The case for marriagePolicy

In 2006, I opposed the Marshall-Newman amendment because I thought the amendment was unconstitutional and an overstretch. Proven correct, so far.

The root of my opposition to the amendment is it is unnecessary; unnecessary because marriage is already clearly defined – by God and by precedent – as being between a man and a woman. Just like we inherently know not to steal, kill, commit adultery, etc., it is just an inherent fact that marriage – which is consummated not through religious rite or state approval, but by the physical joining of man and woman – is something we already know and understand. We don’t need government to tell us what it is. We already know the truth.

I believe the only marriage that should ever be sanctioned by the state is between a man and woman. Everything else is a contract. Neither do I believe civil unions should be permissible between a man and a woman. Read that last sentence again, because it’s important. Civil unions between men and women hurt society because it leads to a cavalier approach to commitment.

That said, I’m open to at least debating state-sanctioned contracts being entered into between consenting members of the same sex that may or may not have the same rights and privileges of a married couple. Is this view mere semantics? Not really.

There are two broad reasons for why gay marriage should not become accepted in Virginia: the secular and the sacred.

While the founders endeavored to “separate church and state”, that does not mean the systemic elimination of God – and the moral precepts that come from God – from our lives and government. The founders were interested in preventing a national church, but they very much supported and encouraged people to have a moral compass and faith.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams.

But let’s start with the secular argument: that a gay couple is just as adequate at providing a strong family unit as a married husband and wife.

Some studies (see McGlothlin) might bear this out in modern society, but, in fact, the vast preponderance of research demonstrates that children do best in a home with their biological mother and father — even stepparents do not get the same high marks

The problem with modern society is that fathers don’t stay committed to mothers. Every human being on this planet is the product of a mom and a dad. That’s an irrefutable fact. Children are, indeed, better off knowing both mom and dad.

But don’t take my word for it.

“The family, centered on marriage, is the basic unit of society. Healthy marriages and families are the foundation of thriving communities. When marriages break down, communities suffer and the role of government tends to expand. Sound public policy places marriage and the family at the center, respecting and guarding the role of this permanent institution.”

So says the Heritage Foundation, and they have the research and commentary to back up their beliefs. Education, emotional intelligence, prosperity – all because dad stuck around to help mom raise their kid.

When you look at marriage throughout history, that’s why government promotes the rights of children to their own mother and own father.

When you have parents raising their children, the kids are inclined to do better and advance the society (and, in our case, the commonwealth of Virginia).

My secular argument against gay marriage is one backed by substantive study that we need to promote families.

I am consistent in my argument – babies should not be aborted and fathers should not abandon their lovers. It’s a pretty simple argument. While it might have an air or religiosity to it, it also is pretty darn practical and secular.

But, wait, Jim! What you’re saying has nothing to do with why two women or men shouldn’t be able to marry.

Yeah, actually it does.

When we say that marriage is anything other than between man and woman; when we say that marriage is just a contract; when we say the marriage is not for the purpose of family, we blow up the entire institution.

It has been argued that older couples get married who can’t have children. So, why is that allowed in my paradigm vice those of the same sex?

For that, we must enter into the world of religion.

While I could elaborate on my faith and its theology, I know many of you have no desire to know how my faith influences my view on public policy. So, I’ll spare you. If you are really interested, visit here.

That said, fundamentally, in Genesis, God created man and woman. He created them so that they could be together. Just as the Holy Trinity is represented by Father, Son, and Holy Ghost – three in one, so are man and woman joined in a unity to become whole.

This is why adultery is wrong. This is why pornography is wrong. This is why sex out of wedlock is wrong. This is why homosexuality is wrong. This is why no-fault divorce is wrong. All of these things are a direct rejection of God and a very profound statement of disbelief.

So, I’ll leave it at that. While all these things don’t actually “hurt anyone but the person/couple involved” and might be construed as “none of my business”, is it?

In our nation, we have tried to push out the Ten Commandments. We have endeavored to eliminate the Pledge of Allegiance because of the phrase, “One nation, under God.” We have filed lawsuits to prohibit prayer at public meetings. We have told military chaplains that they are no longer welcome to pray to their God. And, now, we want to advance gay marriage?

Is that really what John Adams envisioned? I think not.

Talk about a slippery slope.

  • Chris

    Every argument that fathers are important is also an argument for ending the failed war on drugs, and we need to recognize that explicitly if we are ever going to overcome the taxpayer funded prison industry. Just saying.

    Also, it looks like bits of two different drafts of this article were published together, there’s some repetition.

    • http://bearingdrift.com/ J.R. Hoeft

      Yep. Fixed. Sorry. Refresh and read again, if desired. Thanks for the comment.

      • Stephen Spiker

        J.R., I know Bearing Drift has an “open commenter” policy, but Eugene Fisher adds nothing to the discussion and only clogs up the comment threads. Can you guys issue him a warning or limit how many comments he can make?

        • MD Russ

          He’s a sock puppet. Ban him.

          • Turtles Run

            Please do not insult sock puppets.

            :+)

        • Chris

          I really need to stop feeding the troll, I promise I will do so as of now.

        • Turtles Run

          Generally. I am all for fools proudly displaying their ignorance for the public to view but Fisher is really destroying the integrity of the discussions here. If he is not banned then I will make sure to join Chris in ignoring him.

          Matt Suarez
          A heck of a nice guy

  • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

    The funny thing is that marriage really isn’t defined – at least, it wasn’t defined the law for a very long time, until various marriage amendments started cropping up.

    The problem with so many of the marriage amendments is that they go farther than simply defining marriage as between a man and a woman – they also preclude the ability for gays to enter into contracts granting them all of the rights that married couples have.

    For much of recorded history, marriage wasn’t merely about love and relationships. Even today, arranged marriages are still common in other cultures, and marriage is as much about the property and other rights that accrue to a marriage relationship as they are about promoting child rearing.

    While I’m sympathetic to the religious arguments, coming from a Christian denomination that does not bar gay marriage or treat it, divorce or other facts of modern life as being horribly wrong, I don’t feel comfortable demanding that my personal beliefs be codified in statute.

    I too believe adultery, no-fault divorce and the like are wrong, which is why I don’t engage in them and why I urge others not to do so. But I am not going to legislate my morality on my neighbors. They should be free to live their lives as they see fit, and they alone will bear the burden for whatever it is that they do, right or wrong. So long as it does not impact the rights – and I mean rights, not the proclivities, beliefs, feelings, or ideology – of another, I’m hesitant to say it should be regulated by the state.

    I wish we lived in a perfect world where every child had a mother and a father, every relationship resulted in a fairy tail ending, and there were no such things as divorce, adultery, and the like, but those things exist. We won’t end them by barring gays from getting married, and we certainly aren’t going to undermine heterosexual marriage any more than it already has been undermined.

    I simply can’t, in good conscience, tell two people of the same sex that want all the same rights and responsibilities of the heterosexual couple that they can’t have that simply because some find it distasteful, sinful, unnatural, or whatever.

    • Eugene Fisher

      Failed!

    • CVA Patriot

      I have yet to see gay couples demanding Muslims to marry them in mosques. So what this boils down to is not really that gays want equal protection under the law, they want to strike against Christian faith as defined in the Bible. The minute I see gay activist demanding marriage rites at a Muslim holy place, I’ll reevaluate what they are actually trying to accomplish. My personal view is that government be out of the marriage business altogether, however, if the lines are drawn and this is the fight ahead, I stand with traditional marriage.

      • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

        This has nothing to do with the Christian faith. There are plenty of Christian denominations who will solemnize a gay marriage. That’s not the point. This is about state recognition.

        • Eugene Fisher

          There not real christians!

          • Warmac9999

            Calling yourself Christian does not make you a Christian. I note Rev Wright amongst many others.

        • CVA Patriot

          “This has nothing to do with the Christian faith.” Right. We’ll see.

        • Tim Donner

          The Christian denominations to which you refer are CINO – Christian in name only, and are engaged in de facto rejection of biblical truth. These are really Unitarian denominations masquerading as Christians.

          • Turtles Run

            So now we are redefining Christianity? The US Constitution respects all religious faiths. It is not you or anyone else here that determines what is a real religion. Your religious beliefs are no more valid than someone that worships the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

          • Guest

            The LDS are fake!

          • MD Russ

            And yet they have a divorce rate that is far lower than the norm, their family and community ties are far stronger than the norm, substance abuse among them is practically unknown, and they faithfully support their church.

            We could use a few more “fakes” like the Mormons.

          • Turtles Run

            Thank you MD. As a member of the LDS church I appreciate your comments.

          • MD Russ

            Turtle,

            I was raised as a Roman Catholic and was taught to respect the religious creeds of others, esp. when they represent a commitment to ethical and moral lifestyles even if they are outside of the Catholic domain. I remember attending my first Bar Mitzvah, the son of Jewish friends. Halfway through the ceremony, I leaned over to my wife and asked, “does the Pope know about this tradition? What a great way to raise a teenager.”

            I was also taught to “judge not least you be judged.” That will probably be my greatest failing when I have to answer to God.

          • Turtles Run

            We all suffer from that failing. Like you I was always taught to respect the beliefs of others and to respect each person in the manner in which I would want to be respected.

            Matt Suarez

            A heck of a nice guy

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            I don’t go around questioning other people’s faith, Tim. You shouldn’t either.

          • Tim Donner

            I didn’t question their faith. I said their faith is not biblically based therefore is not Christian. Jews and Hindus also have faith that is not Christian. ..the difference being they don’t pretend it is.

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            There’s a very unifying message you’ve got there, Tim – you just said that 100 million+ Christians aren’t really Christian.

            I know that’s definitely going to help us in November.

          • Tim Donner

            Brian, glad to know you’ve done enough polling to conclude that 100+ million “Christians” believe in gay marriage. I’m not surprised you would expect believers to renounce their beliefs for the sake of votes the GOP is not going to get anyway. Have we not learned that lesson repeatedly?

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            You called the denominations who have approved of gay marriage to be non-Christians. There are millions of adherents in those churches and you just said they are the equivalent of Hindus because their churches support gay marriage.

            If you want to walk back your ridiculous statement, feel free.

            If you think that GOP isn’t going to get votes from folks who support gay marriage then you aren’t aware of the demographics of voters who support gay marriage.

          • http://www.southsidecentral.com/ Bruce Hedrick

            Oops. You just got Tim Donner in a contradiction. He won’t be back in this discussion.

      • Chris

        Are gay activists demanding marriages in Christian churches? All the gay marriages I read about in the papers happen at city halls and courthouses.

        • CVA Patriot

          Marriage is a Biblical institution. So if it’s in the courthouse or Our Lady of Sorrows, does it really make a difference? If you want to say a civil union, that’s one thing, but “marriage” is a covenant between man, woman and God.

          • Chris

            I’m confused. Did you just say that any change to the definition of marriage is an assault on Christianity because marriage is Christian? Have you read, I don’t know, the Illiad?

          • CVA Patriot

            When you think of marriage, what is your first thought? A scene out of the IIIiad or a Church on main st? Have you heard any gay activist cite the IIIiad’s version of marriage as what they are seeking?

