My Fellow Conservatives...

[DGS49]

Regarding Gay Marriages:

Give it up. As surely as the sun will rise in the East tomorrow, EVERY state in the Union will be compelled to recognize ALL gay marriages within a very few years. Refer to the "full faith & credit" clause of the Constitution. The battle is over and Conservatives lost.

Any form of overt discrimination against people who either are, or are perceived to be, gay will be against the law.

I am not predicting the Rick Santorum Scenario, where states will recognize incestuous marriages, polygamy, and man-and-barnyard animal marriages, but same sex marriages? Game, set, match. Done deal. The Fat Lady has sung. Pick your metaphor. It's over.

And we were (and are) wrong all along, for the following reasons:

The institution of marriage that is created and recognized by the State is NOT THE SAME INSTITUTION as the institution of marriage that is created and recognized by your Church. Or at least my Church.

Let me give you a few simple examples of my point. I got married in 1973 by a priest, and coincidentally, my marriage was recognized by both the Catholic Church and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. But if I get divorced tomorrow, I will still be married in the eyes of the Church, but not married in the eyes of Pennsylvania or the Federal Government. And if I were to re-marry next week, I'd be peachy-keen fine in the eyes of Pennsylvania, but "living in sin" and a bigamist in the eyes of the Church.

Conversely, if I could get an annulment from my Church (never consummated the marriage), the Church would say that my marriage never actually existed, while Pennsylvania and the Federal Government (for tax purposes) will believe otherwise.

The fact is, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, acting through its legislature (who speak for The People) can decide to recognize any types of relationships it wants, based on valid reasons of public policy, and it has no effect on the discretion of any Church, minister, priest or rabbi. Maybe the Commonwealth thinks that by recognizing marriage among male homosexuals, they can fight the spread of AIDS. It would be a valid public policy decision, even if a delusional one.

One of the great ironies of our time is that the Gay Community is fighting for the right to marry when the young heterosexual community cares less and less about that particular institution, and in many cases have made it something of a joke.

And as a learning exercise for The Young maybe its a good thing that in the public arena, gays are insisting that they WANT TO ENTER INTO LIFETIME MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIPS, unlike most young hetero's, if the truth be known. Is that a bad thing?

I recognize that in this discussion I am ignoring the Elephant in the Room - the sinful activities that lie at the core of any homosexual marriage, especially among males. But whose business is that? Certainly not mine. If Chuck and Guido buy a house in my neighborhood, I would absolute insist that my (hypothetical) kids treat them with the same respect and civility that they treat every other homeowner. Indeed that we open our arms to them as neighbors and help them out when in need.

My fellow Conservatives, we need to fight the battles that we have a chance of winning - like stopping the inflow of a million poverty-stricken immigrants every year, thus putting the screws to our unskilled American citizens, who have to compete with them for employment and benefits. The battle over Gay Marriage is lost.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Regarding Gay Marriages:

Give it up.

That's very good advice, that they will reject out of hand.

 

[RandomVariable]

Till I scarcely more than muttered “Other friends have flown before—
On the morrow he will leave me, as my Hopes have flown before.”
Then the bird said “Nevermore.”

 

[Ava]

Regarding Gay Marriages:

Give it up. As surely as the sun will rise in the East tomorrow, EVERY state in the Union will be compelled to recognize ALL gay marriages within a very few years. Refer to the "full faith & credit" clause of the Constitution. The battle is over and Conservatives lost.

Any form of overt discrimination against people who either are, or are perceived to be, gay will be against the law.

I am not predicting the Rick Santorum Scenario, where states will recognize incestuous marriages, polygamy, and man-and-barnyard animal marriages, but same sex marriages? Game, set, match. Done deal. The Fat Lady has sung. Pick your metaphor. It's over.

And we were (and are) wrong all along, for the following reasons:

The institution of marriage that is created and recognized by the State is NOT THE SAME INSTITUTION as the institution of marriage that is created and recognized by your Church. Or at least my Church.

