Dis-Pence

Indiana Rep. Mike Pence is rumored to be the front-runner for minority leader. Pence seems to be a traditional small-government conservative; for example, he recognizes that the Constitution says nothing about a federal Department of Education. Unfortunately, the more I read on Pence’s website, the more I’m disappointed. He supports defining marriage, builds his Israel position on his Christian faith, and is aggressively pro-life.

He is trying to position himself as the standard bearer for Reagan conservatism. According to Joanne Keenen for Reuters, "The Indiana Republican, a major voice of the conservative wing in the House who is seeking a leadership position in his party, described himself as dedicated to providing 'a credible and persuasive voice for the Reagan agenda.'"

This is not the traditional conservative who will lead Republican in a new direction. This is just more of the same; pandering to the cultural conservatives who want government to impose their morality for our own good.

We have to do better. We must do something different.

Posted by Michael Smith at November 10, 2006 3:17 PM
Comments
Comment #194492

“sponsoring the Federal Marriage Amendment (H.J. Res. 56), a bill that would define marriage in the Constitution and protect it from being radically redefined by activist judges who overstep their constitutional boundaries.

This bill will hold unelected judges to account and prevent them from redefining marriage. It also allows for state voters and legislatures to determine if they wish to grant these types of unions, without imposing on the rights of other states.”

however, he does sound inordinately aggressive on the pro-life front, though.

perhaps there is hope for him yet. besides, i don’t see that there are currently many good options.

Posted by: Diogenes at November 10, 2006 3:51 PM
Comment #194494

Diogenes,

I’m surprised you fall into the “activist judge” category.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 10, 2006 3:54 PM
Comment #194499

i’m against legislating from the bench.
there are better, less controversial ways to achieve one’s goals.

roe v. wade is still pissing people off to this day. had that decision not been rendered, i have little doubt that abortions (of some form) would be legal in every state, though to varying degrees. it would not, i think, still be one of the ‘policies’ we are debating on the national stage.

i’m for allowing the voters in a given state to make such decisions for their state. this allows them a chance to get what they want without forcing what they want on everyone else. many times, they will find that what they wanted is not what they needed. live and learn.

Posted by: Diogenes at November 10, 2006 4:09 PM
Comment #194501

Michael you are right, just more of the same nonsense from the repubs. These types use Reagan’s name inside of the repub party because the repubs fall to their knees in worship when the name Reagan is invoked, but,they are not small government types at all, course neither was Reagan. “Small government” is a term used to gather votes from the uninformed who actually beleive these guys will make the federal government smaller.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 10, 2006 4:13 PM
Comment #194503

for example, see South Dakota

Posted by: Diogenes at November 10, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #194509

I support the meaning of marriage as it has been for all of recorded history. However, since there are some extremists who wish to RE-define marriage as something other than what it has meant for over 4,000 years, I also support the effort to DEFINE marriage. (Some have chosen to re-define marriage for themselves in the past, but those involved in those exceptions have never before tried to RE-define marriage for everybody else.)

What is also important about the extremist RE-definition attempt is what it will do to the cost of OUR health insurance premiums. Many businesses will be forced to eliminate medical insurance for their workers. It is estimated by some that private health-care plans (such as I purchase) will increase their premiums by as much as 25-45%. That will price many people out of medical insurance. That doesn’t sound fair, especially at a time when so many right and left wingers are complaining about the number of uninsured and underinsured in America.

So, what is wrong with supporting a traditional definition of marriage? It is the right time and the right thing to do for a host of good reasons. Anyone who cannot see the value of this should not be running for President.

Posted by: Don at November 10, 2006 5:08 PM
Comment #194510

Keep in mind that Pence is a conservative, AND he does represent a very large group of people in the US. The Republicans certainly lost in this election, but the overall numbers were not of landslide proportion. Conservatives on the otherhand, faired OK under the circumstances. In fact, a lot of the house dems elected and a few senators were actually MORE conservative then their Republican candidates. The liberal side of the republican party took a thrashing. the bulk of the survivors are conservative.

Posted by: Cliff at November 10, 2006 5:18 PM
Comment #194511

i strongly disagree.

the constitution is for defining the laws we live by, the rights we are guaranteed, and the powers vested in the state and federal governments… not for defining (or redefining) the voluntary social institutions we enter into. anyone who cannot see the sanctity of our most treasured constitution should not be allowed to run for anything.

Posted by: Diogenes at November 10, 2006 5:26 PM
Comment #194512

sorry for any confusion.

my last post was intended for don.

cliff… i agree with much of your post.

Posted by: Diogenes at November 10, 2006 5:30 PM
Comment #194514

Honestly, after what’s been revealed lately about so many of these rightwing Christian “moral” engineers, I’d think folks on the right would now be inclined to kick into immediate hypocrite-alert mode every time they’re faced with such rhetoric.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 10, 2006 5:58 PM
Comment #194516

indeed.

at this point, my hypocrite-alert mode has become a normal operating procedure.

moral engineers are for churches, not political offices.

Posted by: Diogenes at November 10, 2006 6:05 PM
Comment #194520

Diogenes,

I meant I was surprised that you bought into the neocon smoke screen of “activist judges” The job of judges is to interpret the law as it applies to cases, applying precedence and case law. When people start to shout “Activism!” its been almost exclusively just because they don’t like the result. The Kelo eminent domain case is a perfect example. The decision followed case law, to rule otherwise would have been activism.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 10, 2006 6:39 PM
Comment #194528

Don,

Strictly speaking, you can define marriage, baptism, or bar mitzvah any way you or your religions sees fit. But the legal partnership rights of any two adults, committed to long term economic codependency, should be equal for same-sex couples and traditional couples. To do anything otherwise is to legislate in a manner “recognizing an establishment of religion,” and is therefore unconstitutional. The so-called activist judges are simply interpreting the Constitution correctly as cases come before the courts.

