Marriage and a Moral Minority


Slideshow: World's Most Worthless Money