Let me give you a few simple examples of my point. I got married in 1973 by a priest, and coincidentally, my marriage was recognized by both the Catholic Church and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. But if I get divorced tomorrow, I will still be married in the eyes of the Church, but not married in the eyes of Pennsylvania or the Federal Government. And if I were to re-marry next week, I'd be peachy-keen fine in the eyes of Pennsylvania, but "living in sin" and a bigamist in the eyes of the Church.

Conversely, if I could get an annulment from my Church (never consummated the marriage), the Church would say that my marriage never actually existed, while Pennsylvania and the Federal Government (for tax purposes) will believe otherwise.

The fact is, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, acting through its legislature (who speak for The People) can decide to recognize any types of relationships it wants, based on valid reasons of public policy, and it has no effect on the discretion of any Church, minister, priest or rabbi. Maybe the Commonwealth thinks that by recognizing marriage among male homosexuals, they can fight the spread of AIDS. It would be a valid public policy decision, even if a delusional one.

One of the great ironies of our time is that the Gay Community is fighting for the right to marry when the young heterosexual community cares less and less about that particular institution, and in many cases have made it something of a joke.

And as a learning exercise for The Young maybe its a good thing that in the public arena, gays are insisting that they WANT TO ENTER INTO LIFETIME MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIPS, unlike most young hetero's, if the truth be known. Is that a bad thing?

I recognize that in this discussion I am ignoring the Elephant in the Room - the sinful activities that lie at the core of any homosexual marriage, especially among males. But whose business is that? Certainly not mine. If Chuck and Guido buy a house in my neighborhood, I would absolute insist that my (hypothetical) kids treat them with the same respect and civility that they treat every other homeowner. Indeed that we open our arms to them as neighbors and help them out when in need.

My fellow Conservatives, we need to fight the battles that we have a chance of winning - like stopping the inflow of a million poverty-stricken immigrants every year, thus putting the screws to our unskilled American citizens, who have to compete with them for employment and benefits. The battle over Gay Marriage is lost.

When living in Northern California, I had homosexual employees, who were the best in my business. I have also owned a Victorian home, next door to two gentle homosexual men, who owned a Victorian home, and I came instantly to adore them. They would dress in monk robes and walk amongst their beautiful garden in the sun, hand in hand and they would visit me and I would visit them. One was a classically trained pianist and his musical melodies would waft up the slope into my kitchen as I cooked or as I sat on their couch, listening to him play. They were each very handsome, one a brunette with ice-blue eyes and the other a bright redhead with freckles. I loved their union and I adored each one individually. We all had much laughter. I knew they would be together for a long time.

I sold my house and moved to the woods, only to run into one of them, at a local bistro, and after our fond embrace, and asking him where____ was, he said they had dissolved their union some time ago. The sad look in his formerly crystal clear eyes, reflected my huge disappointment and sense of loss. It hurts when friends part. You feel their pain.

Their beautiful memory lives on though and the sight of them strolling in their garden in the little brown monk robes with the little twisted rope belts, will never leave my memory. What joyful days.

 

[deltex1]

Regarding Gay Marriages:

Give it up. As surely as the sun will rise in the East tomorrow, EVERY state in the Union will be compelled to recognize ALL gay marriages within a very few years. Refer to the "full faith & credit" clause of the Constitution. The battle is over and Conservatives lost.

Any form of overt discrimination against people who either are, or are perceived to be, gay will be against the law.

I am not predicting the Rick Santorum Scenario, where states will recognize incestuous marriages, polygamy, and man-and-barnyard animal marriages, but same sex marriages? Game, set, match. Done deal. The Fat Lady has sung. Pick your metaphor. It's over.

And we were (and are) wrong all along, for the following reasons:

The institution of marriage that is created and recognized by the State is NOT THE SAME INSTITUTION as the institution of marriage that is created and recognized by your Church. Or at least my Church.

