Democrats Leave Party Over Marriage, Religious Freedom Concerns
8th June 2012
A wave of local and state Democrats throughout the U.S. are leaving the party due to controversy over its leaders’ support for “gay marriage,” as well as concerns about religious freedom and the defense of the unborn.
June 8th, 2012 at 14:26
I like “taken a hard turn towards the left”; it has a certain ring to it.
How much of a ‘hard turn’ is it, exactly, to extend the rights and priveleges enjoyed by 98% of the population to the remaining 2%? If you moved your steering wheel by 2%, you probably wouldn’t even feel it…
So when will the Republican Party finally acknowledge what we all have known for some time and change its name to the Christian Republican Party?
And will we have a Christian Democrat Party, like they do in most European countries?
Interesting times, indeed.
June 9th, 2012 at 21:14
“How much of a ‘hard turn’ is it, exactly, to extend the rights and priveleges enjoyed by 98% of the population to the remaining 2%? If you moved your steering wheel by 2%, you probably wouldn’t even feel it…”
Keep saying it Dennis. Still won’t make it true. The “2%” have the same rights as everyone else. But if you mean cede the right to define marriage to them… well…that’s a “new” right. Letting 2% of the population change the definition of anything for society doesn’t seem right to me. But hey, what do I know.
Funny, I am a Christian and happen to be registered a Republican but have so little confidence in the Republican party to represent me. For instance, my candidate George W. Bush was elected President. Yet after his election he handed the keys to the education overhaul to the most liberal senator in congress Ted Kennedy. Then when a second supreme court justice position came up he offered the seat, like his father, to a wildcard Harriet Meyers, another potential David Souter. You liberals have is so easy. We fight to get someone elected then have to fight them to represent us.
June 10th, 2012 at 13:17
That’s why neither tje abortion nor gay marriage issues will never die; if they were ever solved, one way or the other, the rank-and-file would wake up to realize that the Republicans are not their friends. But as long as they can ‘wave the bloody shirt’, the Christians will continue to fall in and march on like good little automatons.
“cede the right to define marriage” That’s funny. They don’t want to redefine it, they just want to participate. The definition would remain the same, at least so far as the civil authorities would be concerned.
No, what you really object to is the fact that you won’t be able to define it exclusively for your own benefit. You’ll no longer have the bouncer at the door allowing only the ‘right people’ to come in the club.
June 10th, 2012 at 22:24
“They don’t want to redefine it, they just want to participate. The definition would remain the same, at least so far as the civil authorities would be concerned.”
And here we have the problem. Any human being can get married. I say again, anyone can get married as long as is to someone of the opposite sex. I’ll say it one more time, anyone can married, but a man cannot marry a man without changing what is MEANS to be married.
“No, what you really object to is the fact that you won’t be able to define it exclusively for your own benefit. You’ll no longer have the bouncer at the door allowing only the ‘right people’ to come in the club.”
The definition of marriage has been around a lot longer than I have. Seems like it has worked pretty well. Society can and should be able to define terms and institutions in a healthy forum. We have been in the process of doing this by ballot initiative. The gay agenda folks have been unhappy with the results. EVERY ballot initiative so far has affirmed the current definition of marriage. Unhappy with this the gay activists have moved their efforts to the courts and state legislatures. That sounds like the 2% insisting on sitting in the driver seat of the bus as was mentioned in a previous post. The “bouncer” is attempting to take the driver seat.
June 11th, 2012 at 06:43
“without changing what it MEANS to be married.” How so, exactly?
Does allowing a man to marry another man, or a woman to marry another woman, alter your rights and responsibilities in the status of marriage in any way whatsoever? Will you be any less married in some way? Would they operate under some as-yet-undefined different rules of marriage? The only substantive difference between a married male/male couple and a married male/female couple is that the former won’t produce any children–but producing children is not a civil goal. From a civil standpoint, they only concern themselves with who is responsible for raising any children so produced.
This is where the whole Defense of Marriage argument falls apart. Your status under law as a married person will not alter in any way by extending it to gays and lesbians. And since there are no ‘Married Only’ lunch counters or bathrooms to which they will now gain admittance, you won’t even have to rub elbows with the scum any more often than you currently do.
And the Constitution exists, among other reasons, to prevent what the Founders called the ‘tyranny of the majority’. If fiat by referendum was the only criterion, slavery would still exist in whichever states or communities were overwhelmingly in favor of it. Equal standing under the law is the ruling principle here, and you are the embodiment of Huxley’s cautionary tale: in you world, some animals are more equal than others.
June 11th, 2012 at 13:16
“Does allowing a man to marry another man, or a woman to marry another woman, alter your rights and responsibilities in the status of marriage in any way whatsoever? Will you be any less married in some way? Would they operate under some as-yet-undefined different rules of marriage? The only substantive difference between a married male/male couple and a married male/female couple is that the former won’t produce any children–but producing children is not a civil goal. From a civil standpoint, they only concern themselves with who is responsible for raising any children so produced.”
