Author Topic: Exemplifying The Conflict Within The GOP  (Read 4636 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Brassmask

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2600
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Exemplifying The Conflict Within The GOP
« on: November 02, 2006, 03:39:13 PM »
Lemme tellya.  I'm really not a fan of this guy.  He's a bigshot conservative blogger here in Shelby County and I've always had nothing but disdain for him but he kind of won my respect when I read this post of his today.

I know none of the conservatives here will admit to his logic but I'd urge you to try.

Here's a sliver.

Quote
It really challenges me to examine my thinking, and forces me to decide if I want government to be in the marriage business at all. As a Christian (one who, unlike Thomas, has at least a passing familiarity with the Bible), I cannot support gay marriage; as a citizen, I cannot support discrimination.


http://www.fishkite.com/2006/10/26/1539/#comments

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Exemplifying The Conflict Within The GOP
« Reply #1 on: November 02, 2006, 03:42:28 PM »
I know none of the conservatives here will admit to his logic but I'd urge you to try.

I seem to remember saying that the government should be out of the marriage business over a year ago.

Or am I not a conservative?
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Brassmask

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2600
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Exemplifying The Conflict Within The GOP
« Reply #2 on: November 02, 2006, 03:46:38 PM »
That was a sliver.

Check out the whole post, willya?

Then you can come and just pick nits and throw your feces around.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Exemplifying The Conflict Within The GOP
« Reply #3 on: November 02, 2006, 03:48:48 PM »
Check out the whole post, willya?

Can't - site blocked from work.

Then you can come and just pick nits and throw your feces around.

I responded to what you wrote in your post. Can't see how that's "picking nits."
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Brassmask

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2600
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Exemplifying The Conflict Within The GOP
« Reply #4 on: November 02, 2006, 04:00:23 PM »
He has lots of links throughout but I just don't feel like re-doing the post so you can have them right now.



more on Amendment One
But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’

Fishkite has clashed with Wendi Thomas before on the issue of gay marriage. That earlier post, however, was dedicated to the Biblical view of marriage, rather than the legal aspect of it. Today, the columnist’s willful ignorance of the fundamental religious foundation of marriage, as included above, persists, and is now applied to the constitutional decision before us in this election, previously chewed on below.

In that recent post, I observe that critics of the amendment tend to resort to three main things: 1. Ad hominem attacks, 2. a claim that it presents a problem only for homosexuals, and 3. a claim that the amendment is redundant and unnecessary.

Thomas hits all the points in the playbook, beginning of course with a heavy dose of name-calling (Point 1.); she calls proponents of Amendment One “foolish,” “irrational,” “radical” “homophobes,” and describes them as racists who are who are stuck in “Groundhog day.”

Next, she claims that voting against the amendment would open the door only to homosexual couples (Point 2.):

[T]he radical religious right and many Republicans whine that if gay men and lesbians are allowed to marry today, then tomorrow I might demand the right to marry my dog. And my first cousin. And three or four other people, a couple of whom might be small children.

Of course, that hysteria is silly and foolish and irrational.

All that’s left is for Thomas is to claim that such an amendment is unnecessary, given the federal and state laws that are already on the books (Point 3.), a message she delivers with artistic abandon, describing the situation as “a legal version of suspenders to go along with the belt” and “an ugly, too-tight girdle to be worn on top of the pants, restricting all blood flow to the brain.”

One-two-three, there’s your column. Thanks for playing.

But what Thomas of course fails to mention is yesterday’s New Jersey court ruling, which forces legislators to change state marriage laws:

Opponents of same-sex marriage contend the New Jersey decision could have a national impact because the state imposes no residency requirements for people seeking marriage. In essence, it could open the door for gay and lesbian couples from other states to marry in New Jersey and challenge laws against same-sex marriage in their own states.

And when the formula for marriage is no longer two adult members of the opposite sex, it’s not just “hysteria” which leads a reasonable person to conclude it won’t be long before polygamists sue for similar rights, followed by incestuous couples, and so on. It’s just that, for the time being, gay rights advocates — in a smart move, politically — leave these groups out in the cold while simultaneously claiming that “love does not discriminate” and calling out the religious right on that very charge.

The long and short of it is that Thomas, and her heroes in the local Democratic party, are nowhere near as enlightened, or as Biblically sound, as she apparently believes.

Now, in my earlier post I also offered three reasons why I hesitate to support Amendment One, followed by some counter-arguments, and left it with a “likely-yes” stance. I also engaged a little bit in the comments, coming up with a rough comparison in order to give the issue some further thought. And I’ve been doing more thinking off the page as well. Then I happened to come across a post from last summer where I reacted to a church’s decision to approve gay marriage, followed by a discussion in the comments where I wrote this:

Reading about this episode has actually increased my opposition to gay marriage, at least from a Christian standpoint. The secular argument is far better, and I take a more libertarian view of the issue as a citizen. It’s a difficult issue for me only in that our government attaches unique rights and responsibilities to the legal aspect of marriage, which could be viewed, in a sense, as discriminatory. However, the solution to that is not to change marriage, but rather to change government.

It really challenges me to examine my thinking, and forces me to decide if I want government to be in the marriage business at all. As a Christian (one who, unlike Thomas, has at least a passing familiarity with the Bible), I cannot support gay marriage; as a citizen, I cannot support discrimination.