I’m not counting on the votes of anyone who cannot see the value of the 1st amendment or the remainder of the Constitution, but I’d preserve, protect, and defend your right to disagree.

Posted by: Michael Smith at November 10, 2006 7:34 PM
Comment #194536

Strictly speaking, you can define marriage, baptism, or bar mitzvah any way you or your religions sees fit. But the legal partnership rights of any two adults, committed to long term economic codependency, should be equal for same-sex couples and traditional couples. To do anything otherwise is to legislate in a manner “recognizing an establishment of religion,” and is therefore unconstitutional.
Posted by: Michael Smith at November 10, 2006 07:34 PM

As you must surely know Michael, marriage is a legal institution as well as a religious one. It is a legal one because marriage brings many benefits to society, not least in imparting stong moral values and good citizenship to children. Of course that is the ideal, and as we all know, there are many children who do not take such values from their dysfunctional families. But the family is the basic unit of society and such is the place where the primary education of children takes place. It is the place where children often, if not usually, find their initial role models, both as boys and girls, in their parents.

There are many same sex couples, or even mixed sex couples who live in loving and codependant partnerships who are heterosexual but not sexually involved together. Take brothers or sisters living together for example, or even close friends who never married other people. If homosexual couples were to be given whatever tax benefits may be available to married couples, then surely such heterosexual couples should gain the same benefits? I think that most people would have little difficulty is seeing certain rights being granted to couples living together in loving relationship, for example being treated as next of kin in situations of illness and hospitalisation. Perhaps even in matters of inheritance and pension /healthcare rights. But it does not require the legal protection and recognition of marriage to be extended to these relationships to extend such rights to them.

I believe that the agenda behind the demand for same sex marriage is more about bringing about a situation where children are introduced into such a relationship, either thro’ surrogacy, sperm or egg donations, and to have this situation accepted as normal and unremarkable. The trouble is that we don’t know whether this situation is in fact of equal value to any children arising from such a relationship.

In my country and in the UK, many years ago, policy decisions were made to provide for payments to be made to single mothers to provide a modest income for them to raise their child. Well guess what happened? The number of children being raised by single mothers shot up and the rate of juvy delinquency shot up in tandem. The percentage of children born outside of marriage to single mothers has grown alarmingly, often to very young women without the skills or education or character to raise a child. What we have seen is the rise of the feral generation, roaming the streets and mixing with the wrong company. I believe this was and may still be the situation in the US. I remember being told when I was very young, that you get the behaviour that you reward. How true this is. By trying to be compassionate to “girls in trouble”, we have created a massive social problem.

Now as I understand it, there is little compelling data on either side as to how kids do in same sex families. Will they do as well as the more traditional family kids? We don’t know. But children are not resources to be used to conduct a social experiment in order to give “rights” to others. We speak a lot of rights today, no less in my country, which I think is trying to outpace the US for litigiousness. We don’t seem to hear as much about responsibility. Now, it makes me feel a little uncomfortable to say these things, because I feel that they make me seem old! And I’m not! What I’m saying is that we mess with such social order as we have at our peril. I have no beef with homosexuals and I believe that they have the same right as anyone else to be treated with the respect they earn and deserve as individuals. But social engineering is a potentially very dangerous road which I suggest should not be embarked upon without strong evidence of where it leads. After all, if you set out to build a road in reality, you would first have to know where exactly it was going to lead to.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 10, 2006 9:12 PM
Comment #194539

After all, if you set out to build a road in reality, you would first have to know where exactly it was going to lead to.Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 10, 2006 09:12 PM

Not possible Paul, humans are too complex. What we need to do is PDCA: Plan, Do, Check, Act. In other words; Figure out what to do, do it, measure how well we did, fix what went wrong or start the cycle again — continuously improve. People, technology, the environment change, society evolves. What was right 100 years ago might not be right today. That is why I am a liberal “progressive”. Grow or Die is true for societyas well business and people.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at November 10, 2006 9:42 PM
Comment #194540

Diogenes -
“the constitution is for defining the laws we live by,…”

I agree wholeheartedly! The problem is that there is a kooky group which is attempting to RE-define marriage for their own purposes. That they wish to call their relationships “marriage” is none of my concern. Who cares! But that they wish to impose their “morality” upon the rest of society is not acceptable. If it wasn’t for their activism I would have no interest in placing the definition of marriage in our constitution.


Michael Smith -
“But the legal partnership rights of any two adults, committed to long term economic codependency, should be equal for same-sex couples and traditional couples.”

There haven’t been equal partnership rights before. Are they rights? Not according to our country’s bill of rights. If you want rights for same-sex partners there are several ways to accomplish those “rights” without marriage. So, I don’t see your point.

“To do anything otherwise is to legislate in a manner “recognizing an establishment of religion,” and is therefore unconstitutional.”

What does religion have to do with this? Nothing. There are moral and social patterns stretching back thousands of years that must be considered. The only accepted moral and social concept for marriage for all of known history has been one man, one woman. What is unconstitutional about that? Fact is, our constitution was based upon accepted historical moral and social concepts. To allow any other definition of marriage than the one that has stood for 4000 years is to trample on and suspend our constitution. In other words, it is unconstitutional to proclaim that marriage in America is anything other than one man, one woman. You need to re-think your position.

Posted by: Don at November 10, 2006 9:44 PM
Comment #194542

Diogenes,

I agree that we do not need a new definition of marriage, but for a totally different reason.

Defining marriage does nothing more than insert government even further into our everyday lives. We do not need government inserting itself any further in our lives.

Less government…better quality of life.

