Social conservatives call for civil disobedience


DeVine Law thinks it’s about time

Gamecock had long called for Martin Luther King, Jr.-style (with all due respect also to Henry David Thoreau and Mahatma Gandhi) non-violent, civil disobedience in oil drilling even before ObamaDems took over D.C. with economic policies that prevent We the People from bailing ourselves out of this Great Recession.

Now, religious and social conservatives see a potential Liberty-destroying menace from the American left with respect to many other issues, given the losses of free speech rights in Canada and Europe at the hands of ObamaDems’ ideological allies.

The bases for civil disobedience are the threat of the enactment of unjust laws and/or the existence of unjust laws; failure to repeal or prevent the enactment of same via normal political and legal processes; the willingness of movement members to accept the punishment for the breaking of duly and legally enacted laws; and the existence of a political culture that is receptive to moral persuasion.

Gandhi and MLK would have been mowed down by Nazis or Communists in Germany, Cuba or the Soviet Union. Their successes were predicated on the fact that the Judeo-Christian values of the British in India and the Americans in America could be used to shame them into changing their ways. Both did.

Now comes my fellow Southern Baptists, including Dr. Richard Land joining other prominent Christian clergy and others with the Manhattan Declaration (get full text here):

Drafted by Dr. Robert George, Dr. Timothy George and Chuck Colson and signed by more than 125 Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical Christian leaders, the Manhattan Declaration was made public today following a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington.

Excerpts from the declaration include:

“We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence.”

“We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral.”

“We will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriage or the equivalent or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family.”

One of the great dangers of much of the gay rights activists agenda, especially including hate crimes, civil unions and same-sex marriage laws are that they could invite activist court decisions (if the enacted laws by their express terms don’t impinge rights directly) that could impinge the rights of political religious free speech under the First Amendment with the threat of imprisonment.

Like most conservatives, I oppose hate crimes laws on the merits as they unnecessarily confuse the ordinary general criminal intent or mens re required for deprivations of liberty via due process, with an inquiry into motives and specific intent that are either wholly irrelevant or best left for consideration in the sentencing phase. Moreover, such laws inevitably devalue the seriousness of harm to and the lives of individual members of groups not protected by hate crime laws and threatens one’s very right to conscience, i.e. think certain thoughts.

People do have the right to hate, whether we like it or not, and unless one’s speech reaches the level of “fighting words” or “incitement to imminent violence”, traditionally very strict legal standards, then one should have the right to express such hate. Moreover, from what we have seen in Canada and Europe, the hate crimes laws punish expressions that merely object to certain activities that do not rise to the level of hatred of individuals or groups.

Hate the sin and not the sinner comes to mind.

The threat of the above is also present with the enactment of civil union laws that require a determination of one’s sexual “orientation”, as courts may deem such laws as placing the imprimatur of government approval of sexual activity outside of traditional marriage and thus threaten the right of parents to have their values inculcated and affirmed, or at least not directly contradicted, by local schools.

These kinds of problems are why the Founders favored maximizing happiness pursuits through the recognition of only individual rights, as opposed to factions or group rights that impinge on the rights of others and for the like-minded to congregate together geographically and exercise power over traditionally local affairs, at the local level, and not impose said values on all of the people.

DeVine Law will sign the Manhattan Declaration.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.


Category:

RSS feed

110 Comments Leave a comment

That's pretty intense - Highly reco'd.

Kenny Solomon (Diary) Sunday, November 22nd at 10:20AM EST (link)

I’d love to see the entire nation get on board with The Manhattan Declaration.

In udda woidz: This heah Jewboy am be a-standin’ right next ta ya, Mike. Git-R-Done !

Cheers !

 

Excellent diary GC....I stand with The Manhattan Declaration...

JadedByPolitics (Diary) Sunday, November 22nd at 10:24AM EST (link)

as well! I will march with you my brother :)

 

Where do I sign? nt

AceInTX (Diary) Sunday, November 22nd at 10:40AM EST (link)
The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in WashingtonFred Thompson

Ace, go to this link

pilgrim (Diary) Sunday, November 22nd at 10:52AM EST (link)

http://manhattandeclaration.org/index.php

Click “Sign the Declasration” and follow the simple instructions.


Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots

Signed

jeffreywturner (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 12:52AM EST (link)

I wonder if there is a limit to how many times I can sign it?

“Life is too short, can’t we all just eat pork and kill some terrorists?”

 

Done nt

AceInTX (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 11:52AM EST (link)
The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in WashingtonFred Thompson
 
 
 

Excellent Gamecock.

mbecker908 (Diary) Sunday, November 22nd at 10:53AM EST (link)

I saw this yesterday and had the same thoughts. I was excited to see Chuck Colson on board, I’ve worked with Prison Fellowship for years and they are – in my anything but humble opinion – the most effective organization on earth. Colson doesn’t lend his name to “stuff” lightly and if he’s involved I would rate this “the real deal”.

agreed, and 'becker, you made my day - nt

Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Sunday, November 22nd at 11:30AM EST (link)

Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

 
 

I'm glad they put this out

ehud (Diary) Sunday, November 22nd at 10:54AM EST (link)

It’s time for religious people to draw attention to, and take a stand for, their liberties that are being trampled by elitist secular-progressives.

the Obamaites are brilliant. In 10 months they’ve succeeded in bringing the social conservatives and the fiscal conservatives to the brink of civil disobedience.

Ryan/? 2012

 

5's to the moon, GC

redneck_hippie (Diary) Sunday, November 22nd at 11:16AM EST (link)

Even though this development could be considered inevitable, the fact that it is so well organized by MD and presented by our own DeVine law is a blessing. We have heard it’s the economy, stupid, but really doesn’t it all come down to it’s the family.

Off topic note to bookbots–now reading The Closing of the American Mind. It is blockbuster. If you have it in your stack, as I did for over a year, read it!


Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots

 

Absolutely excellent GC

Scope (Diary) Sunday, November 22nd at 11:17AM EST (link)

and thank you God that some have awoken to see how the Alinsky/Liberals have been trying to destroy the Judeo/Christian values and morals that have made the Americans the beacon of hope for the world. I had read a few articles by Jeffrey Lord at the American Spectator, where he addressed the problem of some Soros backed groups, who had apparently appealed to, and recruited a vast array of Christian religious leaders. The article particularly points to those leaders of the Church of Crist as taking a leadership role in promoting leftist ideas and propaganda. They were given a pulpit, in a church in NY, in order to push their agenda. They have asked christian leaders to preach about their ideas of “for the common good” and to pass out flyers and info to their parishoners. Soros started the group “so we might see” that professed support for the Net Neutrality agenda coming out of the Obama administration. They sold the idea that everyone deserves broadband for their computers, even in the most remote areas. They seemed to miss the bigger agenda adopted by Genachowski. It is not the job of any religion or their leaders to preach anything other than the word of God. Some Catholic leaders have joined in because of their support for illegal immigration. The Conference of Catholic Bishops misguidedly immersed themselves in the Soros efforts, and, as a result had their names signed on in support of the Leftist agenda, even where they had no involvement. In an article I read awhile ago, which I would never find again if I tried, those Christians that have bought the agenda have said that it’s OK to support a politician that believes in abortion, if they also believe in an agenda of “for the greater good.” In other words, if you believe that the government should be the source of feeding, clothing and housing the masses, so that all are equal, it is fine to support a politican/government that supports abortion.

