I’m less concerned about the government granting some sort of “right of marriage” than I am the government demanding the church grant a “Rite of Marriage”.

All that said, there are conservatives who aren’t christians. There are also conservatives who aren’t particularly interested in having the government take on more and more of the role designated to the church. Remember all those bits in the bible about caring for the poor? What do you think medicare, medicaid, social security, food stamps, etc. are?

That’s somewhat off track though. While I don’t have a big problem with getting government out of the marriage game, I *do* have a problem with Bennett saying he’d take point and then sticking his head in the sand. That would be like someone demanding (and getting) a promotion, and then ignoring the responsibilities of the new job. If this happened in the private sector, the person would be fired. Why not fire Bennett?

Mew

… Is his contention that Bennett is not a social conservative, when he manifestly is and has been throughout his entire time in office.

To speak to age limits is only one small tiny issue, in a sea of many, one of which I brought up with 1st cousins marrying because of the high risk of genetic abnormalities.

I don’t necessarily put more faith in government than you. I do have strong moral values, and, believe that traditional families are integral to the continuation of societies in any civiliazition, and, the continuation of humanity. Sorry, but, I happen to be one who does believe in traditional conservative values. If a hundred years ago, gays were allowed to marry, and, 1st cousins were allowed to marry, what do you think our American population would like like today?

You are being more than a little dramatic in saying that I think the state should tell us what to do in bed. That’s not worth a response.

There already are interracial marriages, and, no laws have banned those marriages.

Speaking of bed, I’m headed there now. Have a good evening.

In many cases, mental institution patients are there because they pose a danger to themselves and/or others. Many are there because they are not capable of rational thought, and, have no sense of right from wrong. They are not competent to make decisions for themselves. In those cases, laws are necessary to protect the innocent, and to also protect the patients themselves from possible exploitation. A friend, who works in a mental hospital was stabbed by a patient with a fork because she asked the patient to be seated. Should that person be allowed to do the same to a spouse, or to a possible child as a result of that marriage?

From a book written by Dr. Mark Cooray-

“Moral values have been attacked by socialists, progressivisits, and libertarians. Some socialists, emphasizing regulation and social systems, belittle moral and individual responsibility. Common, broad based values are not seen as ennobling. They are regarded as restrictive and repressive. Some libertarians, stressing the importance of the freedom of the individual, have also been responsible by silence and sometimes by active espousal of near absolute freedom, for the decline in committment to broadly agreed values. The libertarian, by emphasizing the success at any cost ethic, has been responsible for fostering an epidemic of amorality.”

“An unembarrassed sense of morality is essential to the formulation of public policy and determination of the role of government, as well as to the life of culture and civilization. A shared morality has been a significant facet in the rise and development of western civilization. The fragmentation of that morality is one of the tensions of the present.”

“Many civilizations (notably that of Rome) which have fallen prey to sloth and permissivness have declined and fallen.”

“If law is not based on morality, on what can it be based? The rule of law and the common law are in retreat because their moral base is being undermined.”

________________________________

If I am not mistaken, conservatism is steeped in the rule of law, predicated on common broad based values (Judeo-Christian), which have been developed over the centuries.

Currently, there are 48 states that have banned same sex marriage. 29 states have banned same sex marriage in their state constitutions. A large majority of those states have banned same sex marriage through ballot initiatives. The voters made those choices. I would consider that to be “common broad based values.” Does that mean that those voters have “issues”?

I am aware that you have strong libertarian “leanings, and, also understand that you have not come to any definite conclusions on some issues. Stating that the government has no place in the issue of marriage is a definite position. Believing that the rule of law should be based on common broad based moral principles, does not make me big government, however, I am not anti-government. Until that utopia of universal traditional moral values and principles exists in 100% of the population, and moral relativism (excuses) no longer exists, I will adhere to the belief in the rule of law. Laws cannot exist without government.

I’m sorry for you that you found the need to stoop to saying I had issues, simply because I disagreed with you, and stated my reasons why.

Plenty of irresponsible straight people as well, who leave their children penniless and in the care of the state.

But before you lobby the White House and demand for the dissolution of countless valid marriages, demand that Congress and the White House allow failing businesses to go bankrupt.

Irresponsibility gets its own reward — no one else is responsible for it.

This applies to your friends, I’m sorry.