Posted by: Jim T at November 10, 2006 9:56 PM
Comment #194544

Dave1-20-2009, I disagree. In fact you are perfectly right when you speak of PDCA, at least in general terms. This is after all, how we make mistakes, learn and correct our errors. But precisely because human beings are complex, we need to be very careful about change. It’s a bit like letting the genie out of the bottle. Once he’s out, he can be very difficult to get back in. And when it comes to social engineering, changes once made, cannot easily be unmade. As for being a liberal progressive? Well I think I’m pretty liberal and progressive. But all to often using such terms formally is really just putting labels on ourselves. And again, as you say, humans are too complex, and that’s why I find it difficult to wear such labels too tightly, as I all too often burst them at the seams.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 10, 2006 10:07 PM
Comment #194557

Dave
What was right and wrong 100 years ago is right or wrong today. What was socially acceptable 100 years ago is different from what is socially acceptable today. Society does not make laws. The only logical source for any (acceptable) universal moral code is a divine authority.

Michael
The basis for a heterosexual definition of marriage is not strictly Christian. It has been defined practice throughout the world about as long as recorded history. Only now that very few outside religious circles defend this definition is it being regarded as a religious idea. Until very recently is was seen as well, normal. The gay rights movement is a very recent phenomenon.

Posted by: Silima at November 11, 2006 12:32 AM
Comment #194575

This whole moral issue war between the left and the right, in my view boils down to this:

No one on the Left is going to tell you what you should do with YOUR unborn. That is the difference between the left and the right. The right believes they somehow have ownership rights in the left’s embryos and unborn. Slavery and ownership of other people and their unborn died in this country with the passage of Civil Rights legislation. Quit trying to revive it.

The same applies for marriage, pledge of alleigance, flag burning etc. The Left doesn’t seek to prevent the right from birthing as many children as they wish, or from saying the pledge of alleigance how they wish, or silently praying to their god at state sponsored events, or vocally in their homes or places of worship or on street corners for that matter. The left doesn’t seek to dictate to the right how they must treat their American flags. But, the right does seek to dictate all these and more to those on the left.

Liberty does not come from the dictates of others. It comes from the exercise of free choice. And as long as that free choice doesn’t impinge upon the freedom of choice of others, such liberty Must be preserved if America is to remain the land of the free.

As I see it, moral conservatives seek intently to restrict and limit liberty in this country. Those on the left tend to defend it for all, on the right and left. That is why, on social issues, I lean left, despite my ardent right leanings fiscal responsibility.

The hypocrisy of the right is so self evident when they speak of limited government on the one hand, while trying to extend the reach of government into the personal lives and choices of citizens with the other hand. Libertarians have it right on these issues as far as I can see.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 11, 2006 3:14 AM
Comment #194580

Silima-

“The only logical source for any (acceptable) universal moral code is a divine authority.”

Please tell me the irony in this comment was intentionally injected.

Don-

“To allow any other definition of marriage than the one that has stood for 4000 years is to trample on and suspend our constitution.”

Hmmm…what exactly is this mysterious definition of marriage you speak of? The US is less than 250 years old, right? Are you talking about the Native American definition of marriage? Some other culture’s definition of marriage? You speak as if this “definition” of marriage is conventional wisdom. How come I’m unclear as to what it is?

…furthermore, the folks on one side are not fighting to redefine anything, they are pursuing rights which honestly do not affect nor hinder the lives of those around them. It is the folks on the other side which are all hyped up to do some “redefining”.

hummph…bloody activists!

Posted by: beijing rob at November 11, 2006 4:58 AM
Comment #194584

You are right the last thing we need is a guy with high standards and personal integrity. Add to this intelligence,a willingness to vote like he told his constituents that he would and you have a real problem.A guy like this might even expect that his party should fulfill promises made.A strong leader who has the ability to communicate with the voters,who needs him?

Posted by: Brian at November 11, 2006 8:53 AM
Comment #194593

Michael,
Castle gets it, Barton doesnt, as is the case with most of the repub leaders.
Brian, the problem with most leaders, especially those of the far right, is that they “talk the talk but dont walk the walk”.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 11, 2006 11:35 AM
Comment #194598

My Name Is Roger

MICHAEL:

Michael what you call nagative, I consider positive.

In fact… if what you say is true, it looks like he is………………………………………

A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN REPUBLICAN

Roger A Conservative Christian Republican

Posted by: ROGER at November 11, 2006 12:02 PM
Comment #194601

yet again,

federalism. laboratories of democracy. allowing the people of a state to define (or redefine) marriage as they wish will pose no threat to those in other states. if it works, and is popular, others will adopt it. if it doesn’t, we will all know soon enough, and those who uphold the faulty policy will do so at their own peril.

we do not need a constitutional amendment of any sort in order to do so. our great constitution already allows this of us. many states have already done so… and life goes on. this is not a political issue but a social one, and as such, should not be part of the national political debate. certainly not when we face so many real and imminent threats.

roger; mixing religion and politics sullies both.

Posted by: Diogenes at November 11, 2006 12:14 PM
Comment #194602

What is an activist judge? Are liberal judges activists and Conservative judges are not? Or is an activist judge those that rule against your views?

In my view, the 2000 election and Supreme court ruling handing the election to GWB was judical activism at its worst. But if you wanted Bush to win, I am sure you do not see it that way.

Posted by: Stefano at November 11, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #194611

BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE… Never mind

Posted by: Jeff at November 11, 2006 12:54 PM
Comment #194612

I’m not arguing there’s no audience for the conservative-Christian-social-prude-morality-through-government type of Republican. They can hold the minority for a good long time, no problem.

I’m just arguing that it will never gain Republicans the majority again, and it’s hypocritical to their professed philosophy. Republicans profess individual accountability. That implies accountability to one’s own conscience, not accountability to Father Government. Republicans profess personal liberty, yet work to infringe based on their self-righteous morality.

Pence and his brand of Republicans have grown government by leaps and bounds, they have trampled civil liberties, and they have freely imposed their morality by protecting us from internet gambling and interfering with the treatment of coma patients.