I was thrilled when I saw this article GC. Just as the government needs to be weeded out of those that will do us and this country harm, so do some religious leaders who have all but given a pass to the destruction of moral values and the consciences, or lack of, those that have not been able to see the forset for the trees. I stand with you GC, and all those of the Manahattan Declaration. It’s about time to stop the persecution of the Jews and the Christians.

Scope, Redneck, Jaded, et al - thx for the kudos - back atcha' - nt

Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Sunday, November 22nd at 11:31AM EST (link)

Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

 
 

I'm ready to sign on here, but

Steph C (Diary) Sunday, November 22nd at 11:42AM EST (link)

I think we should further the civil disobedience to all levels. Not just the social issues outlined but everything, every little law that encroaches upon an individual’s freedom.

If we’re going to do this, we should go all in.

“[I]f the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.” –Candidus in the Boston Gazette, 1772
Hillbilly Politics

Amen Steph, MLK fought, not to be loved, but only not to be lynched as Blacks joined in enjoying the basic civil right to pursue happiness

Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Sunday, November 22nd at 12:22PM EST (link)

and that means being able to work to create wealth and keep the fruits of one’s labor.

Hence, my call for CV on oil drilling.

Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

MLK would have his tax exempt status threatened for daring to stand up for civil rights

AceInTX (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 11:56AM EST (link)

were today’s social progressive policies in effect then

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in WashingtonFred Thompson

exactly right Ace...unless he went the liberal way of Joseph Lowry...nt

Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 12:54PM EST (link)

Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

 
 
 
 

I've signed GC

BlackConservative (Diary) Sunday, November 22nd at 11:48AM EST (link)

BC agrees that we must fight for freedom, all of our freedoms, and most importantly we must fight for the institutions that make America great.

Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven.-Jesus Christ

 

I signed

sharonmcp (Diary) Sunday, November 22nd at 12:59PM EST (link)

“Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.”

“Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face.”

“Without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure.”

Ronald Reagan

“Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.” ~ Ronald Reagan

 

proud to sign.....

marshmom (Diary) Sunday, November 22nd at 3:24PM EST (link)

If we don’t take a stand now, we may not have the “right” to later.

 

I signed at the 28,865 or so mark

ColdWarrior (Diary) Sunday, November 22nd at 9:40PM EST (link)

If we are going to become engaged in civil disobedience, we better plan to have to stand before a jury some day.

One juror on a criminal case is more powerful than the entire government, as he can vote to acquit.

Better learn how to make sure you don’t get thrown off the jury for “failing to engage in good faith deliberations.”

Sadly, most Americans don’t know the history of their rights as jurors.

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership has a great series of pamphlets on our rights, written in comic book style but full of substance and heavily footnoted.

One is called “Can You Get A Fair Trial In America?” and it focuses on the right of jurors to judge both the facts and the application of the law and the law itself. Despite what the judge might tell you.

Go here: http://shop.jpfo.org/cart.php?m=product_list&c=11

Thank you.
ColdWarrior
www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com

In 2012, will YOU become a “voting member” of the Republican Party in your precinct?

Where it all started. Twitter @kaltkrieger
Learn how to GOTV at The Concord Project and at Procinct and Unified Patriots.

 

This is the most ridculous thing I have ever seen.

bdover1 Sunday, November 22nd at 10:51PM EST (link)

For example, I find it ironic that the reason given in the diary against same-sex marriage is so that the public schools will not talk about it, given the fact that all of your biggest concern is that christian’s freedom of speech are being taken away.

Furthermore, I find it cheap and shallow that you want to deny a whole segment of the population a right that you currently enjoy (marriage) just so that you don’t have to deal with your children being told about it at school.

I do agree on this point…I do not want to see hate speech laws any more that any of you do. It’s true, I value freedom of speech…even for those whom I disagree with.

Look at me, I’m a troll who picks a username full of adolescent ‘humor’ before I get banned.

he was pointing out the consequences

mom2oneson (Diary) Sunday, November 22nd at 11:07PM EST (link)

and I’m sick now from reading your post. That is awful that not only do you not want to protect children but you are criticizing someone that does. I’m taking a break from RS.

mom, if you're not on a break...

Uma Richie (Diary) Sunday, November 22nd at 11:20PM EST (link)

Once again you beat me to the punch.

BTW, I wonder how the whole mama bear instinct starts applying to protecting children in general. I used to want to protect children in an academic sort of way; but now, when I perceive a threat to a child, any child, my reaction is totally visceral. From your disgust, I take it that you are the same way.

Thanks Uma

mom2oneson (Diary) Sunday, November 29th at 12:05PM EST (link)

Your are definately right!
When stuff I read starts to bother me when I leave the computer I need a break at least from posting. 99% of the time RS is uplifting and I grow and learn from reading here plus have some companionship with like minded people. :) A woman that was the closest person to a mother to me when i was growing up died this time last year I think I am thinner skinned righ now.
It always bothers me a lot when people are indifferent or not caring about childrens safety or any vulnerable person (developmentall disabled for example.)

Maybe we can get a cool graphic signature that says RS female (mama/sister/aunt/daughter) bear response team. :) Happy Thanksgiving

 
 
 

Your underlying assumptions are

Uma Richie (Diary) Sunday, November 22nd at 11:11PM EST (link)

very different from mine.

I don’t see marriage as a right, but rather a responsibility.

I don’t believe that publicly funded instruction of children constitutes free speech.

You're right

bdover1 Monday, November 23rd at 12:20AM EST (link)

Yeah, that first comment I made was meant to be a snarky comment about how the people who are so afraid of being silenced are interested in silencing others. Nonetheless, as you rightly pointed out, free speech doesn’t seem to apply to schools. So, never mind about that, and thank you for pointing that out.

I guess I don’t really see marriage as a right either (not in the way that we usually think of “god-given rights” like life and liberty, anyway). I see it (in terms of the law and the government) as a beneficial service provided by the government to make people’s lives easier. As in, you decide to spend your life with a person, and marriage just makes a bunch of convenient things automatically happen, like joint taxes, next-of-kin status for hospital visits etc, joint adoption, automatic inheritance in the absence of a will, and over 1,000 others. I guess my main point about this is that if you are going to provide this “service” (for lack of a better word), then in the name of fairness you really have to provide it to everybody. And that’s what I mean when I say marriage is a “right.”

Also, it was not my intention to make people sick or chase them away from this website, mom2oneson, and all I can say about that is that I hope you are not serious about what you said, and if you are then I am truly sorry.

Look at me, I’m a troll who picks a username full of adolescent ‘humor’ before I get banned.

Seriously, your world view

Uma Richie (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 10:03AM EST (link)

is so different from mine, I can’t even find a starting point for discussion.

Public school classrooms are not and should not be a “free speech” platform. Public schools owe the parents and children quality instruction and safety during the school day. Public schools owe the taxpayers graduates who can function and can pull their own weight in society. I see no prerogative for a teacher or guest speaker to get on a soapbox.

I don’t understand why you want to legislate use of the word marriage to apply to any relationship other than the joining of one man and one woman. It appears to me that the “fairness” you seek would be covered by a civil union.

My feeling is that you are making a very good case in support of Mike’s diary. You seek approval for a certain group of sexual practices. You won’t be happy until the rest of us are forced to accept them. And even then, you probably won’t be happy.

