Why should I care what two other people do to themselves with regards to marraige or their sexual habits. When they involve a third person involuntarily, as with a child, I do care. But, gee, don’t we already HAVE laws against sexual mistreatment of minors?

So why should I waste my time over a silly word, marriage? So far as a secular state is concerned it means nothing other than two people accepting a prenegotiated contract to live together.

From a religious standpoint any law that forces a religion to accept any civil contract as “marriage” is wrong. That is the government meddling in religion. If some church chooses to recognize “marriage” between two people of the same sex let it. If some other church chooses not to recognize that, let it be. I’d recommend the churches who are picky about this adopt the term “God Sanctioned Marriage” or the term “Marriage Before God.” Leave blank “marriage” for the secular people if they want it.

There are FAR FAR better things to waste your emotional energy on than infantile worries about relationships between two adults who wish to make a sincere commitment to each other.

{^_^}

I haven’t seen “society” treat homosexuals any different than anyone else and I’ve been around quite a while.
Even if they have been discriminated against, it’s not rational or fair to want to inflict same sex “marriage” on the rest of us as some kind of payback/revenge.

Jenfidel on April 9, 2009 at 4:04 AM

Going back to the 1960’s there were laws against them gathering in bars and laws against some of their private sexual behavior.

Gay marriage won’t be inflicted on straight people who remain free in Vermont to marry someone of the opposite sex as often as they choose.

Give them their legal status, let them take the marriage penalty, leave them alone we have much more important issues.

They voted it in, they overrode a veto, its what the state of Vermont wants, and there were no riots or strong arm tactics involved in trying to get their way like there were in California.

It might be better to say “neo-cons without the hypocrisy.”

Jimmy Liberty on April 8, 2009 at 7:01 PM

Neo-Conservatism has nothing to do with social issues like same sex marriage; it advocates the muscular use of American foreign policy, guided by the firm belief in American exceptionalism.

I resent how society has treated gays for so long.

thuja on April 8, 2009 at 8:22 PM

How’s that?
I haven’t seen “society” treat homosexuals any different than anyone else and I’ve been around quite a while.
Even if they have been discriminated against, it’s not rational or fair to want to inflict same sex “marriage” on the rest of us as some kind of payback/revenge.

The man who wrote “The Conscience of a Conservative” was essentially a libertarian.

Jimmy Liberty on April 8, 2009 at 7:01 PM

If Barry Goldwater himself were to rise from the dead and start posting here, there would be “true conservatives” calling him a liberal troll, and telling him to take his leftist garbage back to the DailyKos.

And these people actually expect to be taken seriously.

AnninCA on April 8, 2009 at 5:39 PM

She’s a WITCH! Round up the townsfolk and ready the torches!

Anyway, getting rid of RINOs and sodomites is a must if the Republican Party ever wants to be the governing party again.

Governing what? The City Council of East Cowflop?

Good lord, we badly need another Reagan.

The personal attacks against me during the primary finally became so heavy that the state Republican chairman, Gaylord Parkinson, postulated what he called the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. It’s a rule I followed during that campaign and have ever since.

– RR

lwssdd on April 8, 2009 at 8:14 PM

Yet again rare poster, you do not understand Allahpundit.

Allahu.

I take it you’re a con law expert? Because the article I linked cites an actual law prof. Read it.

It isn’t as cut and dry as you say.

spmat on April 8, 2009 at 7:15 PM

At the end of the article, there is this:

Joanna Grossman, a FindLaw columnist, is an associate professor of law at Hofstra University. Her other columns on discrimination, including sex discrimination and sexual harassment, may be found in the archive of her columns on this site.

I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say that this “professor” is focused on liberal issues. As such, her legal point of view is inferior to mine because I am a true conservative.

Okay?

It turns out that I reject my own theories, even when I put them into historical perspective. It’s quite likely that the culture war over gay mariage will be over in thirty to fifty years (assuming that the muslims don’t nuke us into oblivion and assuming no ecological catastrophe). It seems that this knowledge should be enough to make me indifferent to the semantic game of “gay marriage” versus “civil union”. But gay civil unions is not ok with me. I want gay marriage, because I resent how society has treated gays for so long. Given that I’m quite right wing for a gay man, I just don’t see gays compromising on this topic. I think we are right to be something near fanatic on this topic, though there are always excesses. Slavery was a terrible evil, but it didn’t justify John Brown and Harper’s Ferry.

platypus on April 8, 2009 at 7:22 PM

Furthermore, what are the “Bill of Rights” if anything but protection for the minority from a majority vote. Read a book or something.

As far as small, I’d rather be small in number than be immoral and proud of it.

platypus on April 8, 2009 at 6:51 PM

Immoral? I’m just saying, if you tell every man in the Party that he can no longer get, er, creative with his wife (and vice versa) once in a while, you’re going to lose a lot of members. How is that immoral?

As for me here in my state, I’m sure if it came to a vote, it would go down in FLAMES.

Those beliefs are not confined to conservatism even if they resonate in your mind with certain people.

aengus on April 8, 2009 at 7:39 PM

I’m not saying they are. I’m saying that they are what conservative beliefs, as put forth by people like Reagan, emanate from.

His precepts from Common Sense were centered around the concepts of independence, liberty, and self-government. If those principles aren’t what were preached by Reagan, Goldwater, and the rest, then whence cometh conservatism?

Those beliefs are not confined to conservatism even if they resonate in your mind with certain people. The Indian socialist Jawaharlal Nehru believed in all three as well.

To gauge what sort of man Paine was you have to consider the totality of his writings, the biographical details of his life, his allegiances and bitter disappointments etc.

For a good overview I’d recommend Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man by Christopher Hitchens. It’s fairly convincing that Paine, far from being a conservative, was anything but.