Republicans need to return to the conservatism of restraint in government. Barry Goldwater had it right; “There is no place in this country for practicing religion in politics. That goes for Falwell, Robertson and all the rest of these political preachers. They are a detriment to the country.

No one will ever come to your door and force you into a gay marriage, give you an unwanted abortion, gamble your paycheck in Aruba, force you to speak Spanish, or make you read the Koran. Republicans who “protect” us from such things are simply imposing their “morality” on others. The founding fathers rejected the religious, social, and cultural restrictions of the theocratic monarchies of Europe, and voters on Tuesday rejected the theocratic vision of Christian Conservatives.

Posted by: Michael Smith at November 11, 2006 12:56 PM
Comment #194621

David Remer, very well said.

Michael Smith, I can’t tell you how nice it is to see a Republican quoting Goldwater for a change! I might be a liberal, but I can certainly appreciate the vast difference between a real conservative, and a Neocon.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 11, 2006 2:04 PM
Comment #194644

bejing -

Since you couldn’t be bothered with reading this tread from the beginning you don’t understand. I make it clear in an earlier post.

Posted by: Don at November 11, 2006 5:13 PM
Comment #194652

Don,
In comment 194509 you state health insurance premiums would rise by 25-45 percent should marriage be redefined. Where do you get these figures?
Why would it be such a dramatic rise? certainly there is not that many homosexuals waiting to get married is there?
Sound a lot like someone is exaggerating a bit.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 11, 2006 7:17 PM
Comment #194659

My Name Is Roger

MICHAEL SMITH:

Your comment about the rejection of Monarciies of Europe is correct, but not the rejecetion of the Religious values of Christianity.

In fact…. most…. if not all of our founding fathers were what we would call [religious men], thought they may have different views concerning there theoloigy.

If they were alive now, they would in no way support what you are trying to do, under the false pretence of being conservative.

If fact, I am sure they would be proud to call themselves conservative Christians.

I am sure that they would do all they could to support the movement against same sex marriage.

I am sure that they would do all they could to stop the murdering of unborn babies.

I am sure that they would do all they could to support the movement for morality in America.

I am sure they would do it by by useing the Government Of The United States Of American.

And they would do it by passing laws to suport their Conservative Christian Valiues.

I have often wondered why it is that the liberals seem to like you, now I know.

Like that other guy said before [I think his name was Charles or Chirlie], you are a liberal…….

trying to pass yourself of as a conservative.

DON: I what to thank you for your comment about the supporting of the meaning of marrage at it has been been for all of recorded history.

MICHAEL: God said “go forth and be fruitful and multiply”. HOW CAN TWO MEN BE FRUITFUL AND HOW CAN TWO WOMEN BE FRUITFUL. They can have their preverted form of sex everyday of the week and they will never produce children.

MICHAEL: how can you call yourself conservative and suport a lifestyle that is perverted?

Roger A Conservative Christian Republican

Posted by: ROGER at November 11, 2006 9:00 PM
Comment #194667

I have yet to hear a reasoned argument against gay marriage. There is nothing wrong with being gay, it is not a psychological defect or a medical condition, there is no law against being gay. Gay are citizens and taxpayers. Although there is no precedent for the legal status of gay marriage I think if they are two consenting adults who would have a problem?
I have not heard anyone suggest that gay people should have to pay taxes to help support the community. Are they supposed to just fork over their tax dollars and shut up if they are discriminated against?
Also re: courts that “legislate from the bench”. Does that mean that decisions like Brown vs. the Kansas Board of Education overreach, ( a ruling that unquestionably overturns 60 years of precedent dating from Plessy vs. Fergusen, insisting that state law establishing separate but equal is unconstitutional) Who could possibly argue the merits of segregation and yet, absent this “legislation”, what reasonable person could argue that there would not be today still governments that segregate through their laws?

Posted by: charles Ross at November 11, 2006 10:20 PM
Comment #194680

What is this re-definition of marriage? I have not seen or heard any one proposing a re-definition of marriage. I have only heard arguments that gays should be treated equally and be allowed to enjoy the benefits that are afforded to their heterosexual counterparts. What is this new definition? That more people will be able to participate in a public institution? An institution that is supported by tax dollars? Tax dollars payed equally by gays as well as straights? Why should gays have to pay tax dollars to support a public institution that is not open to them? I think gays should not have to pay taxes to a government that insists on discriminating against them. I wonder how many gays would suddenly come out of the closet if they didn’t have to pay taxes anymore?

Roger,

Please stop trying to re-write history. The notion that the founders of this country were religious rightwing nutjob Christians is nonsense and is obvious to anyone who has done even a passing study of our founders.

The Constitution protects ALL the citizens of the United States, not just straights or whites or Christians. The only place that the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government the authority to discriminate against it’s citizens is in the case of who may become President. Nowhere does it state that gays may not enjoy the same rights and priveleges as straights. In fact it says just the opposite:

Article. IV, Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Nothing about being gay or straight there. Just citizenship.

AMENDMENT XIV, Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Nope, nothing about being gay or straight there either.

To all you who are crying judicial activism the Constitution gives broad power to the judicial branch:

Article III. Section. 2.,

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

Sometimes I think all this judicial bally whoo is just a case that Conservatives cannot handle that the Constitution is a fairly liberal document.

Posted by: JayJay at November 11, 2006 11:17 PM
Comment #194683

Roger A Conservative Christian Republican,

How does what you believe your hatefilled God thinks pertain to anyone else in this country. If what you write is what you believe then that is your business, but why do you and others of your sort think it is ok to foist your horrible God on the rest of us?

JayJay A Liberal Gnostic Libertarian

Posted by: JayJay at November 11, 2006 11:26 PM
Comment #194688

Roger, Why do you feel the need to subject all other Americans to your religious beliefs through the force of law, Is this what Jesus would do?