Marriage is about family, not 'partnership'

Beaglescout (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 10:31AM EST (link)

Why do non-breeding partners (male-male or female-female) want to become married? They could set up legal partnerships with almost all the same rights. But their purpose is not to form the basis of a family. It is to get government-mandated benefits without contributing to the continuation of human life. Raising our children and giving them to society is the greatest sacrifice my wife and I will make in our lives. It is the greatest sacrifice any of us can do. And government approved marriage is simply an acknowledgement of that fact. All the non-breeders want is to take the benefits without making any sacrifices.

“A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.”

–Alexander Hamilton

Well...

zroxx (Diary) Tuesday, November 24th at 2:32PM EST (link)

This is a very immature view of marriage and does not comport with the purposes of marriage actually identified by American citizens.

Why do non-breeding partners (male-male or female-female) want to become married?

I think you should ask post-menopausal women and their male partners why in the world they would ever possibly want to get married. Or couples where one or both are sterile on account of some medical condition. In your view, evidently, these couples want to “get government-mandated benefits without contributing to the continuation of human life”.

What American citizens actually say they get married for (cite is quite different from what you purport. 67% (of whites) claim mutual happiness as the main purpose. Only 21% (of whites) claim having children is. That’s a heck of a lot of heterosexual couples disagreeing with you. Are they all government-handout seeking leeches unconcerned with human life?

It’s been a while and your comment jogged my memory… we’ve covered this ground before. Marriage means much more than procreation. Prohibition on the grounds of inability to produce offspring is a poor argument.

Ahh... the "sterile couple" straw man argument...

H (Diary) Tuesday, November 24th at 5:12PM EST (link)

I think you should ask post-menopausal women and their male partners why in the world they would ever possibly want to get married. Or couples where one or both are sterile on account of some medical condition.,/blockquote>

The social conservative argument doesn’t invoke biology. It invokes the accepted cultural norm that predates history. The argument is not that marriage should be between a working set of testicles and uterus. The argument is that marriage is definitively between a “man and a woman.”

The fact that this straw man argument, as you use it, has been seized to justify legalized pederasty, bestiality, bigamy, incest, and other forms of social mayhem points up why it is infrequently used among the educated hoi polloi on the left. They simply keep their mouths shut and let the judges do their dirty work for them.

No, you've misfired.

zroxx (Diary) Tuesday, November 24th at 5:40PM EST (link)

If you’d like to advance an argument in support of the assertion I responded to that “non-breeding partners” purpose in seeking marriage is “to get government-mandated benefits without contributing to the continuation of human life”, feel free. My point is that prohibition on the grounds of inability to procreate is not a sound argument and that marriage is sought for a wide array of facets.

My response has nothing to do with the appeal to tradition that many social conservatives use as an argument for prohibition of marriage for homosexuals.

No misfire here.

H (Diary) Wednesday, November 25th at 9:17AM EST (link)

It is you who fails to distinguish between marriage and legal domestic partnership contracts. The former has been, so far in 31 states, recognized as being strictly between one man and one woman. The latter could be between a man or woman and and any number of consenting adults (or emancipated minors).

Incorrect.

zroxx (Diary) Wednesday, November 25th at 11:13AM EST (link)

You are failing to engage on the matter I responded to, which is the issue of whether in-ability to procreate is the determinative factor in whether marriage is a valuable institution (in multiple ways) for the persons involved; specifically, the assertion that “non-breeding partners” purpose in seeking marriage is “to get government-mandated benefits without contributing to the continuation of human life”.

Instead you are (re)stating assertions regarding tradition and status quo which I hadn’t brought up or even indirectly remarked on in my response.

If you want to try again, please engage on the point of debate and stop misfiring. Do you think people who can’t produce offspring should be denied a marriage license?

 
 
 
 
 
 

I just want to point out...

bdover1 Monday, November 23rd at 1:10PM EST (link)

…that I agreed with you, free speech doesn’t apply to public schools. So what are we still arguing about again?

Also, I would be very happy with a civil union that was recognized by the federal government and all 50 states. It doesn’t have to be called marriage.

Look at me, I’m a troll who picks a username full of adolescent ‘humor’ before I get banned.

I thought you were being sarcastic.

Uma Richie (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 1:40PM EST (link)
 
 
 

It is not a "service"...marriage precedes the government

AceInTX (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 12:09PM EST (link)

it exists outside the government or the government’s imprimatur. The problem here is that marriage is seen as a benefit because the government is so large and involved in areas it was never intended to….if the income tax didn’t exist as it did not prior to 1913…then there would be no central government recognition of marriage and no reason for this arguement…but the more the government does…the more it intrudes into what is a civil institution, the more mucked up the issue becomes

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in WashingtonFred Thompson

Ahh, the "you can breed" argument

bdover1 Monday, November 23rd at 1:12PM EST (link)

Gays can still do artificial insemination, surrogate mothers, and adopt. In my opinion, until there are no more unwanted children in the world that could have been adopted by same-sex parents, this argument should be moot.

Look at me, I’m a troll who picks a username full of adolescent ‘humor’ before I get banned.

hmm

bdover1 Monday, November 23rd at 1:14PM EST (link)

that was supposed to be on beaglescouts comment, sorry.

Look at me, I’m a troll who picks a username full of adolescent ‘humor’ before I get banned.

 

Until you can disprove (which you cannot) that the healthiest environment for children is one with a Mother and a Father

BlackConservative (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 1:27PM EST (link)

Then your point is moot. The fact is, the children without BOTH parents are the most likely to be troubled citizens in their adult lives. No matter what you and the liberals say, a father and a mother provide the necessary balance for growth in children and give them the healthiest environment to succeed. Show where thats different.

Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven.-Jesus Christ

 

I didn't say anything about breeding...I said if the central government were restricted to it's rightful size the difinition of marriage wouldn't be an issue...

AceInTX (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 1:31PM EST (link)

and yes…the raising of children in to most stable environment is the primary reason for marriage from a purely secular point of view….please not…all the “artificial” means you list for how gays can bring a child into the world…are still “ARTIFICIAL”. it still takes a male and female to make a baby…and every study available poves the optimal environment for raising a child is in a home with a father, (MALE) and a mother, (FEMALE).

as for whether this argument should be moot or not…it is not…and it will not be.

finally…if you are going to comment here, why don’t you address what was written in the OP…or the Manhattan Declaration instead of trying to obfuscate the issue by binging in irrelevant and unrelated issues that have nothing to do with what has been said by the original poster, individual thread posters…or the declaration the original post points to?

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in WashingtonFred Thompson

I did say...

bdover1 Monday, November 23rd at 1:44PM EST (link)

…that the comment about breeding was meant for beaglescout, who did say something about breeding, I just clicked the wrong thing. I am sorry about that.

Look at me, I’m a troll who picks a username full of adolescent ‘humor’ before I get banned.

that's fine...and I saw that after I posted my reply...but the rest of what I said aside from the breeding still stands

AceInTX (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 2:01PM EST (link)

nt

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in WashingtonFred Thompson
 
 
 
 

I agree with you

bdover1 Monday, November 23rd at 1:29PM EST (link)

I would also be fine if there was no central government recognition of marriage. My point is that it is vastly unfair that some people can marry and some can’t. Either let everyone do it, or no one. They’re both good, though I think I slightly prefer doing away with government recognition of marriage all together.