1. Man marrying a man would change the “rules of operation” by is occurrence. 2. How would it alter my rights for the government to establish a gay “marriage” or union? By violation of my freedom of religion and speech. For a gay couple to come to my church then be denied membership because they have embraced a practice outside the bounds of Christian morality I would then be sued/arrested for discrimination. I would also be charged with “hate speech”. This is already happening in Canada. 3. By its very nature this is a civil matter as per previous comment. 4 You really can’t defend, “The only substantive difference between a married male/male couple and a married male/female couple is that the former won’t produce any children”. This is at best inaccurate. There are too many studies to show that the best environment for a child to be reared in is with their biological mother and father.
“And the Constitution exists, among other reasons, to prevent what the Founders called the ‘tyranny of the majority’. If fiat by referendum was the only criterion, slavery would still exist in whichever states or communities were overwhelmingly in favor of it. Equal standing under the law is the ruling principle here, and you are the embodiment of Huxley’s cautionary tale: in you world, some animals are more equal than others.”
The issue of slavery was resolved by war. The Constitution did not resolve the matter Dennis, but there is something to point out here. This issue, like slavery, is a question of morality. As a nation we have to decide what practices are normal, healthy, wholesome and acceptable. We have the right and the obligation to do so. What you call “fiat by referendum” is called democratic reform provided for by the Constitution as opposed to fiat by opinion of the court which is not. (The abuses of the judicial branch are far more egregious and contrary to the Founder’s intentions.) It (ballot initiative) is a PEACEFUL means to resolve these questions by majority rule. There is such a thing as the tyranny of the minority.
“in you world, some animals are more equal than others.” You are projecting here. Putting the wishes of the 2% over the 98%…
June 11th, 2012 at 20:58
“1. Man marrying a man would change the “rules of operation” by is occurrence.”
Dodging the question. Again I ask: how would gays marrying each other change your married status by one iota, since none of your rights or obligations under that status would be abridged or altered in any way?
“By violation of my freedom of religion and speech…I would then be sued/arrested for discrimination.”
I call bullshit. The courts have upheld the right of private organizations to exclude those whom they find morally objectionable. I cite the Boy Scouts of America as a glaring example.
“3. By its very nature this is a civil matter as per previous comment.” Since civil interests are neither harmed nor helped by allowing such marriages, there is no substantive argument against allowing it. No material harm will acrue to the civil structure whatsoever.
You obviously didn’t understand no. 4. I am not advocating that gay couples adopt. I am stating that one of the major reasons why civil law recognizes the status of marriage is because it establishes who is legally responsible for supporting any children which result. Since no children can result from a gay union, that issue is moot. Again, civil interests will not be harmed in this regard.
“The issue of slavery was resolved by war.” But not, say, the issue of miscegenation, which was still illegal in some states as late as 1967, nor segregation, Rosa Parks was arrested simply because she refused to give up her seat on a bus.
“As a nation we have to decide what practices are normal, healthy, wholesome and acceptable.” No, we do not. As individuals we must decide these things, but as a nation we only have to decide what is just and what is legal. Eatiing a pound of bacon fat a day is neither normal nor healthy, but it is perfectly legal. Preaching that Muslims should kill, maim, or enslave infidels is neither wholesome nor (in my opinion) acceptable, but it is legal. Any number of things you would find unwholesum, unhealthy, abnormal, and unacceptable are legal. Why? Because they are protected by the Bill of Rights. That is justice, because the same rights are extended to every citizen under the law.
And you have a very skewed understanding of the courts in relation to the Constitution. The Judicial Branch was established by the Constitution specifically to guard against what you call “democratic reform” but which is thinly-disguised prejudice masquerading as The Popular Will. Majority opinion is not always “normal, healthy, wholesome” or “acceptable”; sometimes it’s just downright wrong. And the courts exist to make certain that when ‘majority rule’ contravenes the Bill of Rights, such opinion does not remain the law.
You are trying your best to couch a religious belief in some sort of pragmatic terms, because you know that a purely religious argument will fail. But it doesn’t work.
You have no ethical grounds for prohibiting certain citizens from participating in the rights and responsibilities enjoyed by other citizens, you have no practical grounds for such a prohibition (as it would not infringe your rights or priveleges in any way), all you really have is emotionally hysteria that it’s “ruining the Moral Fiber of America” and “It contradicts the Bible” and “We’ve never done it that way.”
So carry on. Time will overtake you. Gay marriage will happen, just as segregation ended and women got the vote. It’s only a matter of time.
June 14th, 2012 at 12:21
Sorry late in replying. getting ready for vacation.
“7. “1. Man marrying a man would change the “rules of operation” by is occurrence.”
Dodging the question. Again I ask: how would gays marrying each other change your married status by one iota, since none of your rights or obligations under that status would be abridged or altered in any way?”
I never said it would do anything to my married status and have not understood why you would think it would affect my married status. The rights I will lose are my freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion. The problem with you calling “bullshit” Dennis is that you lose when I go to jail. I won’t play that game. There are pastors in Canada in prison right now for “hate speech” just for teaching what the Bible has to say about homosexuality. You’re not fooling me or anyone else.