          • Chris

            As I said earlier, mostly I see gay activists lining up at courthouses and city halls. I don’t see why that is an attack on Christianity but not an attack on Islam or ancient Greece.

            Your response was “Marriage is a Biblical institution” which seems like a non sequitur.

          • CVA Patriot

            I didn’t lay out my arguement very well at all here. I’ll just say, as a Christian, I feel as though this a direct attack aimed squarely at my faith.

        • Warmac9999

          Yes they are, and priests who resist the demand are being hauled into jail. Sweden and the UK.

          • Chris

            See my response to the troll elsewhere in this thread. Those Europeans countries are not like the U.S. in terms of legal protections.

          • Warmac9999

            That is what those priests thought – much like Those Bakers, Photographers, Etc. who simply didn’t want to compromise their religious principles. Hobby Lobby falls into the same arena as religious freedoms are certainly under threat – and the specific focus is Christianity.

          • Chris

            And Hobby Lobby won.

          • Warmac9999

            Actually, Hobby Lobby only won the right not to pay for abortion related products and services. They did not win the right not to pay for birth control. My point is Hobby Lobby is part of the general,progressive attack on religious freedoms in the market place of liberty loving people.

          • Chris

            Were they even seeking that right? If so, press coverage fail. I don’t really want to go pull the district court filings but I suppose I could.

          • Warmac9999

            They deliberately narrowed the argument to abortion as a matter of law, but they could certainly have decided to oppose all forms of birth control that are not natural.

          • Chris

            You can’t win a case you don’t litigate. I don’t see why the Court would apply RFRA to an abortion plan but not a contraceptive plan.

    • Loudoun GOPer

      “But I am not going to legislate my morality on my neighbors. They should be free to live their lives as they see fit, and they alone will bear the burden for whatever it is that they do, right or wrong.”

      Do you honestly believe society does not beat the burden of immoral behavior? What do you think the welfare system exists to take care of? How much money does society pay to deal with drug addiction? Unwed mothers? Child abuse? What about the victims of crime? What is crime if not the ultimate immoral act? Why do you think people end up turning to crime?

      “we certainly aren’t going to undermine heterosexual marriage any more than it already has been undermined.”

      You are technically correct about this, because society has already done so much to denigrate traditional marriage already. What’s one more body blow, huh? But don’t you think that if traditional marriage is so important to a strong family, and a strong family is important to society (as all the studies say it is). don’t you think that we might want to stop kicking it when it’s down and do something to protect it?

      • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

        The only thing that can be done to protect it is for people to start treating it with respect. Wait to get married, marry the right person, stay faithful, don’t get divorced.

        Absent personal responsibility from individuals, there is zero the state can do to “protect” marriage.

      • Warmac9999

        There is a recent Spanish study that shows a direct correlation between the legalization of gay marriage and the rise in cohabitation as opposed to traditional marriage.

    • Tim Donner

      “I am not going to legislate my morality on my neighbors” Uh, we legislate morality every day in every way. It’s called the law. By your way of thinking, if you believe the tenets of NAMBLA, who am I to legislate against it?

      • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

        Where the rubber meets the road in these arguments is when the moral tenet being legislated upon is one that not everyone can agree on. Don’t kill people, don’t steal, don’t rape – these are things that have near universal condemnation. They’re not really questions of morality anymore.

        And again, anybody who brings up pedophilia in this discussion automatically loses.

    • reluctant activist

      Brian, Thank you so much for your thoughtful comments. I agree with you 100% on this one. It is so disappointing to read these comments that demonstrate that people are still obsessed with gay marriage when bans against it are toppling, court by court. Wouldn’t we all be better off if this much energy was focused on the economy, taxes, employment, and government spending? Spending so so much time judging others lifestyle choices is a fruitless and exhausting battle and it won’t change a single person.

      • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

        Agreed.

      • Warmac9999

        Court by court, not vote by vote. That is the problem.

        • Stephen Spiker

          It’s winning votes, too. And public opinion is clearly on the side of marriage equality. The problem is a small and dying minority who desperately want gays to remain second-class citizens.

          • Warmac9999

            When the facts are explained, public opinion opposes gay marriage overwhelmingly.

          • Stephen Spiker

            I’d like to see your basis for saying that.

          • Warmac9999

            I will not do your digging for you. I had to do the work of digging out the info and you can do so as well. I suspect you have no interest in the truth and will dismiss all the studies and analysis as flawed without providing a single opposing study.

          • Stephen Spiker

            Do the digging on political opinion in the United States? I’ve already done that. That’s why I confidently claim that a majority of Americans and Virginians support same-sex marriage.

            You then entered with some made-up bullshit about “when the facts are explained…” with zero basis and no willingness to even attempt to prove it.

            So yeah, I have an interest in the truth, and the truth is that a majority of people in this country, and in this state, support marriage equality. Oh, and so do the courts.

            This is a policy battle you are losing on every single front.

          • Warmac9999

            But you didn’t deal with a single fact other than a poll. When the numbers and the behaviors are explained, people start to change their superficial media driven ideas.

          • Stephen Spiker

            Again, I would ask what basis you have for saying that. You just saying it doesn’t make it true.

            I use public opinion polls (multiple, not just one) because they accurately gauge the opinions of people in reality, not in some concocted fantasy where you ask them if they support “urine and feces parties”.

          • MD Russ

            Actually, Warmac, when the facts are explained, public opinion supports gay marriage. You are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.

            http://www.gallup.com/poll/169640/sex-marriage-support-reaches-new-high.aspx

          • MD Russ

            And the polling numbers are just as much in favor of gay marriage when surveying just Virginians.

            http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/31/us-usa-virginia-gaymarriage-idUSBREA2U18R20140331

            When you consider the age demographics of the polls, anti-gay marriage positions are on the wrong side of history and doomed to become less and less popular, just like most Tea Party, Constitutionalist, and other extreme right wing positions. The Republicans need to throw you boneheads overboard or you will drag them down the same toilet that the Whigs disappeared into.

          • Warmac9999

            So, to you, supporting the historic definition of marriage is extreme. Well, when marriage disappears in the interest of equality, you and your family will suffer just as my family will suffer. Every society requires stability for its success. There is no stability for the redefinition of marriage and family, but there is political power that puts the state in control of your associations. I will continue to fight for liberty. You can have your socialist anarchy.

          • Stephen Spiker

            Liberty = not using the government to block two people’s happiness because bigoted assholes like you find it “icky”.

          • Warmac9999

            Funny you use the word assholes. Must be something in your subconscious.

          • Stephen Spiker

            Oh, ha ha, I get it. I said “asshole” so you think its because I’m gay. That’s clever.

            Please don’t try and take my rights away now. I know how willing you are to abandon your principled desire for liberty if it means getting in a few shots at people who don’t look and act like you.

          • Warmac9999

            Your the one who has cursed and called me names and now you get offended. Truly laughable. I don’t care one wit about your sexual activity but I do care about perversion and corruption as it is a threat to the Republic.

          • Stephen Spiker

            I’m not offended by the things you’ve said, only by the notion that you are in any way “conservative”.

            You go fight perversion in the name of the Republic. The rest of us will hang back and laugh at you.

          • Warmac9999

            Conserving marriage and family was one of those general welfare ideas in the Constitution as it applied to all.

          • Stephen Spiker

            Well, the word “marriage” isn’t anywhere in the Constitution, so I think you’re probably wrong on that front.

            However, the 14th Amendment is pretty clear on equality, and treating a group of people like second-class citizens because you’re afraid they’re going to break into your home and fist you in the middle of the night is a pretty big no-no. That’s why the courts are ruling against you.

            And bigotry and big government principles you are exhibiting is why the public is against you, too.

          • Warmac9999

            The14th amendment, just like the Civil Rights Act, was intended to help the blacks. Both have been hijacked.

          • Stephen Spiker

            Hmm, that’s funny. My copy of the Constitution says equal protection shall be given to “any person”, not just “the blacks”.

          • Warmac9999

            A 2007 CDC study found that homosexual men were 46 to 88 times more likely to contract HIV than the general population. Similar numbers for lesbians.

          • Patrick Murphy

            Either post a link or it’s not true.

          • Warmac9999

            I used to do that but no longer play the game. You can use google just as well as I can. Unlike you, I have no reason to lie. As a matter of fact, I have every reason to be truthful because folks like you get emotional and trash people like me. There is lots of data out there but I suspect you don’t want to know.

            By the way, have you bothered to check the diseases associated with anal sex. You might see why HIV/AIDS is only a small part of the reduced life spans of homosexuals.

          • Patrick Murphy

            You’re not willing to supply evidence to support your claims?

          • Warmac9999

            I gave you the evidence. You do the work.

          • Patrick Murphy

            No, you made an unsupported claim. Unless you can supply evidence to support your claim, any rational person has to assume you’re fabricating everything from thin air.

          • Warmac9999

            CDC 2007. Specific numbers. Go for it. Oh, a rational person would make no assumption one way or the other. However, you have a specific agenda rather than intellectual curiosity. My guess is you will not like what you find.

          • Stephen Spiker

            Okay. How does that justify discriminating against gays?

          • Warmac9999

            The general welfare clause is to apply equally to everyone. Disease statistics like these have caused funds to be diverted to the special welfare of one group of people. My money goes to their pockets. Roads benefit everyone. Defense benefits everyone. But particularized benefits are nothing but government thievery.

          • Patrick Murphy

            That would only be true if people infected with HIV received a subsidy check from the government as a result. Which they don’t.

            HIV can, and does, infect anyone regardless of their creed, color, sexual orientation, or age — preventing transmission and developing a cure is for our general welfare.

          • Warmac9999

            Check avert.org. Your first sentence is untrue. The government has a number of programs to help thevHIV infected.

            The mechanism of transmission is clearly known. Avoid the behavior and avoid the disease. I would rather spend all those HIV dollars on the diseases of aging like cancer, diabetes, etc. Far too much money is being spent on HIV and it is robbing more important areas of research. Xdr TB is coming across the southern border. Hemorrhagic fevers like Ebola are almost certainly on the way. Diseases we eradicated are returning to haunt the classrooms and nursing homes – as well as the subways, trains and buses. The HIV epidemic is preventable, contagions are not.

          • Stephen Spiker

            I’m sorry that you think too much money is being spent on researching HIV, but that’s a matter for the NIH. None of this, however, justifies discrimination against gays.

            It seems to me you’re relying on using “statistics” to “prove” that gays are a wanton and disreputable sort, neither deserving of or capable of benefiting from equal protection. That in itself is a chilling reminder of the lengths people are willing to go to in order to codify into law their hatred of people who are different.

            If you truly believe in liberty, you must believe it for all Americans, not just the ones that you like.

          • Warmac9999

            The amount of money spent on HIV/AIDS is disproportionate to the entire citizenry. This has been the subject of numerous articles.

            As I keep saying, the government needs to stay out of the marriage business. Marriage is a sacred institution intended to bond a man and a woman into a family with children.