Look at me, I’m a troll who picks a username full of adolescent ‘humor’ before I get banned.

I didn't say government shouldn't recognize marriage...

AceInTX (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 1:47PM EST (link)

quite the contrary….I believe the government should be about supporting those institutions which makes society stronger….it should be about promoting those institutions that are optimal for the raising and inculcating of our children with the values that have made this the greatest nation on the face of the planet…

that said…it’s a question of…what level of government that recognition should come from…and the federal government ain’t it!

as far as it goes…I don’t know where this supposed “Service” benefits married couples since two un-married individuals are able to claim deductions and exemptions under our tax system that married couples can not…it’s why Bush worked to eliminate the marriage penalty and the Democrats are about to put it back into our tax law

Finally, none of this has anything to do with the Manhattan Declaration or what it talks about….why don’t you go read it…and comment on what it says? anything else you say beyond that is just NOISE!

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in WashingtonFred Thompson
 
 
 

2 points

ehud (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 12:53PM EST (link)

1. Our schools can’t avoid teaching some sort of value system to our children. The literature they read, the comments of the teachers, the speakers they bring in all influence a child’s value system.. What concerns many Christians is the degree to which the left forces their values on our children through the schools while at the same time prohibiting our values from being taught.

2. You are viewing the question of marriage and an adult’s rights issue when it is really a question about privileges, the values of our country, and what is best for children. Our marriage laws will reflect some value system, whether that will be the judeo christian value system or a secular humanist system. I assume you wouldn’t be in favor of polygamy?

Experience in countries with gay marriage and shown us that the devaluing of marriage results in LESS marriage which means LESS parents staying together which means LESS kids living with their biological parents which means MORE messed up kids and MORE social problems (violence, dropping out of school, drugs, premarital sex, etc.)

Ryan/? 2012

 
 
 

your post is the most ridiculous

pilgrim (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 12:09AM EST (link)

Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem, or you do not know the meaning of civil disobedience. This is not an against same-sex marriage diary. This is a diary about accepting the legal consequences of refusing to comply with laws that take one’s freedom of speech away.
A teacher in a Christian school who is willing to break a law that requires teaching the class about gays.
A Pastor in a church who is willing to break the law that requires him to provide his church for ceremony for two of the same sex, or not read scriptures that condemn homosexual practices.
A doctor who is willing to break the law that requires him to perform an abortion or assist in an abortion.
These people practicing civil disobedience are not denying anybody of anything. These people are willing to accept the legal consequences of breaking bad laws.


Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots

5

gekster (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 12:14AM EST (link)

They say Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the poor.
If they need more voters,
then they have to make more of who they are for.

We are there in the various Tea Party groups, leaderless, but not rudderless.
We steer always toward the Constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.
Erick Brockway

Ok folks, 2012 is here. Get involved

 

Yeah, I know

bdover1 Monday, November 23rd at 12:41AM EST (link)

I know this diary and this declaration is not just about same-sex marriage…that was just an example of one of the things I thought was so ridiculous about it.

You bring up the main thing I found ridiculous, actually…That I am really sick of the “persecuted” christian majority.

There are not, nor do I expect there to be, laws that take freedom of speech away from anybody. And if there were, I too would oppose them, as I said before.

Pastors won’t be prevented from preaching against homosexuals, because hate speech laws would not happen here. It would be too much of an affront to free speech for any sane politician to even suggest it, and if they did, I think you’d be surprised at how many liberals (like me) would oppose it. The fact is, no one is asking for it, and no one wants it.

Pastors would not be forced to marry gays if they don’t want to either. At least, no one is asking for that. I mean, plenty of churches refuse to marry people now…for example, lots of catholic churches won’t marry anybody who isn’t catholic. And that’s fine with everyone.

As for doctors, didn’t george w bush pass a law on his way out that made it OK for doctors to refuse to provide services that they disagree with? Even if that law didn’t exist, something like doctor or teacher is a profession that you choose to go into…if your morals prevent you from doing your job, then maybe you should get a different job.

Look at me, I’m a troll who picks a username full of adolescent ‘humor’ before I get banned.

Learn a few things, then come back......

marshmom (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 9:48AM EST (link)

In response to your comment on free speech….”The fact is, no one is asking for it, and no one wants it.”

You might want to do a little more research on this before coming here and pretending like you know a thing or two.
The new “Chief Diversity Officer” at the FCC, Mark Lloyd, actually suggested that the fairness doctrine wasn’t enough to silence certain voices in this country.

He actually said this…..

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.”

“[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.”

Look it up……….he also has several other choice things to say about how “white people” should step down from positions of power so that other people can take over, but of course I ‘m sure you already knew all of this, right?

And yes, George Bush did create a “conscience clause” law, which right now, Obama is trying to overturn. Look it up!!!!!!

I could go on, and on, and on, but you obviously already have lots of reading to do, so I’ll leave it there for now. Next time you come back, you should be more prepared to defend your arguments before someone else on here has to take you to school.

 

Would you have thought that the "penumbras" from the 14th's equal protection clause and the 4th's reasonable search clause would have

Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 10:49AM EST (link)

created a right to abortion? Didn’t think so. You are aware that hate crime/speech laws in Canada and Europe are having the effect feared here? Didn’t think so.

Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

gamecock, did you catch his "final solution"

pilgrim (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 11:21AM EST (link)

If a person chooses to be a doctor, and then refuses to perform abortions then he needs to find a new job. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Let’s have less doctors.


Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots

Excellent point!!! if the government decides you must do something regardless of your moral objection as a condition of being allowed to work in you chosen profession

AceInTX (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 12:38PM EST (link)

then choose a different profession…not there is no question of the government’s right to determine what practitioners of a certain profession must or must not do!

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in WashingtonFred Thompson

exactly

gunnerbs (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 1:05PM EST (link)

and especially because the federal government now controls all student loans. If the feds are the only ones controlling student loans, then it isn’t a stretch for them to decide who gets which loans for what “chosen” profession.

I start with the premise that NO ONE has a right to my Life, Liberty, or Property. Beyond that I’m open to discussion.
———————————
When you send a contribution to the candidate you support, send a copy of the check, or at least a note to his or her opponent, telling them why your money didn’t go there!

 
 

What I meant...

bdover1 Monday, November 23rd at 1:24PM EST (link)

I guess what I meant when I said that, was that you shouldn’t be an “abortion doctor” if your morals prevent you from doing abortions. I assumed there would have to be a degree of specialization there…so correct me if I’m wrong. I mean, a gastroenterologist does your endoscopy, why wouldn’t a doctor specializing in abortions do that? I wouldn’t think that if you’re just a regular doctor or nurse, you’d be forced to do abortions.

I just meant, if you don’t want to do abortions, specialize it something else…be a gastroenterologist, a podiatrist or a pediatrician, or anything else. I didn’t think that was so unreasonable.

Look at me, I’m a troll who picks a username full of adolescent ‘humor’ before I get banned.

My mom was an RN

aesthete (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 1:32PM EST (link)

and I don’t know how it is with doctors, but oftentimes, an RN’s job is very generalized, and can involve helping with an abortion. Also, because hospitals are often short on staff, RNs oftentimes have to wear several hats, including that of an abortion provider. You should really have thought it through logically: there would not be any complaints if abortion doctors were the only ones providing or helping with the abortions, as they were presumably comfortable enough with abortion to pursue its provision as a career.

