“To each their own” That’s the beauty of what America once was … at least before all this “fair share” nonsense infected our national consciousness.
Now your “own” – assuming you even work – is increasingly not yours, flowing instead in increasing amounts to an increasingly dumb, increasingly needy, increasingly entitled (and increasingly large) segment of the population which is being incentivized to sit on its collective ass all day.
Meanwhile the six-figure salaries and benefit packages of those doing the massive welfare state doling ($1 trillion a year, at last count) keep getting bigger …
Anyway, against this backdrop we have the gay marriage debate – elevated this week by U.S. Sen. Rob Portman’s announcement of his son’s homosexuality (which has prompted him to drop his opposition to gay marriage).
“I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn’t deny them the opportunity to get married,” Portman said.
Good for him … no politician should oppose gay marriage.
But here’s the thing: No politician should be rushing to sanction it, either. Or heterosexual marriage, for that matter.
Marriage – as we’ve noted ad nauseam in the past – ought to be the exclusive purview of local congregations. Gay or straight. In no instance should government (federal, state or local) ban congregations from marrying whomever they want … but similarly in no instance should government (federal, state or local) compel these congregations to marry couples against their will.
In other words, government should have nothing whatsoever to do with marriage.
Now … as to the rights of homosexual couples under the law, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is crystal clear on the subject of equal protection, which means any civil union authorized for heterosexual couples must (and should) also be offered to homosexual couples.
Gay couples should have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. And no church which permits gay marriage should be prohibited from performing such ceremonies. But as the pro-liberty movement on behalf of homosexuals takes a major step forward with Portman’s announcement, we must recognize where “the line” is in this debate.
Forcing churches to marry homosexuals against their long-held theological beliefs isn’t an expansion of individual liberty … it is an imposition on religious liberty.
What do you think? Vote in our poll and post your thoughts in our comments section below …
***
82 comments
Who is “forcing churches to marry homosexuals against their long-held theological beliefs?” Where is that happening?
Nowhere. So it’s a ridiculous statement. And religions can adopt or sanction any unions they want to, but marriage is and always has been a legal term and status that represents the joining of properties and trumps all religions. Period.
My point, exactly.
If Gay Marriage is Sanctioned by the Government as a Civil Right…Churches will be Forced by Law to perform the ceremonies, or face civil rights prosecution…(Imagine Eric Holder on a mission against white Christian churches)…He’d be Thrilled…
Liberals are not just LIARS..you ^&*(@*n LIARS…
Nobody give a $#!* what you nasty idiots do. STFU about it…and quit trying to force everybody else to Sanction it…
How’s that? Churches can still deny blacks to wed.
Yeah, T…where did you get to that conclusion? Rush? Drudge?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/07/30/white-church-bans-black-couple-from-getting-married/
Sweet, Baptist, God fearing Christians…
First of ALL Sexual Preference is NOT a Civil Right. Denying rights based on race, does violate the US Contitution (that liberals (most gays) HATE)…and blacks have Perverted the Constitution to get a lot of Freebies based on rae…that me and my children are NOT entitled to…
Also: If a church did deny a wedding on race, and the church was sued…they’d lose…
And you KNOW the Gays would sue Immediately is sexual preference is declared a Civil Right…because FORCING us to accept their your preference, is what it’s ALL about…
You’re a LIAR if you claim different…
Who is “forcing churches to marry homosexuals against their long-held theological beliefs?” Where is that happening?
Nowhere. So it’s a ridiculous statement. And religions can adopt or sanction any unions they want to, but marriage is and always has been a legal term and status that represents the joining of properties and trumps all religions. Period.
My point, exactly.
If Gay Marriage is Sanctioned by the Government as a Civil Right…Churches will be Forced by Law to perform the ceremonies, or face civil rights prosecution…(Imagine Eric Holder on a mission against white Christian churches)…He’d be Thrilled…
Liberals are not just LIARS..you ^&*(@*n LIARS…
Nobody give a $#!* what you nasty idiots do. STFU about it…and quit trying to force everybody else to Sanction it…
How’s that? Churches can still deny blacks to wed.
Yeah, T…where did you get to that conclusion? Rush? Drudge?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/07/30/white-church-bans-black-couple-from-getting-married/
Sweet, Baptist, God fearing Christians…
First of ALL Sexual Preference is NOT a Civil Right. Denying rights based on race, does violate the US Contitution (that liberals (most gays) HATE)…and blacks have Perverted the Constitution to get a lot of Freebies based on rae…that me and my children are NOT entitled to…
Also: If a church did deny a wedding on race, and the church was sued…they’d lose…
And you KNOW the Gays would sue Immediately is sexual preference is declared a Civil Right…because FORCING us to accept their your preference, is what it’s ALL about…
You’re a LIAR if you claim different…
“To each their own” should be “To each his own” or “To each her own” (considering both the subject matter, and the singular agreement between each and her/his)
True enough. But common modern usage by a reluctance to using the clumsy “his/her” for the indefinite standard English “his” when gender is unknown is pushing “their” to be considered standard usage now. Its number disagreement does sound odd though (as, admittedly, does the clumsy preceding sentence).