          • Stephen Spiker

            That’s a cop-out. Government is in the marriage business. It’s not going away. Why shouldn’t gays be given the same rights as everyone else?

            Backpedal all you like, this is a losing argument and you know it.

          • Patrick Murphy

            “The data, which identified MSM as men who have engaged sexually with
            another man within the last five years, revealed that MSM are over 44
            times more likely than other men to contract HIV, and over 40 times more
            likely than women to contract HIV.”

            http://www.gmhc.org/news-and-events/press-releases/gay-men-44-times-more-likely-to-get-hiv

            One of the significant reasons for this disparity, as well as continued transmission, is a variety of sexual partners — so, aren’t you bringing this up to make the case for reducing the spread of HIV by encouraging monogamous relationships among homosexual men?

            If so, bravo.

            In case that’s not the point you were trying to make, then I feel compelled to point out that African-Americans are eight times more likely to contract HIV than white Americans. If your reasoning (flawed as it may be) is preventing HIV transmission by outlawing homosexual marriage, then surely the next step in your logic is outlawing interracial marriage, is that correct?

            Oh, by the way, evidence: http://newsone.com/810265/black-people-are-8-times-more-likely-to-get-hiv-then-white-people/

          • Warmac9999

            In 66% of homosexual marriages or commitments, sex outside of the relationship happens within the first year. Up to 90% during the duration of the relationship – most of which last on average, less than 2 years. Essentially, gay marriage has no impact on the numbers and it may even have the opposite impact. Again, another set of numbers for you to explore.

          • Patrick Murphy

            It’s not 90%, it’s 59%.

            “Twenty-eight percent of straight men in 1975 had sex with a woman
            outside of their marriage, but in 2000, it was only 10 percent. For
            straight, married women, the rate dropped from 23 percent to 14 percent.
            For gay men, 83 percent to 59 percent, and for lesbians, 28 percent to 8
            percent.”

            http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2011/09/07/cheating_rates_decline_for_gay_and_straight_couples_alike_.html

            Either way, the best way for anyone to avoid contracting a sexually transmitted disease is by limiting one’s sexual partners — with monogamy being ideal. Whether or not everyone who enters a monogamous relationship remains faithful, monogamous people are still more likely than non-monogamous people to limit their sexual partners to one.

            Thus, if you’re fixated on constraining the spread of HIV, wouldn’t it be more logical for you to encourage monogamy than discourage monogamy?

          • Warmac9999

            You quote a 1975 study. You and Spiker have to get together. He criticized me for using data from a 1978 study – which I did not do. As you dig, you are finding more of what I found and am still finding. All I want out of this exchange is for you to make a fully informed decision rather than one found on the rainbow bumper stickers on cars.

            And it isn’t just me finding that heterosexual marriage is best for raising children. It also isn’t me finding that children raised in Lesbian or Homosexual families disproportionately suffer from mental and socialization problems. And, if it makes you feel better, children raised in welfare ghettoes by a single mother with multiple fathers is even worse.

          • Stephen Spiker

            Uh, he quoted a 1975 study to show how dramatically the numbers have changed between then and 2000.

            I’ve made a fully informed decision, and nothing presented in any of the “facts”, real or invented, come close to justifying using the government to make gays second-class citizens. Certainly your rhetoric here has shown that you are more personally disgusted by the thought of two people being gay, than you are at all concerned about children, morality, or especially liberty.

          • Warmac9999

            So Slate is authoritative but the FRC isn’t. Most studies I have seen aren’t from either slate or the FRC but direct citation from organizations like the CDC or well known journals. As far as homosexuality is concerned, it is proving to be bad for foster children, bad for marriage, and more. The general welfare should be considered in all of this and it is not in the general welfare to have kids molested, diseases spread disproportionately, of monogamy elastic ally redefined.

            Unchecked liberty is anarchy. Religion is the mechanism to buttress morality. Morality is the mechanism to control liberty.

          • Stephen Spiker

            I’m starting to think you didn’t even click or read the link. This isn’t difficult. Slate reported the findings of a study conducted by an academic journal (Family Process). Why have I had to explain to you, twice now, basic and simple facts about what Patrick posted?

            I’m glad that you freely admit that you want to use your version of “morality” to “control liberty”. You are a statist and a theocrat, and have no business calling yourself a conservative.

            As I said before, I cannot convince you that treating gays as second-class citizens is wrong. You have already said that they do not deserve equal rights because you disapprove of their behavior. I am happy, though, that through discussion we have been able to establish that you are on the side of Big Government enforcing moral views on everybody, and we are on the size of liberty and limited government.

          • Warmac9999

            You want the government to force the redefinition of marriage, not me. I want government out of most things as they have a habit of messing things up – whether marriage or the environment. About the only things they do well are those things specifically stated in the Constitution.

            But you are correct about one thing, and Ben Franklin agrees with me, religion is a necessary part of the foundation of a free society. However, a theocracy is actually prohibited by the Constitution and I am certainly aware of the damage done to religion by the UK and by the Iranians who have state controlled religions. Atheism, however, is not the answer as it is inherently immoral or, at best, amoral.

          • Stephen Spiker

            Eliminating a ban on gays getting married is not “forcing” anything; it’s removing obstacles and ensuring equal rights. Marriage, as far as the government is concerned, is whatever it recognizes (for the purpose of extending legal rights to couples).

            You are free to not consider gay people married–in fact, I’m sure that will be the case as you continue to make an ass out of yourself preaching about the dangers of letting gay people near you–but that’s not a good enough reason to use the government to stand in the way of two people who love each other.

          • Warmac9999

            I have spent all of my time with this discussion laying out uncomfortable facts and associated analyses. I believe that the facts should speak not the bumper stickers of social justice.

          • Stephen Spiker

            Just because gay people make you feel uncomfortable doesn’t mean they aren’t citizens who are entitled to equality under the law.

            Do you really not see how dangerous and terrifying it would be if we set up our laws to oppress minority groups based on your (or someone else’s) level of “comfort” with that group? That’s the entire reason the Constitution exists, is to protect gay people from people like you.

          • Warmac9999

            Criminals are minority groups. We oppress them in prisons. Indians are minority groups. We oppress and oppressed them on reservations because they killed Americans. Blacks are minority groups. We oppress them on welfare plantations and oppressed them as slaves until a bunch of northern white guys decided to fight against slavery. Japanese and Germans were oppressed in WWII by, of all things, Democrats. The Constitution exists to limit government and that is why Obama hates it – and why you find it inconvenient.

            Oh, who will protect me from gay people. Certainly not the government who finds it convenient to push legislative and judicial actions under the guise of fairness and social justice.

          • Stephen Spiker

            Again, I have to keep reminding myself that I’m dealing with a crazy loon here.

            My apologies for treating you like a rational human being. I hope that you find these last few years where oppressing gays is still, somehow, treated as a valid policy position brings you the comfort you’ll eventually need.

            Good day.

          • Warmac9999

            I don’t oppress gays. I am, however, quite aware of the gay mafia.

          • Warmac9999

            It is deadly.

          • MD Russ

            If supporting individual liberty and the right to privacy is “socialist anarchy” then I will take that any day over the moralistic fascism that you propose.

            BTW, you have an rather pronounced tendency for changing the subject when you are backed into a logical corner. And, you ignore documentation provided by others by way of links while refusing to document any of the rather absurd claims that you make. You are a liar and a fraud, and, as such, are only to be ignored.

          • Warmac9999

            You have a rather pronounced tendency to call people names when you don’t like what they say. That is the way progressives operate.

            I used to do all of the citation posting. I found that all that did was allow lazy folks to dodge their responsibility for following the subject. I have spent a lot of time digging into the pros and cons of homosexual behavior. It does great damage to the individual who practices the behavior and has done great damage to the churches and other social organizations.

            The Constitution is only appropriate for a moral and religious people. As we fail in this regard we so fail the Republic.

          • Stephen Spiker

            So we only deserve rights if we pass your litmus test for being moral? Wow, fuck you. I’m really, really glad that none of the Founding Fathers were as bigoted and narrow-minded as you.

            Your obsession with using the government to enforce your personal view of “right” and “wrong” on people who aren’t affecting you in the least goes a long way in explaining your Big Government views and preference for theocracy.

          • Warmac9999

            Look up Marsha Gessen. This isn’t about the enhancement of marriage but its extinction. The founders were not in favor of licentiousness. Franklin, Washington and others commented on the destructive aspects of unbounded liberty – anarchy. The 14th amendment was specifically directed at empowering blacks after the civil war. I am for small government but not government oppression. The government has inserted itself into marriage and is damaging the institution. If government wasn’t involved, only religious institutions would define marriage and some churches might very well decide that gay marriage is perfectly in line with their principles. I see no reason for a baker, photographer, dressmaker, etc to violate their religious principles just to accommodate you. There are plenty of gay bars so there certainly can be plenty of gay bakers.

          • Stephen Spiker

            I’m married. My marriage has not been damaged at all by the fact that two guys I’ve never met can also get married. Gay marriage is currently legal in dozens of states and will soon be legal in many more. I’m not seeing the extinction you’re prophesizing here.

            You are NOT in favor of small government; you are in favor of using government as a tool to enforce your version of morality. You have zero commitment to liberty. To you, making sure icky gay people can’t be happy together is more important than limited government principles.

          • Warmac9999

            Did you bother to read the statement made by Gessen. She is an Australian Lesbian who specifically stated that there is no such thing as a gay marriage and that it is the intention of gay activists to expand the definition of marriage to extinction. When icky is deadly, then both of us ought to be opposed to it.

            Again, I just want the government to butt out. Quite simply more government is less liberty. More regulation is greater enslavement. Progressives claim to want more liberty but they are illogical when they demand that the government intrude.

          • Stephen Spiker

            I don’t care what one Australian person has to say.

            And you don’t want the government to “butt out”. You just said in this very post that because gay people are icky, public policy in this country ought to be opposed to homosexuality. That’s using the government to restrict liberty and enforce your narrow-mindedness on people who have zero impact on your life and aren’t harming anyone else. That is literally the exact opposite of the government “butting out”.

          • Warmac9999

            You kept using icky, not me. I just pointed out that when icky is deadly, it is a concern. And the government redefining marriage is an attempt to restrict liberty. They have intruded into the social space the founders left for the people to work out. The fact that the people have been forced to vote on this redefinition and then the courts say no you have to accept the redefinition is the restriction of liberty in both having to vote and then having the courts throw out the result.

            As far as harming me, you really don’t know me or how much damage I have seen or experienced. I began my study of homosexuality well over a decade ago when a relative had a son commit suicide. I am betting That i have done a lot more research on the subject as you just talk about opinion polls and bumper sticker slogans.

          • Stephen Spiker

            Fact: two guys getting married has absolutely no impact on your life. Zero. None whatsoever.

            Your obsession with gay people and their wicked ways is disturbing on a number of levels; even more reason why your view of “morality” is the last thing that we should be basing our laws on.