BTW, this is coming from someone who thinks that the “conscience” rule that we have is an unwelcome governmental intrusion into something that is between an employee and his employer, and is somewhat akin to laws against “workplace discrimination”.

The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton

Alright, thank you...

bdover1 Monday, November 23rd at 1:41PM EST (link)

…for the respectful correction

Look at me, I’m a troll who picks a username full of adolescent ‘humor’ before I get banned.

 
 

The specialty would be Obstetrics/Gynecology.

Uma Richie (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 1:37PM EST (link)

I would not be comfortable going to any OB/GYN who performed abortions. I would not trust her to give me medical advice if she felt that my developing baby was expendable. The idea of a country where all the baby doctors are also abortionists is frightening.

Pharmacists, nurses and other healthcare professionals who would be required to assist in abortions do not have as much opportunity to specialize as doctors.

 

OK...I'll correct you if you're wrong...Your WRONG!

AceInTX (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 1:56PM EST (link)

once again…if you read what the Manhattan Declaration says…it lays out specific cases in law where doctors and hospitals are being required by law to perform abortion, provide abortion services, refer patients to abortion providers etc….it also lays out specific factual and historical cases where churches are being coerced through the law to either allow their facilities to be used for marriages of gay couples, they are being threatened with the loss of tax exempt status for refusing to perform gay marriages, they’re being threatened with criminal prosecution for violating equal employment laws for not hiring openly gay employees to work as custudians, church organists etc.

again…read it before you comment on it and you won’t look so foolish!

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in WashingtonFred Thompson
 
 
 

No...

bdover1 Monday, November 23rd at 1:17PM EST (link)

I guess I wasn’t aware that canadian or european laws are affecting us here. Why would they?

Look at me, I’m a troll who picks a username full of adolescent ‘humor’ before I get banned.

Good grief! The observed effects of the Canadian and European

Ward_Off_Monkey Tuesday, November 24th at 2:16PM EST (link)

laws in Canada and Europe are the same effects that are feared here with the enactment of such hate crime laws (see last month’s defense appropriations bill).

“The government’s view of the economy can be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” ~ Ronald Reagan

 
 
 

Maybe you should educate yourself because it's clear you are ignorant on many of the issues you're spouting off about

AceInTX (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 12:31PM EST (link)

the IRS is telling pastors what they are and are not allowed to say today…if a pastor advocates for or against an issue they are being threatened with losing their churches tax exempt status never mind it’s a non profit organization and doesn’t earn an income that is subject to be taxed.

The government is plating more and more games with the language and interpretation of that language as it it written in law and using it to shut up it’s opposition.

you can puff yourself up in all your self righteousness all you want…but that’s what’s going on. yeah we may be a majority…but that doesn’t change the censorship that is being done using layer’s tricks and manipulation of the language…and now that the precedent is set…and once the “‘persecuted’ christian majority” as you call us has been silenced…who is going to stand up for you when big brother turns his gaze on you for taking some unpopular, or unfashionable position on an important issue?.

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in WashingtonFred Thompson
 

are you aware

ehud (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 12:56PM EST (link)

of the family who massachussetts who was prevented from taking their child out of a classroom that was reading a book promoting the gay lifestyle? And when the dad refused to leave he was arrested and spent a couple days in prison?

are you aware of the pastor in Sweden who was put on trial for hate crimes because he preached a sermon against homosexuality?

Are you aware of the human rights commissions in Canada that will prosecute people for posting things on websites they deem as ‘anti-gay’ such as Bible verses?

Ryan/? 2012

 

also

ehud (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 12:58PM EST (link)

do you really think a majority of the population are evangelical bible believing Christians? It’s more like 20-30%. There is a majority of nominal christians yes, but they are not the ones who are ridiculed and whose free speech rights are under attack.

Ryan/? 2012

 

right...right...and....catholic charities, frinstance....

chuckie (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 4:22PM EST (link)

…would never be forced to provide adoption services to gays….

….naahhhhhh…..couldn’t happen here……

…..right?

 
 

pilgrim thanks for the explanation

AKSteveB (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 1:59AM EST (link)

I had originally read it the wrong way as well.

Hell is other people – Sartre

 

Bingo! nt

AceInTX (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 12:13PM EST (link)
The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in WashingtonFred Thompson
 
 

you can call it marriage if you want...ITS NOT!

AceInTX (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 12:02PM EST (link)

and I should be the sole determiner what my children are exposed to…not you…not Obama…and not the government at any level…

I send my children to school to learn how to read write and cipher, I don’t send them to be indoctrinated into the current pop cultural fads and “progressive” propaganda.

No one is talking about censorship here, we’re talking about the government keeping it’s hands to itself and keeping the long arm of government restricted to it’s right and proper place.

nice attempt at obfuscation but I call FAIL!

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in WashingtonFred Thompson
 
 

There's not enough evidence to convict me

Achance (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 12:35AM EST (link)

of being a Christian, but I’ll stand with them and with you, GC.

In Vino Veritas

Ah, so remembered my late preacher's saying!? That's what he always said

Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 7:44AM EST (link)

when asked if he thought so and so was a Christian or a patriot. He would not judge the heart, but would be hard-pressed to get enough evidence for a jury to convict them of being one or the other!

Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

 
 

ProudMarineMom

proudmarinemom (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 1:07AM EST (link)

As a future RN (second career), I’ll be practicing civil disobedience when I am forced to participate in any aspect of care for an abortion patient. The deceptively named Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) will likely be slipped through Congress along with a provision to fund abortion. No, dover, I won’t be allowed to walk away and file a conscientious objection when that happens.

As far as getting a different job if my “morals prevent me from doing my job,” you’re kidding, right? Primun non nocere (first, do no harm) is not just a bumper sticker slogan. We mean it when we say it.

 

I hate to tell you this

leehedstrom (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 3:27AM EST (link)

I hate to tell you this but the hate crimes law makes it a criminal act to say anything against homosexuality even from the pulpit. the new healthcare bill makes it a criminal act to object to doing abortions no matter what your personal views are. The age of free speech in America is all but gone, and the right to refuse service to anyone is also out the window.

 

Marriage is not a partnership, or a service-it is an institution that is about children

BlackConservative (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 12:57PM EST (link)

At some point liberals decided that the meaning of marriage changed from being something that is about raising a family to something that is about affirming the sex lives of two adults. Having said that, I would have also liked to see something in here about the prevention of divorce as well, as another factor chipping at the well in terms of the institution of marriage.

Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven.-Jesus Christ

Then why should government be involved

aesthete (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 1:24PM EST (link)

at all? We’ve already seen what our elected officials, both Republican and Democrat, think about the sanctity of marriage — wouldn’t it be wiser to place such a sacred institution in the hands of more capable trustees, such as religious institutions, and have civil unions in place for all of the legal aspects of marriage? Otherwise, one must ask themselves how marriage can simultaneously be so important as to merit protection from the inclusion of gays, yet so trivial as to be reducible to a goodie bag from the government for those members of that special club.

Frankly, I see no reason for why marriage should be a governmental issue — it cheapens the institution by giving a hollow parity between marriages of the type seen in LV every day (which, to be so obvious, don’t help children at all) and the dedicated kind which helps children, and it leads to problems like the one that we’re currently having. Social conservatives would be wise to see the logic in that, and to remove government altogether from the equation.