Of course, some say the amendment isn’t discriminatory (see discussion in Point 2), and they’re right in a sense. But I’m having a hard time coming up with purely legal, non-religious reasons why the government should support one contract between two people, and offer them certain rights and advantages, while denying others. And those commenting in my earlier post are asking what harm this presents to marriage — a fair question. And what affects would it have on society, as with adoption laws?

The Family Research Council addresses these questions, and other good ones, here. Among other things, they argue that the government should support marriage because children in traditional families do better in life, and because marriages are the very building blocks which propagate our species. They also argue that men and women should not be seen as interchangeable parts, that society’s view of marriage will relax and cause all marriages to suffer.

Some of it I agree with, some of it I don’t. I’m having a hard time with the issue, myself. I fear I’m going to be haunted by my decision. Part of my problem is that I’m so fed up with the Left’s hatred of religious people and its abandonment of morality that it clouds the issue, and Wendi Thomas only adds to the haze.

But, overall, it just comes back to what you think a government should and shouldn’t do. And I guess that’s something every person needs to decide individually. Everyone should be aware, though, that voting against the amendment means you’re ready for gay marriage to be legal in this state, despite the Left’s assurances to the contrary. If you aren’t comfortable with gay marriage, sitting out the vote is not an option, because the lawsuits are coming. And, with activist judges at the helm — those who can rewrite the laws on a whim — even passing the amendment is no guarantee marriage will remain as God intended.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Exemplifying The Conflict Within The GOP
« Reply #5 on: November 02, 2006, 04:13:45 PM »
He has lots of links throughout but I just don't feel like re-doing the post so you can have them right now.

I havn't looked up what "Amendment One" actually says, but I still agree with his conclusions (though I don't come at through a religious foundation) - the government should get out of the marriage business.

The government should call them civil unions, write a law to the effect that any existing legislation referring to the word "marriage" should also apply to civil unions, then let any notary public "rubber stamp" civil union agreements.

After that, it won't matter anymore who you choose to marry. And the arguments on both sides go away.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Brassmask

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2600
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Exemplifying The Conflict Within The GOP
« Reply #6 on: November 02, 2006, 04:55:58 PM »
I would agree with you but I think they should remove the word marriage in old laws and replace it with civil unions and then everyone will be equal.

If you have "marriages" and "civil unions" then you have "seperate but equal" and I don't like the connotation.

Would you go along with erasure of the word marriage and relegate it to the province of churches?  That makes it fully equal in my mind.

larry

  • Guest
Re: Exemplifying The Conflict Within The GOP
« Reply #7 on: November 02, 2006, 05:07:07 PM »
I just got out my dictionary on this one, and guess what, "Civil Union" does not appear. Civil Marriage is defined. N. A marriage ceremony performed by a civil official. I guess I need a new dictionary.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Exemplifying The Conflict Within The GOP
« Reply #8 on: November 02, 2006, 05:35:50 PM »
If you have "marriages" and "civil unions" then you have "seperate but equal" and I don't like the connotation.

There are lots of things that have different names for the same concept. Doesn't make them "separate but equal."

"Separate but equal" is used to denote something that is inherently different, but has been called the same thing. What we have in this case (civil unions versus marriage) is two things that are the same, but called different names, especially if legislation is passed that says it explicitly (a marriage in legislation is deemed to include civil unions).

After all, some states call them "tags," some states call them "license plates," and I'm sure there are other names for them as well. But does that make the little metal thingy that identifies your car a different object in another state?
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8008
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Exemplifying The Conflict Within The GOP
« Reply #9 on: November 02, 2006, 07:43:00 PM »
the big difference between civil unions and marraige is that ones recognized locally while the other is recognized federally.
which is funny.
if you expand on the subject of marraige doesn`t that mean people married outside of the unite states not legally married here?
I`m not sure our laws address that issue.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Exemplifying The Conflict Within The GOP
« Reply #10 on: November 02, 2006, 08:18:47 PM »
the big difference between civil unions and marraige is that ones recognized locally while the other is recognized federally.

Which was the point of the law that I suggested.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Exemplifying The Conflict Within The GOP
« Reply #11 on: November 02, 2006, 08:50:05 PM »
Quote
Part of my problem is that I’m so fed up with the Left’s hatred of religious people and its abandonment of morality that it clouds the issue, and Wendi Thomas only adds to the haze.

This line caught my eye. It goes overboard in some ways but i do think some people involved in the gay marriage debate could give a damn about gay marriage and are using it is a platform to bash folks with deeply held religious beliefs. And that muddies the water and closes ears that otherwise might be willing to listen to alternative solutions.

BTW a lot of conservatives could live with the state getting out of the marriage business. I know Victor and Ami have both written about that. I could accept that solution though i truly believe the civil unions compromise is the best way to go about it.


Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Exemplifying The Conflict Within The GOP
« Reply #12 on: November 02, 2006, 09:47:47 PM »
I go to a church and ask to be wed to my betrothed .


I have chosen a bethrothed that this church cannot sanction because it is contrary to their hidebound Dogma.


If government is in or out of the Marrage game , can I or can't I sue them ?

The_Professor

  • Guest
Re: Exemplifying The Conflict Within The GOP
« Reply #13 on: November 02, 2006, 11:06:20 PM »
I am not sure of your intent here, Plane. Can you please clarify?

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Exemplifying The Conflict Within The GOP
« Reply #14 on: November 03, 2006, 02:45:56 AM »
I am not sure of your intent here, Plane. Can you please clarify?


What are you wondering?