An American Disgrace
Mar 10th, 2010 by David Anderson
The majority of D.C. is having same sex marriage rammed down their throats by the liberal elite. The nuptials have begun. According to the constitution, D. C. is subject to Congressional oversight. I urge Congress to repeal this national disgrace and affront to traditional values in the nation’s capitol. Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R) is a leading voice in repeal of the law. I urge others to join him, particularly Delaware’s delegation. Repeal of this attack on the family will be an important issue in my voting this year for Congress. I hope you will join me.
“I now pronounce you, partners for life”
What a joke. Two men can’t be ‘married,’ Humpty-Dumpty hysteria of the left notwithstanding.
It’s interesting how the anti-religion left, disciples of Darwin and evolution, conveniently ignore one of the most fundamental tenets of Darwinism…the absolute need for propagation.
While I can empathize with the homosexual’s plight, there is nothing ‘normal’ about homosexuality itself. Using Darwin’s own standards of evolution, it is positively abnormal behavior. This does not mean that gays need to be treated like lepurs- it also does not mean that homosexuality be equated to red-headedness or race.
David: How did DC enact this law? It was voted on by the city council. How is the council chosen? By the votes of residents. Y’know, the usual representative democracy.
So, how is the liberal elite “ramming this down the throats” of DC residents? If residents are sufficiently upset, can they not vote out the offending council members and then overturn the law?
Marriage should be between two people and their God. Let not the federal government dictate any policy allowing or excluding marriage. (I’d argue the states have no place as well but I’m open to the debate at that level)
The fact that the liberals are pressing the issue as a legislative matter shows that they could care less about what a “marriage” is and are more concerned with how to score points with some “disaffected” part of the national community.
Leave people the hell alone. What government should do is allow “partners” to sign contracts entitling their “better half” to do the things marriage allows. Let them visit each other in the hospital, be covered under insurance, etc.
Both sides need to stay out of these decisions. It’s not the governments job to legislate morality on the right OR to force conformity on the left.
Can you imagine if the Government stayed out of these decisions? The Government says you can’t have sex with 2 year olds. The only reason child pornography is a crime is because the Government says so. But it’s never the really the Government, ultimately the People create the laws. Simple supply and demand. People demand. Government supplies.
Want to get the Government out of who can get married? You elect like minded people. That’s what they are doing now. It’s not correct to describe “Government” as if it was an entity independent from the People.
progov…today’s government IS an entity independent from the People. Get a clue
And sex with a 2 year old and child pornography is a crime because SOCIETY has made the decision to enforce it as a law. Those decisions are and of right ought to be made by the states in either case. The State has the responsibility and duty to police the communities and that duty and responsibility is granted by the people of the state.
This is not the case with marriage. The institution of marriage has always been defined by the churches and not by government. This is not something the people have handed to the states to deal with…it’s something the state governments have tried to usurp because the federal government has failed to usurp it. It’s aggressive legislating, it’s wrong and it’s not the way this country was intended to work. It’s ignorant of the liberties the founders imparted and it’s a corrupt buy off of homosexuals by an inscrupulous party of leftist socialist wackos.
If the gay/lesbian/(insert label here) were serious, it would lobby for the government to simply allow them the freedom married hetero couples have and move on. They wouldn’t align with one party and use that allegiance to further Socialist/Communist agendas. They won’t advocate for the more limited aspect because they want to FORCE their opinions on society. They WANT to be seen as “normal” despite the fact that a VAST majority of citizens don’t see it that way. It’s an attempt to legislatively force opinions.
From the other perspective it’s legislating morality. This is different than protecting a 2 yr old against your advances progov.org. That stops a child predator from attacking someone who cannot defend themselves. What this would do is to reduce the liberties (both religious and personal) granted by our CREATOR which the right holds so dear. Our founders intended God to guide our hands but they worked hard to instill in us that God allows man free will and so to must a government allow it’s citizens as much free will as it can. With out that free will, we’re nothing more than cattle for a government to herd.
I say jammed down the the throats of the majority because every hearing, every poll, and even every politician sited admitted that it was against the will of the majority.
The D. C. council is filled with liberal elites that have almost destroyed the city. They are like the ruling polit bureau of the capitol. They control the goods, the machinery, campaign donations, and dominate the local media in a one party regime. This may be the issue that ends their reign. I hope that it is. Bring on some primary fights.
I don’t see it that way. I am very much in favor of our foreign policy. I think it reflects pretty much what I voted for. That’s all I meant when I said Government is an extension of the voters, the People. At least that’s my view.