The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton

I absolutely agree

bdover1 Monday, November 23rd at 1:37PM EST (link)

That is actually my ideal solution… have 2 separate things, civil unions which are recognized by the government and confer all the related legal benefits, and marriage, which you can choose to do if you want to be married in the eyes of god, but has no legal status whatsoever. Then specific churches can choose to marry whoever they want, in accordance with their beliefs. And the civil unions can handle the legal side. So long as gays can also get the civil unions, I’m 100% on board with this.

Look at me, I’m a troll who picks a username full of adolescent ‘humor’ before I get banned.

I'd also extend civil unions

aesthete (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 1:43PM EST (link)

to any situation where two (or more) people are going to room with each other for an extended period of time. After all, what is marriage to government but roommates who have sex :)

The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton

That sounds great!

bdover1 Monday, November 23rd at 1:48PM EST (link)

I agree completely.

Look at me, I’m a troll who picks a username full of adolescent ‘humor’ before I get banned.

 

and with that...you've argued yourself into our position on what's wrong

AceInTX (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 2:13PM EST (link)

and why government should be drawing the line somewhere…

the reason we have laws and government is to promote the general welfare…raising children in a home with both a father and mother is optimal and beneficial to society as a whole…raising them in a single parent, gay couple or any other living arrangement is generally harmful to the society at large…the evidence is irrefutable…just raising a child in a single parent home has shown all kinds of ills that are destroying out society….a child raised in a single parent home is much more likely to be poor, to be incarcerated, a substance abuser, and suffer from every other socially destructive ill out there.

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in WashingtonFred Thompson

I've said this a couple of times

aesthete (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 9:24PM EST (link)

and when I get around to becoming fabulously rich and famous, I’ll write a formalized essay called, “Why I am not a Social Conservative” with this theme: I really, reeeally like social conservative commentary on society, and I really, reeeally like social conservatives. I think that they’re absolutely spot on in identifying the problems that society has, and in identifying the root causes. Your post is a great example of this: children raised in heterosexual two-parent homes are significantly better off than their peers without that benefit by virtually every objective standard. However, and this is where I part with social conservatives, almost all of the government solutions offered by social conservatives are either insane, overly intrusive, or ineffective and harmless. For me, SoCon marriage “solutions” fall into the third category: they do nothing to solve the underlying causes behind the gay marriage movement (namely, the devaluing of marriage and increase in acceptance for deviant forms of sexuality), and needlessly drag government into an area where it doesn’t belong.

Because most SoCon “solutions” are harmless, and because they are such strong advocates for two truly good things (private school vouchers and prolifeyness), I’m more than content with defending and partnering with SoCons, goofiness and all. Still, posts that point out the problem in brilliant fashion and presume that it will be fixed magically by policy X further convince me that SoCons are fantastic prognosticators but terrible policymakers, and that I’ll probably never qualify as one.

As an aside, I doubt that the Founding Fathers would endorse most of the policies included under “general welfare”, including those cherished by social conservatives (such as the Federal Marriage Amendment). I’m kind of surprised that you’d say that government is to promote the “general welfare”, considering the misuse of that term by both Republicans and Democrats.

The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton

Government has a interest in promoting stable families so more children aren't a burden to society either to be fed and/or

Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Tuesday, November 24th at 10:43AM EST (link)

as uncivilized animals. Much of human history is about this problem. So, yes, givt has a role. Moreover, govt should not promote sex outside marriage, so that, if we must have civil unions, I favor the kind you suggest between any two adults that does not ask about sexual matters.

Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Agree to disagree? nt

aesthete (Diary) Tuesday, November 24th at 11:44AM EST (link)

The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton

I guess so...smile - nt

Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Tuesday, November 24th at 11:53AM EST (link)

Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

 
 
 

Your so smart on this...able to determin what's "goofiness" and not...what's your solution?

AceInTX (Diary) Tuesday, November 24th at 10:57AM EST (link)

I’m a federalist and I can’t say I’m all that comfortable with the FMA and other soutions to the problem…but the flip side of that is allowing the status quot to continue and that is a march toward normalizing behaviors that you agree are destructive to the health of our society as a matter of public policy.

If I had my way…the federal government would be restricted to it’s limited roll and this wouldn’t be an issue at all…let the states do what they are going to do….I could care less if two guys want to call themselves married in Vermont or Massachusetts as long as I don’t have to pay for the diseases they are more prone to, or as long as I’m not forced to recognize their so called marriage in Texas. and SoCons wouldn’t be as stirred up over this if I could send my kids to school without having to worry about my kids being propagandized to a point of view my conscience tells me is wrong. Nor would I be upset if I could sit down and watch TV in the evening with them and not have to be ready with the remote because the plot line in some TV show includes a gay couple…or watch an awards show without having to watch Adam whats his face play tongue tag with another guy on stage…or two gay brothers on the Amazing race this weekend cooing like love sick doves about some hot Scandinavian guy in his underwear and having to have their private areas blurred because they’re in their underwear and can’t hide their excitement at being near said Scandinavian hot guy

but that’s not the case…the gay rights movement, the federal government, and Hollywood have decided we have to have round the clock representation of a lifestyle that has participation in our society at best 10% representation in our society. They have to be in our faces…and screaming at us to accept them and their obnoxious and destructive behavior and put the stamp of approval of the federal and state governments on it by sanctioning their marriages.

I’m sorry we goofy SoCons should do exactly?

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in WashingtonFred Thompson

Ace, here's the thing

aesthete (Diary) Tuesday, November 24th at 11:40AM EST (link)

I don’t have an answer for how to address all of these issues, and in situations as massively complex as those facing society, I think that the best solution is to have the government butt out almost entirely out of such issues, especially at the federal level. This applies to the left, as well (hate crime bills, anyone?), and I’m not sympathetic to their viewpoint, which is essentially the evil Mirror Universe twin of social conservatism in that regard. In the scenario of non-sexual civil unions, it should be readily apparent upon examination that, if the goal is for gays not to hijack marriage, it would make more sense to entrust it to institutions whose goal is to promote healthy, stable marriages (churches and the like), rather than to an institution which can be more easily influenced by special interest groups, as the government clearly is.

Like I said, you guys are absolutely brilliant at social commentary in a way that eludes other parts of the conservative coalition. But, like I said, it is somewhat underwhelming and frustrating to hear all of these social ills so correctly articulated and noted, only to have the following sentence be something along the lines of, “And that’s why married couples should have a tax break!” or “And that’s why we shouldn’t hand a slip of paper to gay couples!” On the flip side of the coin (which we in America thankfully don’t have to worry about), it is overwhelming and not conducive to freedom when draconian solutions are sought after. To use the example that you brought up of television, any government solution that would be effective in reducing the incidences of indecent material on TV must also take away freedom through regulation in a proportional manner. And if you are willing to have the government take away broadcasters’ freedoms in exchange for implementing a desired social agenda or to get an optimal level of public morality, which I don’t think you do, you can hardly blame the Democrats when they expand government for their own reasons!

As to “goofiness”, I didn’t mean to trivialize or make light of social conservative concerns — indeed, I share many of them, and maybe I should have used a word like “idiosyncrasy” instead. I apologize if you read it as me putting your views down.

The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton

I realize that...