            You, and people like you, are dangerous to society. You sow hatred and bigotry, and intolerance towards our fellow man. Worse yet, you want to use the government to enforce how you see the world. You are a threat to liberty. And you are the exact reason why it is so important for limited government conservatives to oppose statists like you.

          • Warmac9999

            Ever think about where morality actually comes from? It didn’t just emerge from thin air. Look at ISIS. In their version of morality, killing and raping is quite acceptable. We have that little old thou shall not murder – it isn’t shall not kill as killing may be necessary.

            The only threat to liberty is government defining and redefining what liberty is. The people are supposed to be left alone to wok social things out for themselves. What we have is progressives deciding for us what social things I should be allowed to work out – thus the road to serfdom is built on the idea that government knows best. Welcome to the new American order.

          • Stephen Spiker

            No, I’m quite sure the threat to liberty is people like you who want to use the government to tell everybody how to live their lives.

          • Warmac9999

            Social justice, fairness, equality are all thrown about cavalierly to suppress dissent. Sorry, but it don’t care about such abuse of language except when it is used to oppress. And that is exactly what you intend to do.

          • Warmac9999

            The average homosexual has over 500 different sex partners during a lifetime. 25% have over a thousand. Practicing homosexuals have far more diseases than the heterosexual population. At last count around 30 that are specific to homosexuals. However some can be transmitted to the general population (HIV/AIDS is but one example of sexually transmitted diseases). Gay marriage does damage traditional marriage – see European studies. Less than 3% of homosexuals give a rats about marriage. The types of perverted practices of homosexuals involve orgies, urine and feces parties, fisting and object penetration. These facts have been deliberately hidden behind a mask of equality. And now you want marriage destroyed to accommodate about 1.2% of the total male and female population.

          • Stephen Spiker

            What in the fuck.

            And to think all this time, I thought I was debating a not-crazy person.

          • Warmac9999

            Yep. Just as I thought. The numbers scare you because they reveal the ugliness and implications of homosexual behavior. You cannot dispute the facts so you pull the old shoot the messenger drill. Bravo!!!!!

          • Stephen Spiker

            Numbers from a discredited 1970s study? Why would I need to dispute that?

            Mostly, I just didn’t anticipate a conversation about public opinion and the courts featuring references to fisting, and ridiculous assumptions about an entire group of people and what they want.

          • Warmac9999

            Oh no. Not from a 1970s study but from studies within the past decade or even more recently. And these are not assumptions or opinions but facts and analyses. As a progressive, facts are like a stake in the heart of a vampire. That is why they scare you and why you have to shoot the messenger.

          • Stephen Spiker

            Almost everything you posted was from “Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women”, which was published almost 40 years ago in 1978, among a very limited sample size. You just saying “–see European studies” doesn’t conjure into existence any “facts” about the destruction of marriage.

            But whatever, I can’t win this argument with you. If you honestly, genuinely believe that most gay people are involved in shit and piss orgies and don’t actually want marriage equality, then you are a deeply, deeply disturbed individual.

            I just hope you repeat your claims to as many people as possible, so the few others who are holding onto their opposition to same-sex marriage can see the kind of crazy shit that their side is arguing.

          • Warmac9999

            You need to update yourself. Somehow, I don’t think you will.

          • Stephen Spiker

            Yes, I must be blind to the shit and piss orgies that are happening all around us. Only you can educate the public to the truth. Save us! Save the Republic!

            Go forth, Warmac9999, go forth and tell the people about the evil gays!

        • MD Russ

          That is not the problem, Warmac. The Framers were very concerned about The Tyranny of the Majority. That is why they built into the Constitution an independent and unelected Judicial branch of the government. The rulings on gay marriage demonstrate that the system works as intended. The strength of a constitutional democracy is best measured by how well it tolerates unpopular dissent.

          • Warmac9999

            And they were also concerned about a judicial dictatorship unbound by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights contained therein.

            Fundamentally, the founders wanted as little government as possible and one that trusted the people to work things out. Today, the left, which is quite well represented by Obama, Pelosi and Reid, see the Constitution as an impediment and treat it as a living document rather than the framework for government.

            As I have said in prior comments, I don’t think the government should be in the business of marriage at all. Marriage is inherently a religious institution. If some church wants to support LGBT marriages then they should do so, but for the government to impose the LGBT agenda on the rest of the population is abusive, particularly when it decides that the religious rights of individuals are secondary to the collectivist social justice agenda.

          • Patrick Murphy

            There are zero examples of churches being forced by government to perform gay marriages in states where it has been legalized. The same can be said of churches not being forced by law to perform or accept biracial marriages, which were also illegal not very long ago in our nation’s history. It’s not going to change in the future without repealing the 1st Amendment.

            So, I think you’re okay.

            However, the fact churches cannot be forced to perform gay marriages while governments can perform those same marriages highlights the fact marriage is as much an inherently social and civic institution as a religious one. So, that argument falls flat too.

          • Warmac9999

            First, their is no constitutional right to marry as that would have immediately made marriage into the legal and political institution it has now become. Second, the state originally got involved in marriage with the intention of strengthening of the institution as a way of strengthening the family and thus the society. Third, the modern state now functions to do exactly the opposite.

            The attacks on photographers, bakers, etc are a precursor for similar attacks on churches. In Europe, priests have been arrested for preaching the biblical definition of marriage. In the UK, recent laws effectively force the state church to perform gay marriages. There is very little question that the gay mafia will cease and desist from pushing their agenda through lawsuits and criminal sanctions against churches – and this is regardless of the first amendment which is always under attack by the left. You can’t have a Bill of Rights and a collectivist progressive society as they are inherently incompatible.

          • Stephen Spiker

            There is nothing “collectivist” about marriage equality, just as there’s nothing “conservative” about discrimination.

          • Patrick Murphy

            I didn’t claim there was a constitutional right to marry, there were and remain many valid, legitimate reasons for the state to be involved in marriage reaching beyond strengthening the institution and families, and there’s little evidence of any wide or substantial reversal.

            Photographers and bakers are not religious organizations, which is why the comparison to churches in terms of their First Amendment rights is patently erroneous. In the same vein, by crafting an argument based entirely on two fallacies of logic (the strawman and slippery slope), you’ve revealed both an abandonment of reality and the emptiness of your premise.

            The examples you’ve offered are from countries which are woefully lacking the legal protections guaranteed to religious organizations in our own country. It’s the same as arguing, “Saudi Arabia doesn’t allow women to drive cars, so the same thing could happen here.” It’s a patently false argument and inherently illogical. There’s absolutely zero rational argument that churches could be forced by government to perform or recognize any marriage, thanks to the First Amendment. As long as it’s intact, your argument is false.

          • Warmac9999

            I am betting that the gay mafia will sue a priest or a church within the next ten years. It would have already happened if the Supreme Court had one more liberal. Ginsburg has said as much in discussing the Hobby Lobby decision. Leftists hate religion, and it showed in the DNConvention in 2012.

          • Patrick Murphy

            If they did, they would lose — the First Amendment is very clear about direct governmental interference with religious organizations. But, if you don’t understand the difference between the church you attend on Sundays and the corporation where you buy craft supplies, then you’ve obviously lost all grasp on reality and this won’t make a difference.

          • Warmac9999

            So your stance is freedom of religion will trump social justice. Not if the left is in charge.

          • Patrick Murphy

            Unless “the left” repeals the First Amendment, you have nothing to worry about.

    • reluctant activist

      Brian, Thanks for your thoughtful argument. While i see that an apparent crazy person has hijacked the thread, I am glad to see that a conservative, well-respected Republican is addressing the reality of gay marriage. The bans are being overturned quickly, and it is high time to move on and devote energy to things like taxes, government overreach, government spending, the failure of Congress, and our international and immigration issues. These problems are far more important to our country’s stability than who’s getting married.

      • Warmac9999

        You apparently miss that old “of the people, by the people and for the people” argument. Without the people as an anchor, the rest is simply meaningless.

        • Stephen Spiker

          Fortunately, a majority of Americans (and Virginians) support marriage equality.

          • Warmac9999

            Your statement is not true. The judges have voted against the people in virtually every instance. It does little good to vote for traditional marriage 60% to 40% and then have some judge throw out the vote. After a while, people just give up. But the result is greater distrust of overbearing government and a sense that everything is headed in the wrong direction.

          • Turtles Run

            Once again you do not get to vote on which rights to deny people. Is that the society you want to live in? Because I assure you it could be used against you some day.

            Matt Suarez
            A heck of a nice guy

          • Warmac9999

            Obviously, you don’t trust the people. The founders, on the other hand, did – and in doing so recognized that the people would correct their mistakes and create a productive society. The more the government interferes, no matter how apparently beneficially, the more liberty is damaged. Every regulation or law comes at a cost and you simply refuse to recognize that principle. The road to serfdom has been consistently built on the idea the fairness and justice require an ever stronger state. Unfortunately, the opposite is true.

          • Stephen Spiker

            Your argument is perfectly sound, which is why its so puzzling that you SUPPORT using the government to take away the liberty of two men to marry one another. A ban on same-sex marriage is the very type of regulation or law that you claim to dislike in this post.

          • Warmac9999

            If you had read my previous posts, You would note that I am for the modern type of government butting out of all social issues. If this were the case, then I wouldn’t be paying for someone else’s abortion or HIV/aids research and treatment. You make your bed, you lie in it – and don’t expect me to lie there with you. Unfortunately, the collectivist social justice state wants me to share your behavior, and I refuse to do so – thus you have to pervert the argument.

          • Stephen Spiker

            A vote that occurred in 2006 has little bearing or resemblance to how people feel in 2014.

    • Thad Hunter

      Disagreeing with you by paragraph:

      “The funny thing..”:

      Marriage was self evident and did not require a legal definition until the popular culture successfully lobbied our legal system to grant protected group status, and demand acceptance ranging from redefining marriage to outright legal intimidation.

      “The problem with…”:

      Marriage amendments clarify the legal definition and some go further by enumerating what is not included instead of leaving it implied. In a legal system where lawyers and courts cynically twist language, the additional clarification is prudent.

      “For much of recorded:”:

      Your point is vague. Marriage is primarily about love and relationship. And how do you know that forms of arranged marriages do not lead to a husband and wife loving each other? There is no equivalence or comparable value between the special husband-wife bond and mere material property. It sounds like you are redefining marriage down to a contract.

      “While I’m sympathetic…”:

      Your denomination has obviously chosen to redefine Biblical Christianity as well. God’s design and commandments directly speak against deviant sexual practices and no-fault divorce. Furthermore, you are in fact demanding that your personal beliefs be codified when you advocate changing a state’s constitution.

      “I too believe…”:

      This is tiresome argument. Every law is traceable to a moral judgment. Laws are society’s consensus definition about morality and when the state can demand compliance. Anyone can enter into a male-female monogamous marriage relationship. No one is being prevented by the state. The fact that some choose not to do so because of their values and proclivities does not mean that society must accommodate them. And when it comes to marriage and family, there is no such thing as “they alone will bear the burden”. Inner cities sadly illustrate this better than words and show how all of society, especially children, bear a heavy burden caused by a culture that no longer honors traditional marriage and the male and female distinctiveness. Entitlements and our financial disaster are also tangible results of marriage breakdown.