As for the Boys Scout they had their economic freedom restricted in simply defending their right of association. An example of tyranny of the minority again. If gay marriage is institutionalized in law there will be no freedom of association. The goal of the gay activist is to have every individual and institution kiss the ring of homosexuality.
Have you ever heard the story of Tar Baby? “Oh, please don’t throw me in the briar patch.”
“3. By its very nature this is a civil matter as per previous comment.” Since civil interests are neither harmed nor helped by allowing such marriages, there is no substantive argument against allowing it. No material harm will acrue to the civil structure whatsoever.”
You are refusing to accept the natural effect of legalizing gay marriage. If gay marriage is established in law it will be a civil president for courts to rule in favor of the gay agenda and force persons of conscience to violate their beliefs. (And what about the town recorder in NY who lost her job because she could not in good conscience sign marriage certificates for gay couples?)
“You obviously didn’t understand no. 4. I am not advocating that gay couples adopt. I am stating that one of the major reasons why civil law recognizes the status of marriage is because it establishes who is legally responsible for supporting any children which result. Since no children can result from a gay union, that issue is moot. Again, civil interests will not be harmed in this regard.”
Once again you are not fooling anyone. So you object to gay couples adopting? On what basis?
“As a nation we have to decide what practices are normal, healthy, wholesome and acceptable.” No, we do not. As individuals we must decide these things, but as a nation we only have to decide what is just and what is legal. Eatiing a pound of bacon fat a day is neither normal nor healthy, but it is perfectly legal. Preaching that Muslims should kill, maim, or enslave infidels is neither wholesome nor (in my opinion) acceptable, but it is legal. Any number of things you would find unwholesum, unhealthy, abnormal, and unacceptable are legal. Why? Because they are protected by the Bill of Rights. That is justice, because the same rights are extended to every citizen under the law.”
You are staining at the gnats. We have as a nation decided that murder is unwholesome, rape is unwholesome, theft is unwholesome… We, by the consent of the governed, HAVE to decide what is wholesome and promotes the general welfare. What is not, is made illegal for the protection of all. You do not have the right to murder someone as DEFINED BY THE LAW.
Do you practice law?
And you have a very skewed understanding of the courts in relation to the Constitution. The Judicial Branch was established by the Constitution specifically to guard against what you call “democratic reform” but which is thinly-disguised prejudice masquerading as The Popular Will. Majority opinion is not always “normal, healthy, wholesome” or “acceptable”; sometimes it’s just downright wrong. And the courts exist to make certain that when ‘majority rule’ contravenes the Bill of Rights, such opinion does not remain the law.
The Constitution did NOT establish the Courts to be the end authority on matters of morality/law. I give you Dred Scott. The people, the consent of the governed, was always the intended basis for government in our founding. The Founders came from or were acquainted with forms of government where the Courts established public policy and overruled the consent of the governed regularly. Such governments do not last long because of the inherent injustice in them. The Founders sought to prevent this by putting limits on the court that congress controlled.
“You are trying your best to couch a religious belief in some sort of pragmatic terms, because you know that a purely religious argument will fail. But it doesn’t work.”
I have never tried to hide or conceal the source of my influence, Christianity. I am not attempting to hide the source of my influence at all. I am simply following the lead of our Founders who discovered the excellence and pragmatism of the teachings of Christianity and founded a radically new system of government based on principles found in the Bible. (It is THE most quoted reference by the Founders at the time of the writing of the Constitution.)
So if an idea or principle has its origin in “religion” it is disqualified because of its source? If this rule was used by the Founders we would not have our Constitution or form of government, nor have inalienable right.
“You have no ethical grounds for prohibiting certain citizens from participating in the rights and responsibilities enjoyed by other citizens, you have no practical grounds for such a prohibition (as it would not infringe your rights or priveleges in any way), all you really have is emotionally hysteria that it’s “ruining the Moral Fiber of America” and “It contradicts the Bible” and “We’ve never done it that way.”
Once again I reject your assumption though you continue to slip it in. No one else has the right to marry someone of the same sex, “someone” of another species, two other people etc…
So based on what ethical grounds do you condemn my ethical stance? What morality or wisdom do you possess that supersedes all major religions, 3000 years of history, almost 236 years of American history and biology? Why didn’t any of the Founders recognize and embrace homosexual marriage? Most of them recognized the evils of slavery. Why didn’t they see a “conflict” here?
“So carry on. Time will overtake you. Gay marriage will happen, just as segregation ended and women got the vote. It’s only a matter of time.”
You are also making a wrong association between gay marriage, segregation and women’s suffrage. You are trying to establish a minority group based on BEHAVIOR. This is a dangerous precedent. If behavior grants me minority status and “special rights” or consideration then our system of justice is doomed. Murderers are thankfully a minority, who would argue they were “born with” the propensity to murder and should therefore have special rights, and accommodations. The idea that one cannot control their behavior is a dangerous line of thinking.
Maybe time will over take me it gets us all in the end. My only care is that apathy does not.