AceInTX (Diary) Tuesday, November 24th at 12:55PM EST (link)

As to “goofiness”, I didn’t mean to trivialize or make light of social conservative concerns — indeed, I share many of them, and maybe I should have used a word like “idiosyncrasy” instead. I apologize if you read it as me putting your views down.

and like you…I don’t mean to trivialize what you are saying either…because I see and am perplexed by the conundrum.

I mean…on the one hand, I don’t want a government, (especially a federal government) strong enough to tell people what they can put on TV or what states can or can’t do in defining marriage etc…but on the flip side…its the current size of the federal government that is causing these problems in the first place…that and the agitators that keep throwing us on the horns of these dilemmas forcing us to chose between allowing these issues to fester and the cultural rot to continue…and indeed accelerate…on the one hand…and giving the gvernment enough ppwer to deal with these issues which inevitably get highjacked by the forces we’re trying to stop and having the powers we gave used against us…

We’re not that far apart on what we would like to have…and I’m with you about choosing between the lesser of two evils….the optimal answer would be to have America return to what it once was… let the government stick to it’s defined powers and let the culture deal with these issues using shame and ridicule to ostracize those behaviors that are most destructive to us and to our children…the problem is…the agitators control the culture now. They keep putting the burrs under the saddle and forcing us to deal with the irritation which is a lose lose for us no matter what we do.

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in WashingtonFred Thompson

Let me add...the agitators control the schools now too

AceInTX (Diary) Tuesday, November 24th at 1:10PM EST (link)

and they are pushing out kids toward a godless moral relativism where there is no right and wrong…which prevents us being able to use the culture to affect change and lessen the need for a central government to legislate everything…I say shame on us because while many of us fought to stop the agitators from taking over the culture…we didn’t fight hard enough…we didn’t object when they took over Hollywood and when they started piping their propaganda into our homes…and we didn’t object when they began systematically taking over local school boards in the 60s, as the took local control from the local school boards and centralized them in the state governments in the 70s and 80s, and as they systematically took control from the states and centralized education policy throughout the 90s and 00s.

now they own the culture…and are starting to enforce their Unitarianism policies of thought on our culture through federal laws…which is why the Manhattan Declaration has become necessary…if you haven’t read the whole thing you need to…because it’s not calling for any new laws or anything else…it is declaring a Christian’s moral obligation to follow the dictates of his conscience and to conscientiously object through civil disobedience to laws which contradict the dictates of that person’s conscience.

In essence…this declaration embodies what Jefferson said and which is inscribed on his monument in DC

I pledge upon the alter of Almighty God, eternal hostility toward all forms of tyranny over the mind of man!

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in WashingtonFred Thompson
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

it is too complicated

ehud (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 7:09PM EST (link)

marriage is, by nature, a legal affair and thus government must be invovled. It affects your taxes, responsibility for children, inheritance, etc. It can’t be just a religious institution. Furthermore, it has ALWAYS been a public institution that confers PUBLIC benefits. If it were to somehow become private there would be an extremely high societal cost.

BTW, are you in favor of polygamy? Or men marrying their pets? Or any other form of ‘civil union’ besides a homosexual variety?

Ryan/? 2012

exactly and more later - nt

Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 7:32PM EST (link)

Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

 

To answer your qs in the second paragraph

aesthete (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 8:47PM EST (link)

No, but I don’t think blokes (or broads) should be thrown in prison for being polygamous. No — animals can’t give consent, for starters. Yes, I’d like civil unions to extend to any arrangement where two people are living together for an extended period of time, be it in a sexual or non-sexual relationship.

As to the “marriage is too complex” argument, I would argue that if our churches and synagogues can be entrusted with helping to lead people to salvation, they are surely up to the task of ensuring that marriage remains a sacred institution and one that is conducive to the healthy development of children.

Marriage’s public function is irrelevant to whether the government should get involved, and it is somewhat ironic that you use a Pigovian argument to suggest that the positive externalities resulting from marriage should be government subsidized, an position that is decidedly unconservative and fallacious (Ronald Coase has an excellent rebuttal of this idea, if you’re interested). Marriage doesn’t need to become private for government to stop being involved — in that case, how would institutions such as the church come to be? To say this is to say that the Designer of marriage hasn’t imbued marriage with the wherewithal to persevere without government support!

In short, the costs of losing government support of marriage are minimal and can be replaced almost in full by establishing civil unions. The benefits of drawing government out of marriage, OTOH, are significant: significantly less no-fault divorce, less government involvement in our personal lives, and no more having to waste resources on defending from a “redefinition” of marriage.

The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton

 
 
 

BC, I agree.

Uma Richie (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 1:26PM EST (link)

Further, I think that no fault divorce (Gov. Reagan, I concede) opened the door for others to define their relationships as equal to marriage.

BTW, I saw your family photo on the TMR site. God bless you and your wonderful wife and your beautiful children.

 
 

anyone who thinks gay marriage is good

ehud (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 1:02PM EST (link)

or is primarily about private adult relationships needs to read ‘The Future of Marriage’ by David Blankenhorn (a liberal) who has spent his life dealing with families. He analyzes the history of marriage and what it’s purposes and benefits are and also analyzes countries that have gay marriage.

Essentially, marriage is a PUBLIC institution that is about CHILDREN, but also confers a number of other benefits upon society. And it’s been that way in every culture throughout time until the last 20 years.

Ryan/? 2012

 

For the record, BlackConservative (and anyone else who thinks gay people shouldn't raise kids)...

bdover1 Tuesday, November 24th at 2:11PM EST (link)

No, I can’t PROVE that the “healthiest” environment for children doesn’t require the parents to be a heterosexual couple. However, there are studies that show that children of lesbian parents do just about the same as children of heterosexual parents. Here’s a couple of links for you:

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpchildren.html

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/feb/17/local/chi-gay-parents-18feb18

To summarize, what they’ve found in these studies is that children of lesbian parents do about the same as children of heterosexual parents, in terms of gender identity, sexual identity, not having “psychological issues”, etc. The only main difference they found was that children of gay parents tend to encounter more bullying, in the form of making fun of them for having gay parents. And that’s a poor reason to say gay people shouldn’t have kids, just so the kids will not encounter the bigotry of others.

Disclaimer: I fully realize there are studies that show what most of you are saying…that children need both a mother and a father. I’m sure the outcome of these studies depends in some way on the preconceptions of whoever is doing the study. And there just isn’t that much data…gay people only just started raising a lot of kids in the 80′s, which is fairly recent. Gay male parents have not been studied as much as lesbian parents. I understand all of this.

I’m just saying, there are studies that back up my view too. It is not clear that children can ONLY succeed with both mother and father. That is NOT proven fact, and neither is what I’m saying…the evidence is too scant, and goes both ways.

If I was to hazard a guess, I would say that having a loving, caring family is what helps children succeed…regardless of the gender of the parents. But, that’s just my opinion, one that I am ready to change in the face of convincing evidence.

Look at me, I’m a troll who picks a username full of adolescent ‘humor’ before I get banned.

Would you call God's plan "convincing evidence"?

janis (Diary) Tuesday, November 24th at 2:24PM EST (link)

He didn’t create an infinite number of ways for same sex parents to conceive and raise children, He created one way– a man and a woman. Same with all mammals. Until those physical laws are changed by the One who created them, I’ll just stick with His plan.