      “I wish we lived…”:

      This is a fallacy of the perfect. You have capitulated to the culture. If you really believe marriage has been undermined then you must know what marriage ought to be. If you value marriage then defend the institution. Allowing others to refine marriage is giving them the power to control marriage and to erase another traditional institution, which is the underlying agenda.

      “I simply can’t, in good conscience…”:

      I can in good conscience draw a line. Traditional marriage existed before government and is the foundation for any government especially self-government, which is to say limited government.

      At what point will your conscience will be offended by the plethora of available lifestyle choices. Why shouldn’t individuals who “shack up” not have the same benefits? What is your argument against polyamory, man-boy, incest, and other adult-underaged relationships that might want to claim the same benefits. You can’t use the consenting adult argument if marriage becomes simply a romantic arrangement since you would be imposing your view on accountability and maturity.

      If not here, when will you draw the line?

      • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

        I draw that line at same-sex marriage. I think that’s obvious. And you brought up pedophilia. Automatic debate loss.

        • Thad Hunter

          Now I’m curious, why are you in favor of same sex marriage but not polyamory? Is this based on a principle or a just a preference?

          Hardly a debate loss, you are being dismissive that these actions will not degenerate society. You must not see the extent of the problem or the groundwork being laid to normalize these crimes.

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            Because, as you said, the line has to be drawn somewhere. I think going beyond two people creates significant burdens on both the state and is more damaging to the family, and thus it goes too far.

            When anybody has to bring up pedophilia in a discussion of gay marriage, they’ve essentially Godwin’d the argument. There’s zero need to bring up criminal activities and try to pretend that gay marriage is the first step towards the destruction of society, any more than interracial marriage or the like did fifty years ago. Those who make those claims aren’t worthy of further debate, but I’ll humor you.

            When marriage stopped being a religious sacrament and became something that requires state approval and includes state protection of certain rights, it became subject to state regulation and definition. I’m not a fan of that, personally, but that’s what exists.

            I am sick and tired of listening to high minded philosophy and slippery slope debate arguments when we’re talking about real life issues. There are people who are being denied equal treatment because they’re gay. That’s wrong. No appeals to philosophy, worst case scenarios or politicized theology is going to change that.

          • Warmac9999

            Elimination of marriage is the objective of the communist/socialist state. Hitler wanted the state to raise the future children. Stalin favored communes. Mao tried to eliminate the differences in the sexes with his olive drab uniforms. Welfare separates the father from the children and substitutes the state as the parent.

            There can be no end to the State’s definition of marriage when the State benefits from weakening institutions that they see as a form of opposition. And make no mistake a strong religious family is a threat to the Statist collective.

        • Warmac9999

          Why do you draw the line there? Are you not for civil rights for all? Is two somehow sacred? You are the slippery slope, you just don’t know or care to admit it.

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            Why not draw the line there. The only people really arguing for the nonsense that Thad put up are people who oppose gay marriage looking for absurd outcomes to fearmonger with.

          • Warmac9999

            The absurd outcome has already happened. I am just asking why the absurdity must end where you draw the line. To me, there is no rationale for two being a natural or legal limit. Essentially, I am for an unlimited definition because I see the end of secular marriage as a good thing. Marriage has been and should be a spiritual commitment between a man and a woman, and religious institutions should draw that line regardless of what the state does. Now, if the state steps in to force a revision to the spiritual definition, then the first amendment should apply.

            However, America had best be careful here because the government is intruding into the social space reserved for the People and each intrusion constitutes a loss of freedom to make free choices of all kinds.

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            There’s nothing absurd going on here. And as I keep trying to explain to people, there is a difference between the sacrament of holy matrimony and governmental recognition of a marriage. They aren’t the same thing and don’t have to be treated the same way. If a church wants to limit who they marry, that’s within their first amendment rights to do so. But government does not have that freedom unless it can prove a compelling governmental interest. I think it can do that with polygamy, incest and the like, but it can’t do that with gay marriage.

          • Warmac9999

            What is the compelling interest in stopping polygamy or polyandry. I know it was stopped over a hundred years ago because of the Mormons, but this is a different era. Would not freedom of religious practice prevail? And how about incest? With the genetics revolution, the genetic damage of incest can be minimized. Unlike the royal families of the past who knew little about such things, we can test for a few thousand human problems. And how about age differences? Elvis married his cousin who was something like 12 or 13. No big deal as far as I can tell.

          • Turtles Run

            “I know it was stopped over a hundred years ago because of the Mormons, but this is a different era.”

            The Mormon church stopped plural marriage because of revelations from the Prophet of that day.

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            Again, folks complaining about gay marriage are the only ones making these arguments.

            What is best for society is that we get out of other people’s business.

  • Stephen Spiker

    “When we say that marriage is anything other than between man and woman; when we say that marriage is just a contract; when we say the marriage is not for the purpose of family, we blow up the entire institution.”

    Your argument falls about simply by thinking about it for a few minutes. Fathers don’t stick around because the government sanctions two guys who love each other to be married? Really?

    This sounds nice on paper. At best, it’s an academic theory. At worst, it’s a shameful attempt to use children as an excuse to treat gay people as second-class citizens. Either way, it is severely wanting as a compelling justification for discrimination.

    • Eugene Fisher

      Godless!

  • Alex70

    Thank you for sharing your views, Mr. Hoeft.

    But with all due respect, your religious beliefs–or mine—or our lack thereof–matter not a bit when it comes to determining what constitutional rights we possess.

    Twenty-nine consecutive judicial decisions in favor of gay marriage, and I predict a six-three Supreme Court ruling supporting it.

    By the way I’m not overly impressed by the highly partisan and ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation’s take on the research on this subject. This once-reputable organization–as eight-term Republican congressman Mickey Edwards puts it–now resembles “just another hack Tea Party kind of group.” http://tinyurl.com/oxqm8sc

    I think for an assessment of the research on the subject of same-sex parenting I’ll rely on the gold standard: the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Medical Association, all of these professional and nonpartisan organizations strongly endorse gay marriage.

    Here’s what the AAP says on the subject:

    “A great deal of scientific research documents there is NO cause-and-effect relationship between parents’ sexual orientation and children’s well-being. In fact, many studies attest to the normal development of children of same-gender couples when the child is wanted, the parents have a commitment to shared parenting, and the parents have strong social and economic support. Critical factors that affect the normal development and mental health of children are parental stress, economic and social stability, community resources, discrimination, and children’s exposure to toxic stressors at home or in their communities — not the sexual
    orientation of their parents.”

    http://tinyurl.com/pd28bfx

    Thank you again for sharing your feelings.

    Alex Leidholdt
    Harrisonburg

    • Eugene Fisher

      Lol AAP! LoL!

      • Alex70

        You know, Mr. Fisher, I have some strongly held views, but on occasion an especially cogent and articulate rebuttal, such as the one you’ve just formulated, makes me rethink my position. I’ll spend the rest of the evening rethinking my stance. Thank you.

        • Eugene Fisher

          Wink

    • Loudoun GOPer

      “But with all due respect, your religious beliefs–or mine—or our lack thereof–matter not a bit when it comes to determining what constitutional rights we possess.”

      That, in a nutshell, is the root cause of so many problems we have in society today. If you truly believe that the religious beliefs of the founding fathers are not evident in the consitution, and did not guide the creation of that document, you are crazy. If you truly believe that the founding fathers meant to remove religion from the State House, you do not have a good understanding of history. FInally, if you think a person’s personal religious beliefs, or lack thereof, do not matter in society, then you problably still don’t understand why our society has taken such a precipitous decline.

    • Tim Donner

      Well…if the AAP says traditional marriage doesn’t matter then that settles the issue since they obviously know better than God, not that God necessarily even exists. I apologize for my prehistoric views.

      • Alex70

        Apology accepted, Mr. Donner.

        You got me! What do those lefty, politically correct, limp-wristed children’s docs know anyway? I’ll bet they even treat Hansen’s disease with an antiquated and ineffective multi-drug therapy consisting of dapsone, rifampin, and clofazimine.

        What could those backward pediatricians be thinking?

        God knows best! Any numbskull knows, we should apply the science she/he imparted to Moses to cure leprosy:

        “This shall be the law of the leprous person for the day of his cleansing. He shall be brought to the priest, and the priest shall go out of the camp, and the priest shall look. Then, if the case
        of leprous disease is healed in the leprous person, the priest shall command them to take for him who is to be cleansed two live clean birds and cedar wood and scarlet yarn and hyssop. And the priest shall command them to kill one of the birds in an earthenware vessel over fresh water.”

        Have a nice day.

        Alex

        • Tim Donner

          I wonder if it ever occurs to you or those who share your postmodern worldview to simply examine the, shall we say, physical structure of the man and woman to reach a conclusion as to what is natural and what is not.

          This is not to say the equal rights of every person under the law should not be respected, but it seems the validation and applauding of every postmodern companionship arrangement or parenthood outside of marriage is at the top of the leftist social agenda.

          Don’t be too upset, Alex. You and your fellow travelers are winning the argument and getting your way, and will likely continue to do so.

          • Alex70

            I love to be called a “fellow traveler”—it’s so nostalgic and quaint! For me it brings to mind the demagoguery of a certain inebriated junior senator (R.).

            I bristle, however, at being called a “postmodernist.” Absolutely positively not true. I never understood or had any use for that sort of high-falutin’ continental nonsense (with all due respect to Monsieur Baudrillard).

            There’s a long history of 100% American labor activism and progressive politics of which I’m quite proud. We don’t need any fancy European postmodernists butting it.

            SSM will prevail. If it makes you feel any better, however, there’s a really good chance that you’ll take the senate. I’m despondent over the prospect of Mr. Cruz–who eerily resembles that earlier junior senator–and his ilk in the majority.

            Have a nice day,

            A.

          • Warmac9999

            Winning the argument isn’t the same as winning. What is being lost is far more profound.

          • Tim Donner

            Though for opposite reasons, you and I are in agreement on that.

    • J.M. Ripley

      Yeah, not like any of those organizations have been influenced by the gay rights lobby,

  • Eugene Fisher

    Homosexual unions, by their nature, can never produce children on their own. Heterosexual unions, in general, can produce children on their own. The fact that individual heterosexual unions cannot or do not produce children for various reasons is irrelevant. What is important is that heterosexual unions CAN, and often do, produce children without outside assistance and homosexual unions CANNOT. That makes them different by their nature.
    see more
    1 • Reply•Share ›

    Gretchen Moran Laskas JayDickB • 5 hours ago
    To my mind, that’s a distinction without a difference. And I’m betting that you wouldn’t be willing to go into an adoption support group and tell them that marriages that are unable to produce children without outside assistance aren’t really marriages– but you aren’t REALLY talking about THEIR marriages specifically, just in general as a type. They almost certainly would be offended, and rightly so.
    see more
    • Reply•Share ›

    TVal Gretchen Moran Laskas • 5 hours ago
    A married man and woman provide to an adopted child what a homosexual couple cannot – a mother and a father.