“To each their own” should be “To each his own” or “To each her own” (considering both the subject matter, and the singular agreement between each and her/his)
True enough. But common modern usage by a reluctance to using the clumsy “his/her” for the indefinite standard English “his” when gender is unknown is pushing “their” to be considered standard usage now. Its number disagreement does sound odd though (as, admittedly, does the clumsy preceding sentence).
John Paul is right. The problem is we have no name for a state of civil union under the law other than marriage, and to change that fact will require a monumental undertaking, will be fought tooth and nail by many, and consequently will take decades to complete.
Therefore the law should allow every couple, straight or gay, to be married under law and their marriage recognized by the law of every state. The various religions and denominations should be free to recognize the marriage in the eyes of their respective gods or not.
You will never convince the churches of that however. They believe they should have exclusive rights to the use of the term marriage. While I agree that in a perfect world the state would create civil unions, and the church would perform marriages. The term marriage is enshrined in the laws of every state and now has a secular meaning as well as a religious meaning.
John Paul is right. The problem is we have no name for a state of civil union under the law other than marriage, and to change that fact will require a monumental undertaking, will be fought tooth and nail by many, and consequently will take decades to complete.
Therefore the law should allow every couple, straight or gay, to be married under law and their marriage recognized by the law of every state. The various religions and denominations should be free to recognize the marriage in the eyes of their respective gods or not.
You will never convince the churches of that however. They believe they should have exclusive rights to the use of the term marriage. While I agree that in a perfect world the state would create civil unions, and the church would perform marriages. The term marriage is enshrined in the laws of every state and now has a secular meaning as well as a religious meaning.
Every good boy deserves favor.
Every good boy deserves favor.
No one (other the Big T) has said anything about forcing churches to marry anyone, gay, straight, dog or cat and the day that happens I’ll be glad to join you. This isn’t the same thing as a church not paying for birth control (in that case you have a church telling a health care provider how to do its job).
Is all of this really just a sad ploy to make sure that no one brings up the fact that Portman has really known this for the past two years (though how did he not know this before the kid knew it, most parents pick up on that quick?), but you can’t have that hurting your chances as a VP pick. Not that I’m really knocking the guy, he did what he thought was right, just took him a while.
If Portman was any kind of MAN, or Father, he’d look to see if his son was molested when he was a child…most gay men admit they were…and chances are his son was…
If there is a Pervert out there pulling a ‘Sandusky’…he NEEDS to be STOPPED…no matter if that offends the Gay Gestapo…
I don’t think you have personally asked most gay men anything. Most of us were not molested. That is a fallacy like many others your side is always spouting.
No one (other the Big T) has said anything about forcing churches to marry anyone, gay, straight, dog or cat and the day that happens I’ll be glad to join you. This isn’t the same thing as a church not paying for birth control (in that case you have a church telling a health care provider how to do its job).
Is all of this really just a sad ploy to make sure that no one brings up the fact that Portman has really known this for the past two years (though how did he not know this before the kid knew it, most parents pick up on that quick?), but you can’t have that hurting your chances as a VP pick. Not that I’m really knocking the guy, he did what he thought was right, just took him a while.
If Portman was any kind of MAN, or Father, he’d look to see if his son was molested when he was a child…most gay men admit they were…and chances are his son was…
If there is a Pervert out there pulling a ‘Sandusky’…he NEEDS to be STOPPED…no matter if that offends the Gay Gestapo…
I don’t think you have personally asked most gay men anything. Most of us were not molested. That is a fallacy like many others your side is always spouting.
You can get married in every church in town, but it isn’t legally recognized until you have a marriage license from the local government. Therefore, that license and the rights that go with it should be available to all couples whether they’re gay or not. Marriage is really a legal arrangement, not religious.
I absolutely agree.
Agreed!
The government has NO obligation to issue different rules to special intrest groups..especially one that defines itself by its sexual practices…
To bully a society into your approving your sexual preference is an assault to freedom….You can do what you want…but the government is best when it IGNORES what you do in your home or bath-houses…
You can get married in every church in town, but it isn’t legally recognized until you have a marriage license from the local government. Therefore, that license and the rights that go with it should be available to all couples whether they’re gay or not. Marriage is really a legal arrangement, not religious.
I absolutely agree.
Agreed!