Let me give you a few simple examples of my point. I got married in 1973 by a priest, and coincidentally, my marriage was recognized by both the Catholic Church and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. But if I get divorced tomorrow, I will still be married in the eyes of the Church, but not married in the eyes of Pennsylvania or the Federal Government. And if I were to re-marry next week, I'd be peachy-keen fine in the eyes of Pennsylvania, but "living in sin" and a bigamist in the eyes of the Church.

Conversely, if I could get an annulment from my Church (never consummated the marriage), the Church would say that my marriage never actually existed, while Pennsylvania and the Federal Government (for tax purposes) will believe otherwise.

The fact is, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, acting through its legislature (who speak for The People) can decide to recognize any types of relationships it wants, based on valid reasons of public policy, and it has no effect on the discretion of any Church, minister, priest or rabbi. Maybe the Commonwealth thinks that by recognizing marriage among male homosexuals, they can fight the spread of AIDS. It would be a valid public policy decision, even if a delusional one.

One of the great ironies of our time is that the Gay Community is fighting for the right to marry when the young heterosexual community cares less and less about that particular institution, and in many cases have made it something of a joke.

And as a learning exercise for The Young maybe its a good thing that in the public arena, gays are insisting that they WANT TO ENTER INTO LIFETIME MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIPS, unlike most young hetero's, if the truth be known. Is that a bad thing?

I recognize that in this discussion I am ignoring the Elephant in the Room - the sinful activities that lie at the core of any homosexual marriage, especially among males. But whose business is that? Certainly not mine. If Chuck and Guido buy a house in my neighborhood, I would absolute insist that my (hypothetical) kids treat them with the same respect and civility that they treat every other homeowner. Indeed that we open our arms to them as neighbors and help them out when in need.

My fellow Conservatives, we need to fight the battles that we have a chance of winning - like stopping the inflow of a million poverty-stricken immigrants every year, thus putting the screws to our unskilled American citizens, who have to compete with them for employment and benefits. The battle over Gay Marriage is lost.

No big hassle from me...I have lost nothing...but in the main, homos are in it (marriage) for the benefits...they will get what they want...and they will never stfu...

 

[TemplarKormac]

You may be right, but we shouldn't just give up. This isn't about gay marriage anymore. As you just saw in Arizona, its about striking a balance between gay rights and religious freedom. From what I saw, it appears religious freedom in the face of gay rights is irrelevant. Not only is that disturbing, its not what our founders had in mind. Why would we give a tenth of our population the power to trample over the rights of the other 99? I'm struggling with this kind of logic.

 

[Brain357]

You may be right, but we shouldn't just give up. This isn't about gay marriage anymore. As you just saw in Arizona, its about striking a balance between gay rights and religious freedom. From what I saw, it appears religious freedom in the face of gay rights is irrelevant. Not only is that disturbing, its not what our founders had in mind. Why would we give a tenth of our population the power to trample over the rights of the other 99? I'm struggling with this kind of logic.

It's not about religion, that's a joke. Where in the bible does it say you can't sell a cake to a gay couple?

 

[deltex1]

I don't see any reason to deny service to gay people for religious reasons. There is no one who enters any restaurant in the world who is not a sinner...who has not sinned against God himself. Jesus washed the feet of sinners...I think we can sell twinkies to queers without going to hell.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Regarding Gay Marriages:

Give it up. As surely as the sun will rise in the East tomorrow, EVERY state in the Union will be compelled to recognize ALL gay marriages within a very few years. Refer to the "full faith & credit" clause of the Constitution. The battle is over and Conservatives lost.

Any form of overt discrimination against people who either are, or are perceived to be, gay will be against the law.

I am not predicting the Rick Santorum Scenario, where states will recognize incestuous marriages, polygamy, and man-and-barnyard animal marriages, but same sex marriages? Game, set, match. Done deal. The Fat Lady has sung. Pick your metaphor. It's over.

And we were (and are) wrong all along, for the following reasons:

The institution of marriage that is created and recognized by the State is NOT THE SAME INSTITUTION as the institution of marriage that is created and recognized by your Church. Or at least my Church.