    Adoptive man-woman marriages are equal to child-bearing marriages. Homosexual marriages are not and can never be equal.
    see more
    • Reply•Share ›

    Mark Thomas Herbert • 2 days ago
    Really really excellent post here. There are arguments on nearly every plane of logic to accept gay marriage ranging from the political to the simple humanitarian and a modern Republican party will not exclude them.
    1 • Reply•Share ›

    John E. McGlothlin Mark Thomas Herbert • a day ago
    Thanks – a majority of Republicans under 40 are pro-gay marriage, so I was hoping to give people some idea of why.
    1 • Reply•

  • Chris B

    Marriage is a contract. All the benefits of marriage come from the government. If my wife and I just had our ceremony and left, we wouldn’t be married in the eyes of the government for our taxes, legal documents, etc etc etc. To be “married” we had to go to the Fredericksburg City Clerk’s office and sign papers a week or so before the wedding – our religious ceremony was great but legally meaningless. So marriage between a man and a women is a government sanctioned institution that then gives those in it benefits in society that others don’t get – tax breaks, heath care rights, end of life decision making, and many other things.

    The government creates different class of citizens through marriage. I object to that.

    • Eugene Fisher

      So?

    • Eugene Fisher

      Ron Paul is a clown!

      • Chris B

        its impossible to respond to such eloquence.

        • Eugene Fisher

          Lol !

    • Warmac9999

      Actually you have it backward. Marriage is a religious institution requiring a Godly commitment. The Constitutional state got involved to buttress this institution because it was clearly in the interest of the constitutional state. Now the progressive state finds that marriage is not in the interest of the progressive state thus marriage is under attack.

  • Eugene Fisher

    This what is coming next.

    WELCOME! The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) was formed in 1978. It was inspired by the success of a campaign based in Boston’s gay community to defend against a local witchhunt.

    NAMBLA’s goal is to end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships by:

    building understanding and support for such relationships;
    educating the general public on the benevolent nature of man/boy love;
    cooperating with lesbian, gay, feminist, and other liberation movements;
    supporting the liberation of persons of all ages from sexual prejudice and oppression.
    Our membership is open to everyone sympathetic to man/boy love and personal freedom.
    NAMBLA calls for the empowerment of youth in all areas, not just the sexual. We support greater economic, political and social opportunities for young people and denounce the rampant ageism that segregates and isolates them in fear and mistrust. We believe sexual feelings are a positive life force. We support the rights of youth as well as adults to choose the partners with whom they wish to share and enjoy their bodies.

    We condemn sexual abuse and all forms of coercion. Freely-chosen relationships differ from unwanted sex. Present laws, which focus only on the age of the participants, ignore the quality of their relationships. We know that differences in age do not preclude mutual, loving interaction between persons. NAMBLA is strongly opposed to age-of-consent laws and all other restrictions which deny men and boys the full enjoyment of their bodies and control over their own lives.

    NAMBLA does not provide encouragement, referrals or assistance for people seeking sexual contacts. NAMBLA does not engage in any activities that violate the law, nor do we advocate that anyone else should do so.

    We call for fundamental reform of the laws regarding relations between youths and adults. Today, many thousands of men and boys are unjustly ground into the disfunctional criminal justice system. Blindly, this system condemns consensual, loving relationships between younger and older people. NAMBLA’s Prisoner Program, with limited resources, works to provide a modicum of humanity to some of these people. Click here to find out more.

    NAMBLA is a political, civil rights, and educational organization. We provide factual information and help educate society about the positive and beneficial nature of man/boy love. Become an active member! You can help in this historic struggle!

  • http://www.southsidecentral.com/ Bruce Hedrick

    Ten points for not going all “Bob Marshall -The World Is Going To End”. Eight points deducted for “But that’s still not right because of my personal beliefs.”

    • Eugene Fisher

      NAMBLA

      • http://www.southsidecentral.com/ Bruce Hedrick

  • Eugene Fisher

    It’ coming:
    The 1960s saw the blooming of a new and democratic concept of children, youth and the family. Childrens’ natural spontaneity and joyful exhuberance, their pursuit of discovery and experiment, all were seen as vitally important social activities. Children are not simply our beneficiaries; they are our benefactors as well.

    Ever since this transformative period, forces of reaction have been working to sow seeds of anxiety about the freedoms widely considered necessary to a healthy functioning society.

    In the 1980s they began promoting notions such as the juvenile sex offender, and the teenaged “super-predator.” Notions of sex as inherently violent and dangerous (although it is usually the opposite) played heavily in the campaigns targeting youth.

    Small children have been charged for “sex crimes,” for what amounts to playing “doctor” with their peers. Many states have built institutions to warehouse teen “sex offenders.” Programs at these institutions typically indoctrinate the youths to hate and fear their own sexuality, breaking their personalities down to a point approaching total self-abnegation.

    The articles linked below chronicle this social travesty and tell the stories of the most powerless people in our society — victims of the culture war over what is the true meaning of freedom.

  • Eugene Fisher

    From MABLA:
    Man/Boy Love is as old as love itself, and stories of it have been told for thousands of years. Through these stories, we can gain insights into the nature of man/boy relationships in various manifestations and social settings.

    Fiction, non-fiction, and fictionalized accounts based on true stories, all impart truths that are elided and suppressed in the popular media. The stories linked below include all three of these forms, and represent a miniscule sampling of the stories NAMBLA has published over the years.

  • Eugene Fisher

    For 30 years, NAMBLA has been the primary voice testifying to the benevolent aspects of man/boy love.

    NAMBLA has been, and continues to be, a beacon of moral support for all individuals who feel a natural love for boys.

    Through our web site and publications, NAMBLA provides a public forum for a diverse range of viewpoints supporting sexual liberation and youth liberation.

    NAMBLA is the only organization that specifically supports incarcerated individuals who identify as boy lovers or who otherwise agree with our aims.

    NAMBLA has celebrated the dignity inherent in the natural love of boys.

    NAMBLA has been a bulwark against the lies and pejoratives of a venal abuse industry and opportunistic politicians and law enforcement officials. Exposing these lies is important not only for man/boy lovers but for all people who value democracy, since its foundation is a well-informed electorate.

    NAMBLA has consistently protested ill advised wars that needlessly maim and kill young people and devastate families here and abroad. Even before it started, NAMBLA warned against the Iraq invasion. Our warning was on our Web site long before many of the politicians, who belatedly recognized their immense error, echoed our concerns.

    NAMBLA has spoken out strongly against the shoddy and disrespectful treatment afforded youth in our society and the resulting high rates of child and youth poverty, neglect and alienation.

    NAMBLA has consistently highlighted injustices and harm in age of consent laws. Instead of protecting young people, these laws have done the very opposite.

  • Eugene Fisher

    Slippery slop!

    • http://www.southsidecentral.com/ Bruce Hedrick

      This is the most accurate statement you’ve made yet.

  • Eugene Fisher
  • Eugene Fisher

    Man marries dog California!

  • Eugene Fisher

    CNN Calls Islamic Child Marriage an “Inhumane and Cruel Tradition,” Condemns Muhammad and Allah
    http://www.cnn.com/video/api/embed.html#

  • Eugene Fisher

    Defining Deviancy down is were we are now!

  • Eugene Fisher
  • Eugene Fisher

    http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/04/a-non-religious-case-against-same-sex-marriage.html
    “No matter what you might think about same sex marriage, we know this: Any child raised under a same sex union faces a tremendous loss—either no Mommy or no Daddy. In a union where two men or two women are involved, that’s always the outcome. When Mommy picks a woman or Daddy picks a man as a life partner, the children always lose something enormously valuable and irreplaceable: a mother or a father.

    That loss often has tragic consequences for a child. If, for example, you are raised in a home with no father around, the odds that you will drop out of school, that you will take or sell drugs, that you will go to prison, that you will be poor, and that your children will suffer the same fate you did all skyrocket. That same cycle of hopelessness and crime follows upon the absence of a mother.”

  • Eugene Fisher

    http://www.nationalaffairs.com/public_interest/detail/the-liberal-case-against-gay-marriage
    “FROM ISSUE NUMBER 156 – SUMMER 2004GO TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
    E-MAIL
    PRINT
    PDF VERSION
    SHARE TEXT SIZE A A A
    The liberal case against gay marriage
    SUSAN M. SHELL

    THE issue of gay marriage brings to a head, like few other issues of our time, a central conflict between two moral positions that interact like seismic plates beneath the surface of contemporary American political life. It is commonly thought that the issue of gay marriage pits secular liberals against religious conservatives. While this understanding is accurate up to a point, it is also seriously misleading. The most stubborn and intransigent opponents in the conflict are both in their way sectarian.
    To download a PDF of the full article, please click here.”

  • Antoninus

    “The problem with modern society is that fathers don’t stay committed to mothers.”

    True. This has become the case because society has made marriage a horrible deal for men and men are opting out of the institution in droves. Just look at all the women who lament they can’t find a decent guy anymore. Women in college outnumber men and earn degrees in greater number than men, yet society and the courts still view men as being responsible for poor helpless women for life. Men may not be having to pay lifetime alimony in as great a numbers, but the burden of proof still lies with the man to prove the wife is able to support herself before alimony is removed. Women today with decades of feminist ideology drilled into them think nothing of marrying a man to become established in life, then divorce him knowing the courts will award her a substantial settlement – Wendy Davis from Texas is a prime example of this trend. Not all women are so fortunate and circumstances vary, but that is the trend.

    “I believe the only marriage that should ever be sanctioned by the state is between a man and woman.”

    Now this is where you lose me, because I believe that marriage should only be sanctioned by God and the state should stay completely out of it! The entire reason we now have gay marriage as an issue is because we allowed the state to gain control over marriage. What was once an entirely ecclesiastical function has now been reduced by the state to a contract filed at the courthouse for the purpose of administering federal benefits! The state has moved from the relatively innocent function of recording marriages for the purpose of inheritance back in the Dark Ages, to actually defining the act of marriage itself!

    The gay community has no interest in marriage other than to destroy the institution and revealed as much in a 2012 Australian speech by prominent lesbian Masha Gesson where she stated “Gay marriage is a lie,” “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there,” and “It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.” (This statement is met with very loud applause.) They vehemently rejected the civil union arrangement that would have given them every legal protection they demanded in arguing for gay marriage specifically because they sought to destroy traditional marriage, and it was the state’s control over marriage which allowed them to do so!

    I also point out that gay marriage is just the end game in the destruction of marriage which began forty years ago with the acceptance of no fault divorce. This abomination weakened marriage to the point where divorce lost its shame and allowed the feminists to convince women they had to burn down their marriages gaining control because only by gaining control of the marriage could they ever truly be “equal” in the marriage. Same crap we hear from other victimization theologies where the oppressed victim group must gain control to achieve equality!