The government has NO obligation to issue different rules to special intrest groups..especially one that defines itself by its sexual practices…
To bully a society into your approving your sexual preference is an assault to freedom….You can do what you want…but the government is best when it IGNORES what you do in your home or bath-houses…
you’re simply mincing words,here,so how about gay marriage but no weddings? weddings are really expensive…it is all about legalities,and if you’d witnessed what i’d gone through after the death of a partner,i can’t believe you’d be that inhuman,but then again…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKGprtQJwSY
you’re simply mincing words,here,so how about gay marriage but no weddings? weddings are really expensive…it is all about legalities,and if you’d witnessed what i’d gone through after the death of a partner,i can’t believe you’d be that inhuman,but then again…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKGprtQJwSY
Marriage isn’t a religious institution. Marriage has two meanings. To government, the only meaning it should have is its legal meaning. That legal meaning should include an open and fair recognition of marriage in order to enforce laws pertaining to a married entity.
The only other meaning is personal meaning. Each person applies what they believe, religious or otherwise, constitutes a valid marriage and use that to determine whose marriages they actually accept, as well as what marriage they wish to seek and practice themselves. This has zero effect on the legal definition of marriage. As long as one fits the criteria for being considered as legally married, they should be able to be considered legally married, and no one’s personal beliefs should stop them, or deny them their rights.
“Civil union” is just a PC alternative to saying “marriage.” Legal recognition of marriage is applied to people who consider themselves married to each other based on their own personal beliefs and wanting to be recognized as such under law. There is no need to call it something different in order to avoid offending people whose personal beliefs differ. What the government is recognizing are the individuals joining into what THEY consider a marriage, not what anyone else thinks constitutes a marriage.
Marriage isn’t a religious institution. Marriage has two meanings. To government, the only meaning it should have is its legal meaning. That legal meaning should include an open and fair recognition of marriage in order to enforce laws pertaining to a married entity.
The only other meaning is personal meaning. Each person applies what they believe, religious or otherwise, constitutes a valid marriage and use that to determine whose marriages they actually accept, as well as what marriage they wish to seek and practice themselves. This has zero effect on the legal definition of marriage. As long as one fits the criteria for being considered as legally married, they should be able to be considered legally married, and no one’s personal beliefs should stop them, or deny them their rights.
“Civil union” is just a PC alternative to saying “marriage.” Legal recognition of marriage is applied to people who consider themselves married to each other based on their own personal beliefs and wanting to be recognized as such under law. There is no need to call it something different in order to avoid offending people whose personal beliefs differ. What the government is recognizing are the individuals joining into what THEY consider a marriage, not what anyone else thinks constitutes a marriage.
This conversations is way too sophisticated for most of the simple folk in South Carolina. To them, a marriage license is state permission to have sex, and they just cannot abide that.
Tax and inheritance matters, hospital visitation or any of the other issues that legal marriage confers seldom enter their thoughts. It’s that icky sex!
So true!
This conversations is way too sophisticated for most of the simple folk in South Carolina. To them, a marriage license is state permission to have sex, and they just cannot abide that.
Tax and inheritance matters, hospital visitation or any of the other issues that legal marriage confers seldom enter their thoughts. It’s that icky sex!
So true!
1) FITS FINALLY learned something from what I’ve been teaching him. Nobody CARES if homosexuals marry (other than God)…. Just STOP trying to MAKE ME approve and accept your lifestyle (especially in the church)…
2) Portman’s FAMILY history should immediately investigate his son’s upbringing. A big majority of Male homosexuals (according to surveys) are the Victims of a gay molestor who abused boys when they were children…Find the Pervert molestor and JAIL him…
3) The photo you have is more Gay Myth propaganda (like so much liberal is based in fables)…Most Gay fe,ales are obsese (see the very recent research funded by the US Gov’t) )…
1) No one, including FITS, is learning anything from your “teaching.” If teaching is what you are trying to do here, you are failing – miserably.
2) BigT says,”Portman’s FAMILY history should immediately investigate his son’s
upbringing. A big majority of Male homosexuals (according to surveys)
are the Victims of a gay molestor who abused boys when they were
children…Find the Pervert molestor and JAIL him…”
Being gay is part of a person’s biology. Being molested as a child does not “turn” a boy gay. Read a science book. Actually, just read. It’s better than listening to the voices in your head.
3) BigT says, “Most Gay fe,ales are obsese (see the very recent research funded by the US Gov’t) )…”
Link to that research, please. Also, use spell check. Additionally, you are out of your fucking mind.
I know….Anynody who slaps the $#!* out of your fables, myths and lies..is out of their mind…
It’s not that you are Pushing your $#!* on everybody…it’s the fact that you are a lying sack of $#!*…and I call you on it…
You’re not used to that..and you HATE it…
So, what are you going to do about it if gay couples are given the same rights to hospital visitation, pension benefits that hetros have?