Let me give you a few simple examples of my point. I got married in 1973 by a priest, and coincidentally, my marriage was recognized by both the Catholic Church and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. But if I get divorced tomorrow, I will still be married in the eyes of the Church, but not married in the eyes of Pennsylvania or the Federal Government. And if I were to re-marry next week, I'd be peachy-keen fine in the eyes of Pennsylvania, but "living in sin" and a bigamist in the eyes of the Church.

Conversely, if I could get an annulment from my Church (never consummated the marriage), the Church would say that my marriage never actually existed, while Pennsylvania and the Federal Government (for tax purposes) will believe otherwise.

The fact is, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, acting through its legislature (who speak for The People) can decide to recognize any types of relationships it wants, based on valid reasons of public policy, and it has no effect on the discretion of any Church, minister, priest or rabbi. Maybe the Commonwealth thinks that by recognizing marriage among male homosexuals, they can fight the spread of AIDS. It would be a valid public policy decision, even if a delusional one.

One of the great ironies of our time is that the Gay Community is fighting for the right to marry when the young heterosexual community cares less and less about that particular institution, and in many cases have made it something of a joke.

And as a learning exercise for The Young maybe its a good thing that in the public arena, gays are insisting that they WANT TO ENTER INTO LIFETIME MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIPS, unlike most young hetero's, if the truth be known. Is that a bad thing?

I recognize that in this discussion I am ignoring the Elephant in the Room - the sinful activities that lie at the core of any homosexual marriage, especially among males. But whose business is that? Certainly not mine. If Chuck and Guido buy a house in my neighborhood, I would absolute insist that my (hypothetical) kids treat them with the same respect and civility that they treat every other homeowner. Indeed that we open our arms to them as neighbors and help them out when in need.

My fellow Conservatives, we need to fight the battles that we have a chance of winning - like stopping the inflow of a million poverty-stricken immigrants every year, thus putting the screws to our unskilled American citizens, who have to compete with them for employment and benefits. The battle over Gay Marriage is lost.

When living in Northern California, I had homosexual employees, who were the best in my business. I have also owned a Victorian home, next door to two gentle homosexual men, who owned a Victorian home, and I came instantly to adore them. They would dress in monk robes and walk amongst their beautiful garden in the sun, hand in hand and they would visit me and I would visit them. One was a classically trained pianist and his musical melodies would waft up the slope into my kitchen as I cooked or as I sat on their couch, listening to him play. They were each very handsome, one a brunette with ice-blue eyes and the other a bright redhead with freckles. I loved their union and I adored each one individually. We all had much laughter. I knew they would be together for a long time.

I sold my house and moved to the woods, only to run into one of them, at a local bistro, and after our fond embrace, and asking him where____ was, he said they had dissolved their union some time ago. The sad look in his formerly crystal clear eyes, reflected my huge disappointment and sense of loss. It hurts when friends part. You feel their pain.

Their beautiful memory lives on though and the sight of them strolling in their garden in the little brown monk robes with the little twisted rope belts, will never leave my memory. What joyful days.

I don't have any hatred in my heart toward any one. If two consenting adults want to be in a relationship together....I say go for it. What they do in private is really none of my business.

 

[bucs90]

They're saying just being present at the gay wedding to cater it violates his right to....not be exposed to a gay wedding.

Hmmm.

What if an atheist high school kid said just his presence in a school that allows school prayer to go on around him violates his rights?

 

[bucs90]

I don't see any reason to deny service to gay people for religious reasons. There is no one who enters any restaurant in the world who is not a sinner...who has not sinned against God himself. Jesus washed the feet of sinners...I think we can sell twinkies to queers without going to hell.

I agree.

 

[MarcATL]

Regarding Gay Marriages:

Give it up. As surely as the sun will rise in the East tomorrow, EVERY state in the Union will be compelled to recognize ALL gay marriages within a very few years. Refer to the "full faith & credit" clause of the Constitution. The battle is over and Conservatives lost.