How do you know?

bdover1 Tuesday, November 24th at 4:12PM EST (link)

But how do you know that it wasn’t God’s plan for us to invent artificial insemination, etc? No one knows what God’s plan is…

All that aside, you think you know what God’s plan is and you’ve decided to live by it. Good for you, I’m happy for you.

I disagree about God’s plan and decide to live differently. What I would really like is for our so-called secular government to not validate your relationship with a bunch of goodies, while not recognizing my relationship whatsoever, all because you are following God’s plan and I’m not. Me and the person I’m spending my life with are technically complete strangers in the eyes of the law. Would you want that? It is horribly unfair. And it’s a huge violation of the principle of separation of church and state for one person to impose their idea of God’s plan on everybody.

Look at me, I’m a troll who picks a username full of adolescent ‘humor’ before I get banned.

"How do you know?" Wow, that is a really dumb question.

Aaron Gardner (Diary) Tuesday, November 24th at 4:21PM EST (link)

The proof that man and woman are supposed to be together is seen all around you. Your existence is scientific proof of the laws of nature, which are part of God’s plan.

conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!

“We’d be much better off if We The People had desired small government enough to keep it.” acat


One quibble with that, Aaron. His existence

janis (Diary) Tuesday, November 24th at 5:38PM EST (link)

is scientific proof that the platypus wasn’t the only really peculiar creature that God created. God has a really pronounced sense of humor, doesn’t He?

 
 
 
 

utter foolishness

ehud (Diary) Tuesday, November 24th at 2:40PM EST (link)

The idea that kids don’t need a mom and a dad is utter foolishness. I just had a kid and we are signed up to get emails from our medical provider. Just yesterday the email was about how babies respond differently to seeing their moms and dads. They raise their eyes and get more excited when they see dad and calm down when they see mom. There is so much research (and common sense) to show that children get different things from fathers and mothers. Men and women are DIFFERENT, and they naturally interact differently with their kids. You accept that men and women are different don’t you?

As to the studies, there are a few studies that show kids raised by gays do equally well, but the studies are mostly done by sympathetic researchers, are small sample sizes, and have methodological flaws. On the other hand, there are MANY more larger, better studies that show that kids do best when raised by their mom and dad. I have a book that goes through all of this, and I will write a diary about it at some point.

Also, there have been studies to show that kids raised by gays are more likely to be gay and have other problems as well. This doesn’t mean that you can’t be normal and healthy with two gay parents, or with a single mom, or whatever, but it is harder and clearly not optimal.

And I think climate-gate is finally destroying the myth that scientists are all objective and don’t twist their research to support political agendas.

Ultimately, I don’t think we need scientists to tell us what the best family environment is for kids. It’s just common sense, which is often more reliable than relying on academics who are the same people that are telling us to spend more money to fix an economy in the toilet form too much borrowing.

Ryan/? 2012

I look forward to your diary

bdover1 Tuesday, November 24th at 4:03PM EST (link)

I have yet to see any studies which point to your opinions that are any more or less convincing than studies which point to my opinions. I look forward to your diary on the subject with great interest.

Look at me, I’m a troll who picks a username full of adolescent ‘humor’ before I get banned.

 
 

I still believe you are a troll. So far, you only take positions...

penguin2 (Diary) Tuesday, November 24th at 3:01PM EST (link)

counter to the conservatism of this site. Remember how you attacked the Catholic Church in the Burka diary? Equating the Pope’s stand on distributing condoms in Africa with heinous crimes committed in the name of religion?

Your stance on this doesn’t surprise. Keep reading any and all studies you want. Considering the propaganda going on in our institutions of higher learning today, the studies are all going to show liberal views to support yours and their agenda.

As Janis has already noted, male and female are for the propagation of the species, propagation in required for survival of same. Throughout history, society enacts laws that aid in this common sense approach. Choices that adults make for their own lifestyle is one thing, affecting the lives of children is another. As an advocate for children, I do draw the line there.

BTW, God was very wise in his creation tactics.

Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. – Benjamin Franklin
When Good stands up to Evil, Evil blinks. – Vassar Bushmills

Conservative Education: Suggested Reading List

Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots

That must be very convenient

bdover1 Tuesday, November 24th at 4:01PM EST (link)

If something disagrees with what you already think, then it’s part of some liberal conspiracy to brainwash everyone into their agenda.

Look at me, I’m a troll who picks a username full of adolescent ‘humor’ before I get banned.

bdover1, not a conspiracy..a stated agenda of the modern democratic party.

Aaron Gardner (Diary) Tuesday, November 24th at 4:12PM EST (link)

You support that agenda, so take your lumps like a big boy.

conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!

“We’d be much better off if We The People had desired small government enough to keep it.” acat


 

G'bye (nt)

Neil Stevens (Diary) Tuesday, November 24th at 4:16PM EST (link)

RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules

Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.

“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder

'Bout time

Third Street (Diary) Tuesday, November 24th at 4:18PM EST (link)

I was wondering what Mister “The Pope Is a Suicide Bomber” was still doing around…

“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.” –Wilkins Micawber, “David Copperfield”

You guys argued with him instead of emailing me :-) (nt)

Neil Stevens (Diary) Tuesday, November 24th at 4:30PM EST (link)

RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules

Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.

“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder

You need an always-on red 'troll-alert' telephone. nt

mschmitt (Diary) Tuesday, November 24th at 4:37PM EST (link)

usque ad finem

 
 
 
 

well no, bdover1. I just think you are a liberal and....

penguin2 (Diary) Tuesday, November 24th at 4:20PM EST (link)

you are trolling here. Yes, it is convenient for me here, as it is a conservative/Republican site to promote our causes and candidates, not for liberals to promote theirs. Also, it is not really a “conspiracy theory” it is a well known fact that the Leftist/Liberals have an agenda.

Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. – Benjamin Franklin
When Good stands up to Evil, Evil blinks. – Vassar Bushmills

Conservative Education: Suggested Reading List

Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots

 
 
 

I can buy or get a grant to do a study that will find whatever

Achance (Diary) Tuesday, November 24th at 3:29PM EST (link)

I want it to find. I can buy an “expert” complete with Ph.D and very impressive C.V. to say whatever I want him/her to say. Your point?

In Vino Veritas

agreed, look at the recent revelations about "Man Made Global Warming"

gekster (Diary) Tuesday, November 24th at 4:08PM EST (link)

They say Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the poor.
If they need more voters,
then they have to make more of who they are for.

We are there in the various Tea Party groups, leaderless, but not rudderless.
We steer always toward the Constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.
Erick Brockway

Ok folks, 2012 is here. Get involved

 
 
 

Signed

AHALgal Wednesday, November 25th at 1:09AM EST (link)

May the God who made us and loves us watch over our fine nation. Amen.

 

Mmmmm...not just a threat here

Carolynp (Diary) Wednesday, November 25th at 1:53PM EST (link)

It kills me that libs ignore the obvious here. No matter what laws they pass, my husband will not marry a gay couple. He’ll go to jail. We’ll lose our home. We’ll lose all our possessions. Yet, we will NOT abandon our beliefs. For some reason, they just can’t see anyone who truly takes a stand.

Carolynp

 

Tonight, I'll Keep My Thoughts Personal.

OccamsRazor (Diary) Wednesday, November 25th at 11:43PM EST (link)

Good Job, GC.

Amen.