Posted by: j2t2 at November 11, 2006 11:57 PM
Comment #194716

Diogenes, you forgot that our U.S. Constitution also sets out to protect the rights of minorities from being overrun by majorities. It is called the Bill of Rights. Our U.S. Senate is also designed for this express purpose, to prevent the majority of the People’s House of Representatives from denying representation and consideration of the interests of minorities in smaller populated states.

So, it is highly debatable when one makes the claim that the will of the majority should prevail simply because it is a majority which holds it.

In addition, the majority in this country oppose bigamy. Yet, our Constitution protects the right of Mormons to practice bigamy.

Conservatives of the libertarian bent, largely acknowledge, and rightfully, I think, that this issue of civil unions should be a state issue. And the benefits and entitlements of a state’s rule that civil unions shall be legal, should only reach to that state’s borders in terms of residency. In other words, if a couple in a legally recognized civil union in one state, move to another state not having civil unions, the rights and entitlements of the civil union in their previous state do not follow them into a state no endorsing civil unions.

It is not a perfect solution, but then, there isn’t one in the first place. But, it is a solution which respects minorities while preserving choice and pursuit of happiness for those on both sides of this issue.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 12, 2006 5:02 AM
Comment #194749
And the benefits and entitlements of a state’s rule that civil unions shall be legal, should only reach to that state’s borders in terms of residency. In other words, if a couple in a legally recognized civil union in one state, move to another state not having civil unions, the rights and entitlements of the civil union in their previous state do not follow them into a state no endorsing civil unions.

David,

Except, as a Libertarian, the U.S. Constitution really does not allow such a situation. The purpose of the DOMA was to work around Article. IV., Section. 1. which states:

“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”

The DOMA provides that the effect of same-sex unions in one state on the other states is nothing. Now whether that is constitutional or not is arguable. The Constitution says that Congress can decide the effect, but it doesn’t state that their shall be no effect. And even if there is no effect they still must provide a way that they shall be proved, which means that same-sex unions must be recognized.

Posted by: JayJay at November 12, 2006 2:30 PM
Comment #194755

JayJay, I don’t see that as insurmountable. We make exceptions for all kinds of differences between states from voting practices to legal marriage age laws.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 12, 2006 3:50 PM
Comment #194764

My Name Is Roger:

For those who have responded to my comments, I have few questions……………………….

Do you really believe it is okay to murder unborn babies?

Do you really believe that it is okay for men and women to have a perverted sex relationships?

Do you really believe that it is okay for a man to marry a man, and that it is okay for a woman to marry a woman?

Do you really believe that it is okay for our country to become more and more immoral?

If you do, then I pray that God will open your heart to the truth of His Word.

If you do not believe that these things are okay, how do you think we should go about changing what is going on?

If I remember right…. these things were all considered illegal untill just recently…. when new laws were made in support of these things which have always been considered wrong, and immoral.

So if in the past… it was illegal, why not make them illegal now?

Roger A Conservative Christian Rupublican

Posted by: ROGER at November 12, 2006 5:32 PM
Comment #194767

JayJay

Hate filled God? You are a simpleton obviously completely uneducated in the way of the Christian faith and the message of the Bible. Even a “non believer” who has a micro-scopic understanding of the various world’s religions would understand that. The Christian faith is based on the message of love and forgiveness.

Someone said somehow a right to life relates to slavery? How ironic!! A woman chooses to engage in behavior to fertilize an egg which SHE OWNS! She is the slave master! Republicans under the tradition of Lincoln are trying to free the slaves and let ALL be free.

J2t2 - Why do we have laws to “enforce our morals”? Are you in elementary school? Duhhhhhh, all laws are based on some moral standard. Why have any laws? After all, they are all somewhat religion based (thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill). Everyone fend for themselves.

I’m all for gay marriage by the way. Lib men and lib women marrying each other. Raising wretched children who engage in the same behavior. Birth rates among those plummet - they die off earlier than the rest because of their behavior. The “right” is right and the battle is long … very long (generations) and we are built to eventually carry the day through healthy behavior, growing families, etc.

WE WILL PREVAIL - and the world will be a better place.

Posted by: echop8triot at November 12, 2006 5:43 PM
Comment #194770

j2t2 -
“certainly there is not that many homosexuals waiting to get married is there?”

Figures based upon not just homosexual unions, includes all the other types of relationships that will have to be allowed once homosexual unions are allowed (let your imagination roam).

Posted by: Don at November 12, 2006 6:06 PM
Comment #194774

J2t2, Jayjay

Genesis 2:24
“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh,” The message is simple. One man and one woman. The marriage amendment is not to redefine marriage it is to define marriage as an institution. It is not a “right” to get married. The purpose of the amendment across the country in various states is so that judges cannot touch it. The judges have twisted laws that are not amendments to the vrious constitutions and made them what their agenda dictates. The ACLU has already begun to set the agenda for their attempt to legalize polygamy. From there they will move to non-humeans, such as bestiality.

Philippinans 2:9-11
“Therefore GOD also has highly exlated Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on erth, and those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess the Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of GOD the father.”

That is enough for any person to stop and think about the Supreme ruler of the universe and what he expects from us.

Posted by: tomh at November 12, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #194775

Charles Ross
There at one time was a law against sodomy. The courts have pretty much done away with that. It is still wrong to sodomize someone. Homosexuality is all about sex. If the homosexual was not having sex with his own kind, then it would be frienship between persons. Since the sexuality part is the difference, it is quite apparent that homosexuality is immoral and according to biblical teaching is wrong.

Posted by: tomh at November 12, 2006 6:31 PM
Comment #194776

echop8triot,

I’m a simpleton? I am uneducated about the Bible? Have you ever read the Old Testement? You think the god, Jehovah, described in the OT was a loving and forgiving god? Do you think Jehovah is against killing innocent children? The OT tells otherwise.

Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. Hosea 13:16

What did those innocent children and unborn babies do to deserve to be ripped to pieces? Doesn’t sound too loving to me.

Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.

Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished. Isaiah 13:15-16

Wow, that does sound like a loving god! Not.

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. Psalm 137:9

I think I’m going to puke.

These are just a few of the horrors this “loving” god of the OT unleased on the innocents. He even condoned rape!

And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:

But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. Deuteronomy 20

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Now there is a good moral lesson to teach children, it’s ok to rape a woman as long as you plan to marry her.

Posted by: JayJay at November 12, 2006 6:57 PM
Comment #194777
The message is simple. One man and one woman.

tomh,

If that is the simple message there, then what is the simple message in Genesis 29:17-28 then?

When morning came, there was Leah! So Jacob said to Laban, “What is this you have done to me? I served you for Rachel, didn’t I? Why have you deceived me?”

Laban replied, “It is not our custom here to give the younger daughter in marriage before the older one. Finish this daughter’s bridal week; then we will give you the younger one also, in return for another seven years of work.”

And Jacob did so. He finished the week with Leah, and then Laban gave him his daughter Rachel to be his wife.

One man and multiple women?

The ACLU has already begun to set the agenda for their attempt to legalize polygamy.

This one really scares the righties to death, because they cannot use their Bibles against it. God seemed to be pretty ok with this one. If you want a marriage amendment based on biblical teachings then lets propose one and do it right:

    Amendment XXVIII

    Section 1.
    Marriage shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Genesis 29:17-28)

    Section 2.
    Marriage shall not impede the man’s right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Samuel 5:13; II Chronicles 11:21)

    Section 3.
    A marriage shall be considered valid if and only if the bride was a virgin at the time of the marriage ceremony. If the wife was not a virgin, she must be put to death. (Deuteronomy 22:13)

    Section 4.
    Marriage of a believer and a nonbeliever is strictly forbidden. (Genesis 24:3)

    Section 5.
    If a married man dies and leaves no children, his brother must marry the widow. He must then impregnate her so that she might bring up children in the dead brother’s name. (Genesis 38:6-10; Deuteronomy 25:5-10)

    Section 6.
    If a man is caught forcing a virgin woman to have intercourse with him, he may pay her father and she will be his wife. She shall have no say in this matter. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

    Section 7.
    A man my kidnap a female of his choice to be his wife. (Judges 21.20-23)

    Section 8.
    A father may by contest give his daughter to the winner to be his wife. (Josh 15.16-17)

    Section 9.
    If a man dislikes his new bride and her parent’s can’t prove her virginity, she is to be stoned to death. (Dt 22.13-21)

    Section 10.
    A man may take his Aunt to be his wife.( Exodus 6:20)

Posted by: JayJay at November 12, 2006 7:25 PM
Comment #194781

JJ
And how do you propose to deal with the animals?

Wisdom is not part of your solution. Perversion reeks with the pro-homosexual group.

Posted by: tomh at November 12, 2006 7:41 PM
Comment #194782
Since the sexuality part is the difference, it is quite apparent that homosexuality is immoral and according to biblical teaching is wrong.

Yes, but rape and ripping innocent children to pieces at God’s command is the pinnacle of morality and according to biblical teachings is right.

Posted by: JayJay at November 12, 2006 7:43 PM
Comment #194784

tomh,

And how do you propose to deal with the animals?

I don’t propose to deal with it. That is your deal not mine.

Wisdom is not part of your solution. Perversion reeks with the pro-homosexual group.

Your god is not wise? Ok, agreed. I don’t even know what your last sentence means. I have heard of some pretty perverted things that heterosexuals do, though.

Posted by: JayJay at November 12, 2006 7:53 PM
Comment #194788

Christians, what ever happened to “Do unto others as you would have done unto you?” Or “Judge not lest ye be judged?”

This thread is a great example of the self-righteous, judgmental crap that the religious right frequently injects into politics. The Republican Party will not return to the majority as long as it continues to adopt rhetoric that alienates and divides.

Within a tolerant, open, and literal interpretation of the Constitution there is plenty of room for the righteous Christians to do their thing, and the rest of us to live like godless heathens if we choose. I’ll accept whatever judgment awaits in the next life, but quit telling me how to live in this one.

The government should have no role in the private relationships of consenting adults, but if they’re going to extend legal rights to conventional married couples, they owe the same to same-sex couples. God and the bible are not the sole source of morality and we should not establish a theocracy. A Christian theocracy would be no less offensive or oppressive than the Islamic theocracies that threaten world stability.

Posted by: Michael Smith at November 12, 2006 8:19 PM
Comment #194793

Roger A Conservative Christian Rupublican,

Do you really believe it is okay to murder unborn babies?

No I don’t, but Jehovah doesn’t seem to have any problem with it.

Do you really believe that it is okay for men and women to have a perverted sex relationships?

Hey, what kind of perverted sex heterosexuals have behind closed doors is none of my bussiness. I just wish they would stop telling me about it.

Do you really believe that it is okay for a man to marry a man, and that it is okay for a woman to marry a woman?

Absolutely. I really do.

Do you really believe that it is okay for our country to become more and more immoral?

Based on whose morality? Jehovah’s? Hell no.

If you do, then I pray that God will open your heart to the truth of His Word.

No thanks, the Father has already opened my heart to his true word and the true identity of the god of this world.

The god of this aion has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 2 Corinthians 4:4
We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. John 5:19

JayJay A Liberal Gnostic Libertarian

Posted by: JayJay at November 12, 2006 8:33 PM
Comment #194796

My Name Is Roger:

JayJay: What I believe comes from the Bible.

QUESTION: Who do you believe is the true god of this world?

QUESTION: How long have you been a Gonstic?

QUESTION: As I said, I base my believes on the Bible, from where do the Gnostics get their religious believes?

QUESTION: How did you come to understand the teaching of the Gonstics?