Any form of overt discrimination against people who either are, or are perceived to be, gay will be against the law.

I am not predicting the Rick Santorum Scenario, where states will recognize incestuous marriages, polygamy, and man-and-barnyard animal marriages, but same sex marriages? Game, set, match. Done deal. The Fat Lady has sung. Pick your metaphor. It's over.

And we were (and are) wrong all along, for the following reasons:

The institution of marriage that is created and recognized by the State is NOT THE SAME INSTITUTION as the institution of marriage that is created and recognized by your Church. Or at least my Church.

Let me give you a few simple examples of my point. I got married in 1973 by a priest, and coincidentally, my marriage was recognized by both the Catholic Church and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. But if I get divorced tomorrow, I will still be married in the eyes of the Church, but not married in the eyes of Pennsylvania or the Federal Government. And if I were to re-marry next week, I'd be peachy-keen fine in the eyes of Pennsylvania, but "living in sin" and a bigamist in the eyes of the Church.

Conversely, if I could get an annulment from my Church (never consummated the marriage), the Church would say that my marriage never actually existed, while Pennsylvania and the Federal Government (for tax purposes) will believe otherwise.

The fact is, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, acting through its legislature (who speak for The People) can decide to recognize any types of relationships it wants, based on valid reasons of public policy, and it has no effect on the discretion of any Church, minister, priest or rabbi. Maybe the Commonwealth thinks that by recognizing marriage among male homosexuals, they can fight the spread of AIDS. It would be a valid public policy decision, even if a delusional one.

One of the great ironies of our time is that the Gay Community is fighting for the right to marry when the young heterosexual community cares less and less about that particular institution, and in many cases have made it something of a joke.

And as a learning exercise for The Young maybe its a good thing that in the public arena, gays are insisting that they WANT TO ENTER INTO LIFETIME MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIPS, unlike most young hetero's, if the truth be known. Is that a bad thing?

I recognize that in this discussion I am ignoring the Elephant in the Room - the sinful activities that lie at the core of any homosexual marriage, especially among males. But whose business is that? Certainly not mine. If Chuck and Guido buy a house in my neighborhood, I would absolute insist that my (hypothetical) kids treat them with the same respect and civility that they treat every other homeowner. Indeed that we open our arms to them as neighbors and help them out when in need.

My fellow Conservatives, we need to fight the battles that we have a chance of winning - like stopping the inflow of a million poverty-stricken immigrants every year, thus putting the screws to our unskilled American citizens, who have to compete with them for employment and benefits. The battle over Gay Marriage is lost.

WoW!!!

*one-man standing ovation*

 

[tyroneweaver]

Polygamy. LOL

My great great grandpa had 3 wives.
No wonder all his posterity, including me went to Brigham Young University.

 

[007]

Yup, the devil is in collusion with our ever growing, ever more oppressive government to force Christians into doing the bidding and knuckling under to sexual deviants and perverts, even though they are a tiny minority amongst us.

It's a sad day when we have people telling us to just GIVE UP or morals as the OP is doing. Well he might want to give up, but I won't be joining him. Homosexuality is a disgusting, filthy, wretched sexual perversion, and I will never accept it. It is unnatural, it's immoral, it's perverse, and it's an abomination in the eyes of GOD.

 

[KNB]

Thankfully, there isn't a God so what God thinks is irrelevant.

 

[Spoonman]

You may be right, but we shouldn't just give up. This isn't about gay marriage anymore. As you just saw in Arizona, its about striking a balance between gay rights and religious freedom. From what I saw, it appears religious freedom in the face of gay rights is irrelevant. Not only is that disturbing, its not what our founders had in mind. Why would we give a tenth of our population the power to trample over the rights of the other 99? I'm struggling with this kind of logic.

It's not about religion, that's a joke. Where in the bible does it say you can't sell a cake to a gay couple?

it doens't matter what the bible says, it should be your own right to chose.

 

[007]

Thankfully, there isn't a God so what God thinks is irrelevant.

Sorry, devil boy, but yes there is.