Guess it depends on whether you win or lose the elections. At the moment I feel like I got what I wanted with my vote.
I think gays couples are doing what you say they should do. They are asking for the same legal status as other couples. Marriage is defined by religion and government. Mainly government. It’s the government part gays are lobbying. Lots of law regarding widows and spouse. Tax forms are the most obvious example. That’s why same sex couples want the law to recognize their marriage. The only way “to simply allow them the freedom married hetero couples have and move on”, the only way to do that is to gay couples to get the “certificate of marriage”. To do that you need to be legally married in the eyes of the Government. They are asking the various states to let them be legally married. Then they move on like you say. There’s no other way to do it I can think of.
I favor an alternate solution, which would be to get the government out of marriage altogether. I view marriage as a religious ceremony; others might view it merely as a personal ceremony. Either way, it’s not a state matter. If two people say that they are married in the eyes of God, who am I, or an elected official, to judge the legitimacy of their marriage? Get the government out of heterosexual marriage, and the argument that it must also recognize homosexual marriage will fall apart.
“The Government says you can’t have sex with 2 year olds. The only reason child pornography is a crime is because the Government says so.”
Your reasoning is illogical. It is not the law or the government that makes child pornography wrong; child pornography would still be wrong in a state of anarchy. Child molestation was wrong before government came onto the scene. Government merely recognizes that such acts are inherently wrong, and the law is based on that recognition.
Chris, I agree with most of what you say but . .
I think the only reason marriage is a State matter is because whether you are the “legal” spouse affects everything from citizenship to taxes to inheritance, property rights etc. If all you had to do was “say” you were married or not married we really would have anarchy.
On pedophilia, you are right, of course it’s just plain wrong. What I was trying to say is, it’s the us, through our government, that decides the punishment. Something can be wrong, but if the you can’t arrested for for it, it’s a whole different thing. So, you’re right people know it’s wrong and we demand our Government enforce that belief.
“Marriage is defined by religion and government. Mainly government.” – progov.org
Actually, marriage has traditionally been defined by the churches. It is a religious cermony as Chris says. You may not know this, but there are two different things happening when you “get married”.
1.) Legally you sign a contract with your “spouse” which is called a civil union. This is the form that entitles you to tax shelters and benefits of married couples.
2.) You are married before the eyes of God. When the Progressives began taking GOD out of every equation it could, they began hiring “magistrates” who would do this. Initially these people were clergy members who also worked for the state. These days I’m not even sure that is the case.
Either way, there are two parts, the document and the ceremony that are very different things and they must be respected.
Chris and I couldn’t agree more. Get government out of it altogether.
If the government said ‘the sky is green,’ would it be so?
The government can say ‘two men can marry’…that doesn’t make it so, because the concept itself is absurd.
We conservatives have to make sure we have our facts straight. It’s not correct to say marriage was traditionally a religious practice all wrapped up in God with no Government involved.
If you research marriage from ancient Greece Rome Elizabethan times through Colonial America you find marriage was a second cousin to slavery. Women were primarily chattel. Sold, bartered for, given by families. Forced to marry total strangers. They were to be servants in labor, totally obedient to husbands who were permitted to beat them. Marriage was “traditionally about property dowry familial ties. Not much to do with God or Religion except in the ceremonial sense.
I could not care less about gay marriage. Just saying it’s incorrect to say marriage is traditionally defined by religion or Godly purposes. I was alway defined by two things: women had no rights in marriage, marriage was primarily a contract between families often regarding property. It was not until our Constitution slowly granted women the same status as men that marriage became a more or less voluntary arrangement between the parties.
I agree. Pious claims that marriage was religion or church based refers merely to ceremony. Marriage was “traditionally” more akin to forced servitude for women. Modern American constitutional rights for women ushered in a new body of law protecting women from “traditional marriage”. Some of the very first Colonial era measures outlawed the beating of wives. Were it not for Government intervening on behalf of enlightened citizens women might still be viewed as something less than full citizens. Less than 100 years ago we had to pass a Constitutional Amendment allowing women to vote.
T123. Yeah. Anybody wishing for a return to “traditional” marriage better say which year, when and where. Not 1850 for sure. Thank God for progressive domestic violence law. Turns out if individuals are totally “free” , without the threat of government intervention, they kick the shit out of their wives. Glad we convinced Government to lock individuals up when they do that.
In India women are burned alive in marriage disputes involving “dowry”. Dowry ruled marriage, not churches. Happens all the time right now. No gays involved.