QUESTION: If I wanted to leard the teaching of the Gnostics, were could I get this information?

P.S. Even though I disgree with some of you comments, I do read them to see what you have to say. And I believe that somewhere sometime someone who was a Christian has done something to you, that has turned you against the God of the Bible.

I cannot do anything about that, and I don’t have an answer for your anger toward God…. except He does love you, and He sent His Son to die for you, and if that is not love…. then I don’t know what love is. Yours In Christ Roger.

Posted by: ROGER at November 12, 2006 9:10 PM
Comment #194801
Who do you believe is the true god of this world?

Roger,

The god of this world is Jehovah/Satan.

If you want to know who the true Father is, read 1 John 4:8:

  • The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

The Bible even tells us what love is in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8, therefore we can conclude that the true God is:

    God is patient, God is kind and is not jealous; God does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; God does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. God never fails.

How does the god Jehovah described in the OT as a Jealous, ego maniac who is easily provoked and holds third and fourth generations accountable for the wrongs of thier fathers, jive with the God who is Love of the NT?

  • There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. 1 John 4:18

Again if God is Love then we should not fear God, yet we are told over and over again to fear Jehovah in the OT.

How long have you been a Gonstic?

5 years.

As I said, I base my believes on the Bible, from where do the Gnostics get their religious believes?
The true Father wrote the truth on our hearts (2 Corinthians 3), we also find the truth in the Bible, as well as the Gnostic Scriptures but most importantly through life experiance with the help of the Holy Spirit, for the letter kills, the spirit gives life. We all carry the spark of God within. Gnostics believe that we can find God by looking within:
  • Jesus said, “If your leaders say to you, ‘Look, the Father’s kingdom is in the sky,’ then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, ‘It is in the sea,’ then the fish will precede you. Rather, the Father’s kingdom is within you and it is outside you.

    When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty.” The Gospel of Thomas

How did you come to understand the teaching of the Gonstics?
  • Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Matthew 7

Only by handing the problem to God and having complete faith that he would guide me to the solution. Remember, God never fails.

If I wanted to leard the teaching of the Gnostics, were could I get this information?

You could read the Gnostic scriptures of the Nag Hammadi library. But real understanding of the Gnostic gospels and how they relate to the Judeo-Christian bible can only come through the guidance of God.

I started my journey towards Gnosticism because I felt that something was missing and that Christianity did not measure up to my life experiances. I have always been a spiritual person, but some aspects of Judeo-Christianity just felt wrong to me. One night several years ago, I made a commitment to find the truth. I turned to God for guidance and I was led to Gnosticism. Suddenly the blanks were filled in.

No Christian person in particular did anything to turn me away from Judeo-Christianity. It was an internal struggle within me.

except He does love you, and He sent His Son to die for you, and if that is not love…. then I don’t know what love is.

Absolutely, the true father does love me and you and every one of his children, and Christ is the true son of The Father, who was sent to set us free from the bondage of this world.

Posted by: JayJay at November 12, 2006 10:15 PM
Comment #194807

david r. remer,

“Diogenes, you forgot that our U.S. Constitution also sets out to protect the rights of minorities from being overrun by majorities.”

i did not forget. this is extremely important. government sanctioned unions are not a ‘right’ as such. they are a privilege. i could easily entertain the notion of doing away with them altogether. such pro-natal policies are not necessary in america, where our population is booming.

“Conservatives of the libertarian bent, largely acknowledge, and rightfully, I think, that this issue of civil unions should be a state issue…
it is a solution which respects minorities while preserving choice and pursuit of happiness for those on both sides of this issue.”

very much agreed. you’ll get no argument from me.

michael smith,

the more i hear, the more i like. do not be dissuaded by the banter of the, as you coined it, ‘pseudo-cons.’

Posted by: Diogenes at November 12, 2006 10:57 PM
Comment #194818

echop8triot,
Before you start asking about my educational level and stooping so low as to DUHHH me stop and read what I said. “Why do you feel the need to subject all Americans to your religious beliefs through the force of law…was what was said. Before you change the subject to all morals and all laws answer my question, your sidestepping shows you are all talk and no substence. BTW the magna carta is where our laws originated from. They evolved in Europe before the Christians arrived and your false claim regarding the origination of our laws is typical of the far right whackos spreading misinformation around.

Don, just as I thought, those percentages are based upon false claims and misinformation with no basis in fact. good job.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 13, 2006 12:44 AM
Comment #194834

Roger, and JayJay, you have both strayed from politics into religion. Religion is not the topic of this web site. Please return the conversation to politics or let it drop. There are ample other sites to discuss and debate the merits of religious beliefs. This site’s relationship to religion extends only as far as a public discourse as to what role religion should play in government and politics. Please confine your religious discussions to that arena.

Thanks.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at November 13, 2006 8:00 AM
Comment #194843

My Name Is Roger

WATCHBOLG MANAGING EDITOR

I understand, I will try keep to it to the role of religion in government and politics.