    Marriage is completely lost! We must accept this fact and decide to give marriage to the state while creating an entirely ecclesiastical rite called Holy Matrimony sanctioned by the church and expressly kept away from the state so as to never allow the state to redefine this new institution! We should endeavor to submit to Holy Matrimony as a union of a man and a woman before God which is not recorded by the state so the state NEVER has any say in what Holy Matrimony means! This means we forgo state recognition and tax benefits to preserve the fidelity of Holy Matrimony. Just as Hillsdale College preserves its educational freedom by refusing to accept government funds in any form, we must refuse state overtures to subsidize Holy Matrimony to prevent the state from seizing the institution and redefining it to suit their purposes and not God’s purpose!

    • kelley

      so if you are divorced, you should feel ashamed? why thank you. I know some fundamental Christians who believe that if you are divorced, you are unclean.

      • Antoninus

        No, that is absolutely NOT what I am saying. I am specifically referring to the situation where couples in the past sought to resolve their differences to remain married and avoid the stigma of divorce rather than today’s casual attitude on marriage which is more often than not to decide marriage is nothing more than a lifestyle arrangement that can be changed at one’s whim when circumstances no longer suit them.

        Spin it any way you like, but divorce is an admission of failure – failure of the couple to resolve their differences and remain married! And, last time I checked there is still a stigma associated with failure along with its attendant feelings of shame! No one likes to fail or even admit they have failed, and divorce is an admission of failure.

        As for being somehow unclean, there are many misunderstandings promoted out there that I can’t and won’t address, but the Bible tells us that there is no sin on our part if we have done all we could do to preserve the marriage. If the spouse commits wanton adultery with no possibility of redemption or espouses evil with no possibility of redemption, then they must be put away. In those cases, there should be no shame or hesitation on the part of the spouse who has been wronged. However, in today’s world, marriages are continuously being put asunder for the most trivial reasons with no effort to preserve the union. Much like the pro abortion crowd throwing up the extremely rare cases of rape or incest to justify unlimited abortion on demand, the anti-marriage crowd throws up the case of spousal abuse to justify no fault divorce and other mechanisms designed to weaken marriage instead of strengthening it. An abused spouse’s immediate concern should be relocation away from their abuser, not the worry of divorce protocol!

        • kelley

          you’re obviously not a divorce lawyer.

    • Tim Donner

      Extraordinarily well stated.

  • Eugene Fisher

    Here it comes
    The country’s parliament voted through the new law on same-sex marriage by a large majority, making it mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages…

    Karsten Nissen, the Bishop of Viborg, who is refusing to carry out the ceremonies, has warned that the new law risks “splitting the church”.

    If you think, “It can’t happen here,” you haven’t been paying attention my friend. Our close friend and allies in Britain may soon be with Denmark, forcing their churches to participate in something that is fundamentally opposed to the Bible’s teaching.

    In Britain, churches can “opt-out” of being forced to conduct gay weddings. But the homosexual community isn’t happy with that… so they are suing to FORCE ALL CHURCHES to conduct gay ceremonies!

    But homosexual couple Barrie and Tony Drewitt-Barlow have set out to demolish that protection for churches because it stands in the way of their coveted church wedding.

    “It upsets me because I want it so much—a big lavish ceremony, the whole works.” The duo filed a lawsuit against the Church of England, demanding that the court compel all Anglican churches to conduct same-sex wedding ceremonies in their houses of worship. We’ve launched a challenge to the Government’s decision to allow some religious groups to opt out of marrying same-sex couples.”

    Read more at http://eaglerising.com/6712/government-forces-church-perform-gay-marriage/#Quoortjz0kz2Y55o.99

    • Chris

      This is why we have the first amendment.

      In this country, marriage is already bifurcated. When I got married in a church according to a 1400 year old rite, we also had to separately go to the town hall and get a marriage certificate. After the church service, the marriage certificate was signed. We weren’t legally married until then.

      In other words, in marriage as in all government functions there is a separation of church and state. Legal marriage is conferred by the state, not the church, and the involvement of the church is not necessary OR sufficient to create a legal marriage. So we’re really talking about apples and oranges.

      • Eugene Fisher

        Keep thinking it want happen!

      • Stephen Spiker

        Chris, replying to this guy doesn’t accomplish anything. He will never respond, and it just adds distraction. Ignore him.

        • Chris

          Troll feeding is a terrible thing. I’m going cold turkey on it. Honestly.

      • Eugene Fisher

        Sure we have law but yet we have Obama care. We have obama changing laws as he see fits.

  • Eugene Fisher

    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9432/

    I’m Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage:
    “I wholeheartedly support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, but I am opposed to same-sex marriage. Because activists have made marriage, rather than civil unions, their goal, I am viewed by many as a self-loathing, traitorous gay. So be it. I prefer to think of myself as a reasoning, intellectually honest human being.

    The notion of same-sex marriage is implausible, yet political correctness has made stating the obvious a risky business. Genderless marriage is not marriage at all. It is something else entirely.

    Opposition to same-sex marriage is characterized in the media, at best, as clinging to “old-fashioned” religious beliefs and traditions, and at worst, as homophobia and hatred.”

  • Tim Donner

    It seems obvious that if one does not embrace scripture as nonnegotiable truth, to the exclusion of worldly corruption of its fundamental tenets, trying to talk anyone out of the “administrative convenience” argument is an exercise in futility in which the rights involved in marriage trump any quaint notion of responsibility, traditional marriage becomes disposable, divorce becomes unremarkable and the demand that society affirm and applaud alternative arrangements is front and center.

    • Eugene Fisher

      A+

  • Pingback: News Clips 8-7-14 « The Family Foundation

  • Leon Wilkeson

    I read Bearing Drift quite often, but have only commented three or four times.

    I am 29, married, and have no children. I am a lifelong fiscal conservative. I’m not going to spend a long time trying to turn a phrase here, so forgive my bluntness.

    My question to the author and people who clog up these message boards is: do you, as a conservative/nominal republican, ever want a small government candidate to win another meaningful election again?

    I know I do. Badly. Desperately.

    Well, I have news for you. We will NEVER win another election that involves swing voters of any form if we harp on this divisive crap. I know that all you folks think about is abortion and gay people, but there are larger issues at play. You can continue your obsession with these subjects and preach to an ever-dwindling choir, or you can get the picture and get on board. The message is small government, ending the drug war, and ensuring civil liberties. The Tea Party had it right for a hot minute, until fundamentalist zealots took it over. Had they stuck to a non-partisan small government message, it would be all over for the left in this country.

    Instead, by taking over that promising movement, people like the author of this article and the CVA/Eugene folks below have provided the rope with which we’ve hung ourselves. Now the word Tea Party means “crazy old fundamentalist white man” and people between 18 and 35 won’t have anything to do with it.

    Again, you can keep preaching to your insular choir, and giving the MSM fodder to paint those of us on the right as extremists, but you do so at the expense of our future, which by the way, isn’t going to be affected one bit by guys that like guys getting married to other guys that like guys. Thou dost protest too much Eugene.

    • Old-Timer

      Thank you. Thank you very much. Apparently, there are those who think the Republican Party is just an branch of a particular evangelical branch of Christianity.

      • Eugene Fisher

        We are strong part of the GOP if we stay home You CAN Not Will Not Win!

        • Warmac9999

          As clearly demonstrated when Romney lost.

    • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

      Agreed.

      • Eugene Fisher

        I not surprised! Ye all want a Godless Republican Party!

    • Eugene Fisher

      How did McCain meet Ronnie work out for you? Smh?

      • Eugene Fisher

        Do not forget Bob Dole! Explain their losses!

    • Antoninus

      You and the Libertarians are failing to see that the problems created by the progressive drive to destroy the institutions that underpin our society that necessitate these “social issues” are in fact driving the need for increased government to handle the fallout from their destruction. Progressives create the problem by attacking institutions which conservatives then rush to defend as a social issue, then progressives propose the solution to the problems they created as another government agency to handle the crisis, thus continuing the pattern of enlarging government. Conservatives will NEVER shrink the size of government as long as there remains the need for government agencies to deal with the social problems created by the progressive war on social institutions! Try as the Libertarians might, fiscal and social issues are sides of the same coin feeding off one another – big government! Create the social problem, demand a government agency to deal with it, raise taxes to pay for the new government agency – a truly vicious cycle of an ever increasing big government!

      Yes, making the case for conservatism on social issues is difficult, but it must be done all the same if there is ever going to be a chance to shrink government because the progressives will always be able to point to reasons why we need this government agency or that to deal with their social destruction!

      • Turtles Run

        “…..progressive drive to destroy the institutions that underpin our society that necessitate these “social issues” are in fact driving the need for increased government to handle the fallout from their destruction.”

        What in the bloody blue heck does that even mean? Exactly what institutions have progressives tried to destroy. Because to me it seems you are throwing out a meme without any specifics.

        You may disagree with the manner in which progressives/ liberals seek to strengthen this nation but do not confuse that with attacking it.

        Matt Suarez
        A heck of a nice guy

        • Antoninus

          Let’s see. Destroying marriage with no fault divorce and redefining it to include gay marriage so it ceases to have any meaning, thus undermining the basic construct of society – the family; turning the educational system into a progressive indoctrination program; restricting free speech through campus speech codes and the establishment of “free speech zones;” driving God from the public square in an attempt to persecute Christians and drive Christianity underground; debasing the culture through the hypersexualization of children in advertising and playing to the basest of sexual instincts in television programming, promotion of the secular humanist creed of doing what feels good in opposition to moral restraint; undermining the rule of law by a progressive president acting unilaterally to ignore our immigration laws; destroying the value of our currency through discredited Keynesian inflationary monetary stimulation; failing to protect the American people through the dismantling of our military and security apparatuses; destruction of property rights through aggressive federal agency rules; appeasement of terrorists through financial and military support; the promotion of victimization theology which posits that victimized groups must seize control to achieve equality; denigration of capitalism which was responsible for America going from discovery to the world’s lone superpower with the highest standard of living in world history in less than 400 years; promotion of greed, envy, and lust in Americans; etc.

          Progressives seek to strengthen this nation? All progressive know is destruction, and destruction NEVER strengthens anything! Go troll somewhere else!

          • Turtles Run

            Keep repeat that over and over again. I am sure it while drive voters to your way of ..emmmm…thinking.

            Matt Suarez
            A heck of a nice guy

          • Antoninus

            For someone who is so opposed to conservatism, you certainly spend enough time on here making an arse out of yourself. Voters are in fact returning to conservatism in droves as the progressive agenda of totalitarian control crumbles. We TEA Party conservatives have managed to strike fear into the establishment GOP leadership to the point where establishment candidates have dropped their pretense of publicly supporting the progressive Democrats as if there were no consequences from the conservatives base of the party. They have learned that talking the talk is not enough to keep them in office as conservatives candidates continue to challenge them and win. Even when TEA Party candidates lose, the TEA Party wins because the establishment candidate is forced to be more conservative.

            And now we conservatives are on the brink of delivering a devastating blow to progressives by retaking the Senate in numbers unimaginable only a few months ago. President Obama continues to lose support as his popularity sinks to the point where Democrats want nothing to do with him on the campaign trail. His presidency mired in scandals, his popularity evaporated, and his economic policies continuing to prevent recovery, his is ignored both at home and on the world stage as a diffident poser more interested in the perks of office than the responsibility.

