|
|
|
| |
|
CommentsIt was necessary for me to return to correct a mistake I made. "Honor your father and your mother" is the FOURTH Commandment, not the Third.@lakewood bob: Congratulations to you too for understanding how the reality of it is laid out! Posted by Carlos on 06/07 at 07:47 PM | # Nicely done. Posted by Noelle on 05/23 at 05:08 PM | # Congratulations to you, Carlos, for having a working understanding of the Constitution. Unfortunately, many lawyers and judges don't have that understanding! "On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying to determine what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." – Thomas Jefferson “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.” -- James Madison The Constitution is not and was not intended to be Esoteric! The American people through the States are the ultimate arbiters of the meaning and applications of the Constitution; not the Supreme Court, not the Congress, and especially not the Executive Branch! Let's keep up the fight for a Constitutional government! Posted by lakewood bob on 05/22 at 04:28 PM | # Thank you, Mr. O'Connell, for a well-thought-out article. I would add only one thing: "Honor your father and mother", which is the third Commandment. There is no honor due to any other arrangement. Well, what can we say: that they have exchanged the the natural for the unnatural? The truth for a lie? All to gratify their perverted lusts? I'd say yes. The Constitution is based on natural law. It doesn't protect what is unnatural. Equality under the law means equality under NATURAL law. Therefore it is ludicrous for those proponents of unnatural acts to demand equality under our natural laws. Certainly the Founding Fathers had no intention of furthering corruption, but a virtuous and moral people. We can tolerate homosexuality but we don't have to sanction it. Posted by Carlos on 05/22 at 01:16 AM | # Is this site really about providing a platform for Conservatives to share ideas and opinions? My last comment, written over 30 hours ago, seems to have been censored. It was a concise argument for preserving the sanctity of marriage as the religious institution that it is, and avoiding the issue of equal rights in Federal Laws that benefit married couples, by changing the term "marriage" in those laws to "civil unions." Though I understand the objection of many Christians to the concept of marriage becoming "tainted" by non-traditional arrangements, I believe all people in loving relationships who choose to make a lifelong commitment to his or her partner should be provided the same protection under the law. Benefits like avoiding estate taxes when a spouse dies, or the ability for a foreign spouse to gain US citizenship, are currently unattainable for same-sex couples. In addition to the Constitutional right to equal protection under the law, there is also the issue of the children in these families. How does it serve any segment of society to make it emotionally and financially harder for committed, loving, and responsible families to thrive? To the unfortunate Mr. Minn: Not only have I read books by and for homosexuals (as has anyone who has read Whitman, Melville, Byron, Plato, etc...) but I have had the privilege of actually knowing some. Posted by J. Stirling on 05/21 at 09:24 PM | # J. Stirling, “It's about fear, ignorance, and bigotry, and we should just give it up.” Really! I would concur with your comment about ignorance. Obviously you are ignorant of the facts about homosexuality. I would suggest that you do a bit of reading from the books written by homosexuals for homosexuals and you would not be nearly so ignorant. However, after reading their books, you just might find that you have images in your mind which you will desperately want to remove. Ignorance IS NOT bliss, ignorance can mean death. You surely do not understand just how enslaved those who fall for the LIBERAL propaganda are, but if you did you would not wish that for anyone. I am assuming that you do not hate mankind. Posted by JohnMinn on 05/21 at 09:14 AM | # Personally, I think everyone should at the very least know and be raised by his/her mother where possible. I think the practice of being raised by two male homosexuals is likely to be psychologically confusing and thus abusive to the children. Perhaps some children would suffer lesser or fewer adverse psychological effects than others, but why take the risk in allowing such practices in the first place? A lesbian mother can always find ways to get pregnant - not much can be done to change that, but two male homosexuals raising children with no mother? No thanks. Civil unions with property inheritance rights and the like are enough in my opinion. Posted by Simon on 05/21 at 08:57 AM | # One of the reasons that I moved from my native Iowa, is because the will of the people had been subverted by men in black dresses. You cannot call them judicial robes, because they disgraced the Idea of a judiciary serving to uphold the constitutional will of the people in a representative republic. The people voted overwhelmingly for marriage to legally be between a man and a woman, but the leftists weaseled in judges that would overturn the will of the people and Iowa shamefully became a product of the Sodom and Gomorrah mindset. I moved away for good and I will never make residency there again. I have tried to point out to people for some time now, that the homosexual movement had said for years that the government needs to stay out of the bedroom. I agree with them on that. What goes on in the bedroom is private, unless it violates the law. However, I do not agree with the homosexual movement dragging the bedroom into the legislature, the classroom and the courthouse. Homosexuality has to do with only one thing and that is the act of homosexuality. The flamboyant behaviors and all other attributes associated with homosexuality aside, it all has to do with the act itself. I have also contemplated over the years as to why the government is involved in marriage. Why do you have to take the religious ceremony and pay a government official a fee to bind for the government what God has bound already in heaven? Only one reason I can see is to tax it, regulate and control it and eventually pervert or destroy it. If the government were out of the marriage business, then there would be no issue. If the homosexuals want to be married, they can find someone of their suitable beliefs, obviously not Christian, but of a christian or pagan leaning and they can do a ceremony and the two can consider themselves married. They can draw up legal papers for inheritance and powers of attorney and such. The only reason the homosexuals and the leftists and all their little minion groups are pushing gay marriage is to destroy the traditional marriage, something they started doing with LBJ’s “Great Society”, women’s lib and now gay marriage. Destroy traditional values, destroy traditional family, destroy traditional faith in God and destroy the nation. Why? So you can fundamentally transform it into the Marxist dystopia that the left views as their heaven on earth. Posted by Mike on 05/20 at 07:15 PM | # Is There Still a Principled Defense of Traditional Marriage?Posted by Kelly OConnell on May 22, 2012 at 08:52 AM
If Normalized, Gay Marriage Represents History's Greatest Change to Human Families  Currently America is locked in turmoil regarding “gay marriage,” thanks in part to the president’s recent “evolutionary” approval of same-sex nuptials. In contrast, consider the perpetual success of state anti-homosexual marriage initiatives over the last decade. Given the depth of disagreement, there is not much deep analysis. So is there any enlightened opposition to the idea of Adam and Steve? In this essay are offered both religious and secular reasons for opposing gay marriage. Yet, the principled reader must make up his or her own mind as to the merits of this issue. More...Post a Comment on: Is There Still a Principled Defense of Traditional Marriage?Commenting is not available in this channel entry. Next entries comments: Civil Rights Make no Appearance in Obama NATO Afghanistan Address Previous entries comments: The New Flat Earth Society Note from the Editor: This section is for comments from readers of canadafreepress.com. Please don't assume that Canada Free Press agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege. |
|