Roger A Conservative Christian Rupublican

Posted by: ROGER at November 13, 2006 9:34 AM
Comment #194847

Thank you, Roger.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at November 13, 2006 10:14 AM
Comment #194848

Mr Smih,
The one common denominator is that one day we will be judged by someone a lot bigger than our Government or your ideals…..time to rethink what is really important,and not be afraid to sacrafice a little,considering what has been already sacraficed for you(Jesus)Christ

Posted by: Butch Meade at November 13, 2006 10:18 AM
Comment #194863

Re: the “founding fathers” and the Constitution they produced. I would suggest that all would benefit from sitting down and reading the document and consider what was going on in the minds of the people who created it. I doubt that most people, aside from a few oft repeated phrases mostly from the Preamble or the Bill of Rights, have any sense of what the document contains. The Constitution is the product of a long, protracted negotiation of the issues of the day. This comes clearly across with the issue of slavery. There are three, somewhat oblique, references to slavery as I remember. Something about redistricting counting free men as one and all others as three fifths, ending the importation of slaves after 1808 or so and giving citizens the right to pursue their property over state lines. (apologies if I am wrong on any of this).
Well, if I can state the obvious, we don’t live in the late 18th century. We live in the early 21st and many of the issues are different. There were still abortions, there was a high rate of infant mortality and childbirth death of the mother. There were gay people. I have no idea of their status back then or what their lives were like.
I guess I have to go back to a point I made earlier, that gays who are citizens, taxpayers, of consenting age should have any relationship they want, formalized any way they wish. We collect the money they pay in taxes. What they do does not hurt anybody and what ever the consequences of their actions it should be between them and god. Regards

Posted by: Charles Ross at November 13, 2006 1:06 PM
Comment #194869

My apologies for becoming overtly religious in my discussion. I only want to make one point. That we live in a diverse society with many different religious beliefs and ways of interpreting what is moral and what is immoral. Many interpretations may not be based in any religious belief at all. My personal religious belief is that homosexuality is simply part of the creation and that there is nothing immoral about two people who love each other and want to start a family together. My point is that my beliefs and all of the other beliefs are protected under the first amendment. There is nothing there about the majority religion having the final say on morality. In denying my beliefs, my 1st amendment rights have been violated.

No matter how many bigoted state amendments pass that codify discrimination, or even if a national amendment is passed, the bottom line is that homosexuals are not just going to go away. When the civil rights movement suffered set backs, did they just give up? When the women’s rights movement suffered setbacks did they put their aprons and pearls back on and go back into the kitchen? No, so why do people think that gays and lesbians will just go back into the closet?

As for why now? It’s a movement. Movements have happened throughout history. How their timing is set into motion varies. Christianity would not be a religion today if it hadn’t been for a movement that defied the law of the land and people who were willing to die for what they believed.

Just because something was right or wrong in the past, even for thousands of years, does not mean that it was right. Slavery was right for most of world history, but that doesn’t mean that it is right today and should be continued. Women have spent most of history being inferior and subordinates to men, a notion backed up by the Bible, so should we continue to think of women as second class citizens today? Of course not.

We have grown as a society to accept that those things were wrong. We progressed. This country is big enough to live together as a society with ALL of it’s diversity.

Posted by: JayJay at November 13, 2006 2:04 PM
Comment #194874
Homosexuality is all about sex. If the homosexual was not having sex with his own kind, then it would be frienship between persons. Since the sexuality part is the difference, it is quite apparent that homosexuality is immoral and according to biblical teaching is wrong.

tomh,

That is ridiculous to put it mildly. If homosexuality is only about sex, then what is this fight for marriage equality about? If homosexuality were about nothing more than sex, then wouldn’t gays and lesbians want to be single so that they could have sex with other people with no commitment?

This is a fight for marriage, not against it. Gays and Lesbians are fighting for the right to enter into legally binding committed monogamous relationships and starting families. How does that equate to being all about sex? Is your marriage “all about sex?”

Posted by: JayJay at November 13, 2006 2:28 PM
Comment #194907

JayJay, I have no difficulty with homosexuals setting up recognised civil unions. However, my concerns are with the bringing of children into this estate. You speak of Gays and Lesbians entering into committed monogamous relationships and starting families. This is where I begin to demur. How do you propose they start families? By artificial insemination? Surrogacy? Copulation outside the relationship with an opposite sex partner? More disturbingly, what do we know about the effects on children of being brought up in such “families”? There is a debate ongoing in my country on this issue, and it is clear from the more informed contributors that the jury is out on this issue, with such studies as there are being inconclusive. This is the issue I referred to earlier in this thread. If we don’t know what effect such potentially far reaching and possibly detrimental changes will have on our societies, then we must tread cautiously. Aside from which we hear much of the right of individuals to have children. With that right comes a great responsibility, and as in divorce proceedings, it is the welfare of the child that is paramount, not the right of a parent. Children are not a lifestyle accessory. I believe that such a principle should inform this debate about homosexual families and marriage. Recent decades have seen much change in the dynamics of families, rocketing divorce rates and increasing anti social behaviour, much of it driven by dsyfunctional families. As my dear late mother used to say, fools rush in where angels fear to tread. Let us first try to anticipate the effects of fundamental changes to our societies before we set out on perhaps irreversible paths.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 13, 2006 6:59 PM
Comment #194910
However, my concerns are with the bringing of children into this estate.

Paul,

I’m not sure what the laws are in Euroland, but in America (suprisingly) the government cannot dictate who may and may not get pregnant and raise children. My best friend recently had twins, a boy and a girl. She was implanted with her partners fertalized eggs. They are legally married in Canada, but that marriage is not recognized by this state. Whether these families recieve legal recongnition or not, they are not letting bigoted stereotypes stop them from persuing their dream of raising a family. My only question is that if marriage is such a force for stable families, why on earth would you want to exclude some families from enjoying the benefits that such stabilty and legal protections would bring? That seems awfully selfish to me.

Posted by: JayJay at November 13, 2006 7:37 PM
Comment #194967

Paul,

I live in Massachusetts, the American state where gay marriage is legal. I know several same sex couples, all of which have children. (I met them all through my children, I was indoctrinated as a homophobe so I still have a hard time in relationships with homosexuals)
Anyway, most of those children were adopted/born before the parents marriage was legal. All the kids are fine, or at least as fine as normal children are. Perhaps it is the liberal community in which I live and the progressive and high standards these parents hold themselves to that will probably make their children extremely robust and successful in their adulthood. Perhaps that means it is the parent who has the greatest influence on the child. In the end, I am more concerned about the welfare of children in some disfunctional families I know than in any of the same sex couple children.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at November 14, 2006 8:54 AM
Post a comment