            You keep defending that loser with your smarmy tagline, but I’m not buying the snake oil you’re selling!

          • Turtles Run

            I oppose only ignorance. I have no issue with those that are conservatives but that name seems to have been currently hijacked by the far right neo-confederates.

          • Turtles Run

            “…..but I’m not buying the snake oil you’re selling!”

            Oh come on, I will make you a great deal!!!

        • Warmac9999

          The welfare state has effectively destroyed the black family. The progressives did this. The work ethic has effectively been destroyed by progressives who claim that entitlements are reparations for past grievances.

          D’Souza adequately describes it the mindset of the progressive – I summarize. Those who create wealth are thieves. Those who are using welfare are victims of thievery. The government must take the ill gotten gains from the thieves and give it to victims. Eventually, the government that robs wealthy Paul to compensate the unwilling to work Peter, will be guaranteed the vote of Peter – until the wealth runs out and all become subservient to the State.

          One might also refer to the Road to Serfdom as we merrily advance along the current path.

    • Eugene Fisher

      How that work out for the blue dog Democratic?

    • kelley

      wow. thanks for your comment. i agree. youngsters (& some in urban areas) are particularly turned off by the Party’s meddling in private lives. we need youngsters & we need urban areas.

    • Warmac9999

      It is the media that redefined the Tea Party not the members. The fundamental issues have been and continue to be limited constitutional government and fiscal responsibility. As a Tea Party conservative, I don’t remember ever hearing a word about abortion or gay marriage other than the self-evident fact that they are a clear example of government over reach into the social space. You have allowed the propaganda of the left to distort your viewpoint.

      • kelley

        you are right. when the govt tells a woman if/when she can seek an abortion; & tells gays if/when they can get married, then the govt has overreached.

        • Warmac9999

          The government has no business in either – neither through support or opposition. Yet both have been subjects of legislation and adjudication, and both have consumed the resources of the American tax paying citizen.

  • Eugene Fisher

    What is the differents between a Democrat and and a amorel fiscal conservative?

    • Guest

      Nothing!

      • Leon Wilkeson

        Eugene, it is rather silly to have a “Guest” account, so that you can back up your original 6 or 7 word posts with 1-word affirmations. I just looked at the posting history for “Guest” and surprisingly, he is your biggest (only) fan. I realize that the internet has degraded civil discourse, but if you are anything close to the same person in real life that you are on this message board, then I don’t think you’re getting a lot of invitations to social gatherings. Perhaps you could try to limit your input to posts that offer something constructive to that respective topic. That way, Bearing Drift can continue to be a source of interesting and thought provoking dialogue between conservative adults.

  • John E. McGlothlin

    Wrong and illegal are not the same thing, and we need more than religious disapproval (however heartfelt) to justify a legal bar on something.

    I see one cogent, secular argument made against gay marriage – that it harms children by depriving them of the mother/father they deserve. This is fundamentally flawed, as marriage does not mandate children. If gay parents are inherently worse, then that’s an issue for adoption/surrogacy laws. And while I have the utmost respect for the genuine conviction of those whose religious beliefs limit marriage to being between a man and woman, I cannot endorse the idea that government should be empowered to force a religious belief on the nation as a whole. The “great barrier” spoken of by James Madison, author of the First Amendment, must remain standing.

    The child argument also fails because the evidence gay parents are worse is virtually non-existent. I have no horse in this race; if gay parents were shown to be the source of problems for children, then I would absolutely endorse whatever limitations were appropriate given the problems. But the Heritage “research” is quite frankly embarrassing – they just assume nobody will actually read the studies they cite. (Oops. The Child Trends study they centrally quote as saying biological parents are superior was comparing them to *step-parents*, not gay parents. The survey was done in 2002, when gay parents weren’t even identified in surveys, meaning they couldn’t have made a conclusion about gay parents even if they wanted to. There is now a giant disclaimer on the study thanks to Heritage’s bald-faced misuse of it. The next survey is from 2003 and, as the title clearly indicates, compares “Adolescent Well-Being in Cohabiting, Married, and Single-Parent Families” – none of which involved gay people, as there is zero mention of sexuality in the entire piece. Heritage is basically taking studies comparing Fords and Chevys and using them as “evidence” that we should ban Mazdas.

    Another survey cited multiple times (NFSS) clearly states that it covers children “raised by a gay or lesbian parent as little as 15 years ago [who] were usually conceived within a heterosexual marriage, which then underwent divorce or separation, leaving the child with a single parent.” Which is obviously not the kind of parental situation a recognized gay marriage would represent – in fact, banning gay marriage encourages that kind of scenario. On and on and on. The Heritage piece is like an old west movie set – that’s not a saloon; that’s just the facade of one. Push on it a bit and it collapses in a cloud of dust.

    When it comes to secular reasons to ban gay marriage, there’s still no there there.

  • Jay Hughes

    Wow….Mr. Fisher really seems to know his way around the NAMBLA website….he certainly likes posting their propaganda….over and over and over again….gives him an excuse to keep visiting their website….he can even find their little booklets on the internet…..looking forward to seeing you on the news one day, Mr. Fisher.

    • Turtles Run

      His wedding picture below was pretty disturbing as well.

  • ContrarianView

    Why does government have any role in marriage at all? Because it has legislated or regulated advantageous tax treatment (income and inheritance) and mandated benefits for married couples that are not available to unmarried ones. If we get rid of the (frankly unconstitutional) unequal treatment, then there would be no “state interest” in marriage whatsoever and the whole matter of sanctioning “gay marriage” by legislation or judicial fiat disappears.

    It’s ironic that “Progressives” who demand marriage for homosexuals also actively destroy marriage through their legislation of lucrative welfare benefits for unmarried mothers on the condition that they are unmarried.

  • Warmac9999

    It is truly sad and shameful that we even have to be addressing what marriage actually is. We are no longer a moral and religious people, therefore, our Constitution is no longer appropriate for us. Obama is the natural evolution of that which rejects life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But never worry, the State will define those things for you and the road to serfdom will no longer be a road but the essence of the modern American society. E Pluribus Statism.

    • Stephen Spiker

      Wouldn’t the State deciding what love is and is not be the “road to serfdom”?

      • ContrarianView

        Are you saying that “love” = “marriage”?

        • Stephen Spiker

          I’m saying that love is the primary modern motivation for marriage.

          • ContrarianView

            It’s also the primary modern motivation (and primitive one, too) for adultery. I don’t see what your point is relative to the article.

          • Stephen Spiker

            The point is that there’s no reason to use government to get in the way of two people being married. It doesn’t affect you, or the government. So why you care so much that you’d abandon your limited government principles to ensure gays are second-class citizens?

          • ContrarianView

            Thanks for clarifying. So, would you say that government has no role in marriage at all and we should end the requirement of civil marriage registration? Because government is necessarily involved if it assumes sole authority to recognize marriages. In that case, we would have a variety of arrangements – some church-registered, some publicly announced in some way, some merely people living together in what used to be called “common-law” marriages. In that event, do you support or oppose legislation that would force people to recognize others’ “marriages” regardless of their hetero- or homo- nature, including for example laws forcing a baker to provide a wedding cake to a homosexual couple? Would you make it a crime for a church to deny membership to homosexual couples?

      • Warmac9999

        The state should be involved with the rule of law and not such abstractions as love.

      • Pamela

        The state doesn’t decide what “love” is, the state decides what it will recognize as a legal marriage. You are free to “love” whomever you want. You are also free to have sex with any consenting adult you want.

  • David Obermark

    I agree with JR on this issue but not for the same reason alone.

    Male sex with males is a public health threat. By allowing gay marriage, society signals that there is nothing wrong with the homosexual lifestyle when facts dictate that there is.

    Male sex with males is responsible for a much larger percentage of sexually transmitted diseases (CDC statistics) then their representation in society at large should have if there were nothing wrong with the the homosexual lifestyle.

    It is not as if once gay marriage is nationally accepted all male homosexuals are going to rush out, get married and become monogamous. That did not happen up in Canada so why should we think it will here in the USA?

    What gay men are fighting for is not the right to married, because most of them will not get married even if they are allowed to. They are fighting for society to stop treating them as if they were the public health threat when in fact they are a threat.

    I can tolerate homosexuality because I am not perfect either. However I do not think society should encourage homosexuality by allowing gay marriage no more then I think society should encourage people to do some of the things I do that are imperfect (I will not go into them, but hope society will continue to tolerate them).

    • Stephen Spiker

      Shorter version: “Why can’t you just stop, you know, being gay?”

      • Turtles Run

        even shorter: icky

      • David Obermark

        The only reason I am a heterosexual is because my family that raised me and the society I grew up in encouraged me to reserve my sexual desires for girls.

        I was a horny little devil as an adolescent and I loved playing sexual games. I didn’t care which sex participated in the games I liked to play as long as they were willing. Boys were generally more willing to participate then girls.

        I was taught to be a heterosexual and I believe I was taught correctly.

    • Turtles Run

      Lets go with your premise that male with male relationships pose a health hazard because of high rates of STDs. Will not allowing them to marry somehow lower their STD rates? Obviously the answer is no. By encouraging monogamous relationship with marriage are we not actually going to lower these rates you speak of.

      Now we get into the next part of your argument. you only mention male to male, why? Is it because female to female relationships have one of the lowest if not the lowest rate of STDs. By applying your torture logic shouldn’t opposite sex marriages also be outlawed? After all their rate of STDs is much higher than female to female.

      So the whole crux of your argument is that only female to female relationships should constitute a marriage under the eyes of society.

      Matt Suarez
      A heck of a nice guy.

      • Pamela

        Since when does marriage in itself guarantee a monogamous relationship? If they are really as committed as they say they are, then they will not be out on the prowl. Doesn’t matter if the couple is gay or straight, it is not marriage that guarantees fidelity.

        • Turtles Run

          Marriage does not guarantee monogamy but it does require a certain level of commitment not found in a non-marriage partnership. That is why the government affords certain legal rights and privileges to married couples because its level of commitment means more. Current laws forbidding same sex marriage denies these rights to homosexuals and the states have been unable to provide a compelling reason to justify these laws and the second class treatment of same sex couples.

          Matt Suarez
          A heck of a nice guy

      • David Obermark

        I would suggest that your argument is not tortured, it is ridiculous. Without heterosexual sexual relations the species ceases to exist. Society should encourage sexual activity that is as safe as possible while allowing for our species to continue.

        One might argue that lesbian couples can reproduce and that is true, however their reproduction is subject to being too selective in nature for evolution. There is a hugely disproportionate demand for sperm that came from blonde haired, blue eyed donors from sperm banks.

        Furthermore, and this is only half in jest, if we encourage women to pair up while discouraging men from doing so, there will not be enough women left to go around. Too many women will choose another woman as a mate because then they would not have to put up with us men.

  • Pingback: Healthy Memphis: Sexually transmitted disease can affect anyone, so get tested … | Herpes Survival Kit