The already HAVE THOSE Benefits, if they want to designate it…You lying Sack of $#!*….
Nope. No Social Security Survivors Benefits, no next-of-kin status – man, where they fuck do you live other than in your own head?
How did you “slap the shit out of” Please’s “fables, myths and lies?” You didn’t. And you didn’t give the link to research he asked for, either, so keep trying. And no, dumbass, links to Drudge don’t count.
The same study says that heterosexual men are twice as likely to be obese compared to gay men. Compared to lesbian women, who are only 50% more likely to be obese compared to heterosexual women. But of course Drudge runs with the “Lesbians are Fat” headline instead of “Straight Men are Fat” headline.
1) FITS FINALLY learned something from what I’ve been teaching him. Nobody CARES if homosexuals marry (other than God)…. Just STOP trying to MAKE ME approve and accept your lifestyle (especially in the church)…
2) Portman’s FAMILY history should immediately investigate his son’s upbringing. A big majority of Male homosexuals (according to surveys) are the Victims of a gay molestor who abused boys when they were children…Find the Pervert molestor and JAIL him…
3) The photo you have is more Gay Myth propaganda (like so much liberal is based in fables)…Most Gay fe,ales are obsese (see the very recent research funded by the US Gov’t) )…
1) No one, including FITS, is learning anything from your “teaching.” If teaching is what you are trying to do here, you are failing – miserably.
2) BigT says,”Portman’s FAMILY history should immediately investigate his son’s
upbringing. A big majority of Male homosexuals (according to surveys)
are the Victims of a gay molestor who abused boys when they were
children…Find the Pervert molestor and JAIL him…”
Being gay is part of a person’s biology. Being molested as a child does not “turn” a boy gay. Read a science book. Actually, just read. It’s better than listening to the voices in your head.
3) BigT says, “Most Gay fe,ales are obsese (see the very recent research funded by the US Gov’t) )…”
Link to that research, please. Also, use spell check. Additionally, you are out of your fucking mind.
I know….Anynody who slaps the $#!* out of your fables, myths and lies..is out of their mind…
It’s not that you are Pushing your $#!* on everybody…it’s the fact that you are a lying sack of $#!*…and I call you on it…
You’re not used to that..and you HATE it…
So, what are you going to do about it if gay couples are given the same rights to hospital visitation, pension benefits that hetros have?
The already HAVE THOSE Benefits, if they want to designate it…You lying Sack of $#!*….
Nope. No Social Security Survivors Benefits, no next-of-kin status – man, where they fuck do you live other than in your own head?
How did you “slap the shit out of” Please’s “fables, myths and lies?” You didn’t. And you didn’t give the link to research he asked for, either, so keep trying. And no, dumbass, links to Drudge don’t count.
The same study says that heterosexual men are twice as likely to be obese compared to gay men. Compared to lesbian women, who are only 50% more likely to be obese compared to heterosexual women. But of course Drudge runs with the “Lesbians are Fat” headline instead of “Straight Men are Fat” headline.
Sexual Preference is NOT a CIVIL RIGHT…
Go get off how ever you choose…but STFU about it…
I don’t CARE…Quit trying to make me Exalt you and your bedroom behavior. It’s none of my Business…Again STFU about it…
If you don’t care, then STFU!
I DO care that you are trying to FORCE everybody to accept your sexual preference as a Civl Right…Dumb@$$….
Go ‘eff yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVqXxK-gK0w
Sexual Preference is NOT a CIVIL RIGHT…
Go get off how ever you choose…but STFU about it…
I don’t CARE…Quit trying to make me Exalt you and your bedroom behavior. It’s none of my Business…Again STFU about it…
If you don’t care, then STFU!
I DO care that you are trying to FORCE everybody to accept your sexual preference as a Civl Right…Dumb@$$….
Go ‘eff yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVqXxK-gK0w
Yes, the Govt should be busy with divorces.
Yes, the Govt should be busy with divorces.
Homosexual men put their penises into other men’s anuses. Can you imagine your penis covered in shit?
Heterosexual men put their penises into women’s anuses. They can get their penises covered in shit that way, too, genius.
Now THIS is the level of political and social discourse to which we should all aspire, no? ;-)
Homosexual men put their penises into other men’s anuses. Can you imagine your penis covered in shit?
Heterosexual men put their penises into women’s anuses. They can get their penises covered in shit that way, too, genius.
Now THIS is the level of political and social discourse to which we should all aspire, no? ;-)
Bravo! The federal government cannot produce a budget let alone balance one, who wants them in our bedrooms…
Bravo! The federal government cannot produce a budget let alone balance one, who wants them in our bedrooms…