Gay Marriage Bans Still Moving Forward

Sunday, March 20, 2005

Posted by J. J. Jackson @ 2:28 PM


Despite liberal temper tantrums, activist judiciaries and other such anomalies, States are moving ahead with Constitutional Amendments and laws to prevent Homosexuals from forming a union known as marriage and destroying the meaning of the word.

In 2006 Tennessee will hold a public vote on just such an amendment.

I think I will go out on a limb here and say that if properly worded it will pass easily although I STILL think that public referendums on such topics are cop outs by lawmakers unwilling to do their job and represent their constituents.

If these measures continue to come up for votes and pass it continues to show that Americans have had enough of the Marxists and their attacks on traditional values. But don't think that the left wingers will stop just because the people speak. They haven't in the past and wont in the future.


Leave a comment if you like! *Note if you are a left wing, tin hat wearing, pro-Marxist loon that likes to post "anonymously" you will be treated like the kook you are!
Comments:
Hi, I wanted to ask you a few questions about your stance on gay marriage. And, before I begin, I don't want you to think that my questions are making light of your beliefs or anything like that. I'd like to ask you to explain them in a bit more detail, if you would.

1.) In your post, you said that allowing gays to marry would destroy the meaning of the word and, I assume by consequence the sanctity, of marriage. How do you reconcile that with divorce rates among heterosexual couples that are nearly 50% in some Southern states and around 40% nationwide? Are straights not responsible on some level for the destruction of marriage as well?

2.) Why do you call those who support gay marriage Marxists? Marxism has nothing to do with homosexuality or the overall cultivation of what many would call an immoral society. What makes gays Marxist?

3.) Do you think that there are any potential conflicts in individual states deciding whether to accept homosexual marriage or not? For example, if Tennessee disallows it but California allows it, what happens when a gay married couple move from Sacramento to Nashville? Are they guaranteed their rights as a married couple just like everyone else under the Constitution, or does their status change regardless of federal statutes? Should state law supercede federal law at that point? What are your thoughts?

Like I said above, I'm not rejecting your beliefs on this issue, but I'm interested in getting more insight into why you believe what you believe. Thanks very much.
 
1.) Marriage = man plus woman. That is the definition. Making marriage man + man or woman + woman is not marriage. It is that simple. The divorce rate among couples has nothing to do with the definition of marriage. I am perplexed as to why you try to target southerners for some reason by singling them out with special statistics. But, again, divorce has nothing to do with the definition.

2.) We learn from history what Marxists and other left wingers do and how they do it. First, note that Marxism is about "class struggle". It is basically pitting one group against another. What is being done with the "gay marriage" facade is exactly this. It is pitting one group (homosexuals) against another group (heterosexuals). Another thing you will notice that tends to happen under Marxism/Communism and other left wing ideologies such as Nazism that that they attempt to destroy the underpinnings of society such as religion. Marriage being at its core a religious institution is obvious.

This debate shows two of the classic signs of Marxism and that is class struggle and destruction of religion.

3.) First there is no "right" to be married. If it were a "right" then it could not be denied you. Which means if you loved Sally and wanted to marry her but Sally didn't like you then she has just violated your "rights". The problem with legally defining marriage even on the state level is that any church that chose to not marry people based on the orientations described in law would be unconstitutional either on the state or federal level depending on the law. I am against all government intrusion in the institution of marriage be it state or federal.

Marriage should be determined by the church and religion one belongs to. If the Catholic church tomorrow wants to marry homosexuals let them. Although I dare say they probably won't have many non-homosexual members left.
 
I think that it is also important to pointout that the Marxists can be identified by the company that they keep. While you are correct that this debate shows two of the classic points of left wing ideologs, we can also see that the other points are met by observing their fellow travelers. They associate themselves for the most part (although there are some conservatives who will also associate with them on this issue) with those that attempt to legislate control over people's lives and socialize the society by creating everyone as "equals" even if they have to force you to be "equal".

They are trying to make homosexuality equal to heterosexuality but they are not equal. They are different.
 
Tony, you know I am very Libertarian. I don't want the state or feds making a law that says what I must accept as marriage when my faith teaches me what marriage is.

If people want to do the bone dance with Mr. Sphincter I don't care. Just don't force me through legal means to accept it as normal :D

BTW where have you been? You haven't posted since I moved the Blog!
 
You are ULTRA LIBERTARIAN in my book! Dear God you make conservatives look like red headed step children of the American ideals!

Anyway I have been busy. I had deleted my Blogger account but turned it back on just today and find that you are still alive and kicking.
 
pmw why are you so fascinated with the devorce rate of southerners? Do you think that that has some bering on your arguement?

BTW look at the people that are calling for "gay marriage". You can see with whom they lay down with.
 
I would say that while a basic definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, it is not only that. It is about the emotional connections and physical attractions, to be flippant, that two people, traditionally a man and a woman, have felt for one another. Call it love or devotion, etc. Divorce is a statement by a married couple that they no longer share those emotional and/or physical connections any longer, for whatever reason. Do you not think that the increasing occurance of divorces among striaght couples says something about the current state of the definition of marriage? I singled out Southern states because studies conducted by several organizations have found that divorce rates are in fact higher in the South and southwest than in any other part of the country. Being from the South originally myself, I have no dislike of the South.

While Marxism is in fact about class struggle, this cannot be extended to homosexuals and heterosexuals. Do you honestly believe that the only gays in the world are from a particular socio-economic strata? I'm sure there are just as many homosexuals in the proleteriat as there are in the 'decadent' bourgeoisie. Homosexuality is not an expressly 'upper' or 'lower' class phenomenon. Calling homosexuals Marxists is trying to fit a round peg in a square hole.

Secondly, Marxism/Communism is not at all related to Nazism or fascism, which is universally defined as a right wing nationalist ideology. They are in fact totally opposite in nature.

The rise of Communism in Russia was partly in response to the highly conservative and nationalistic Czarist state. It was also made attractive to many poor Russians by the very class struggle which you invoked up above. For Communists, fascism and capitalism share the odious characteristic of exploitation of the lower classes for the betterment of the upper classes. Fascism is worse because it focuses that exploitation on the betterment of a flawed state based on empty nationalist motives that, to a Communist, don't exist. Communists don't define themselves by their nationalities. A Russian was a Soviet first, a Russian a distant second.

On the other side, fascism evolved in Italy partly as a response to the rise of Communist parties in western Europe following World War I. Communists had been included in coalition governments in France and Italy, and had made inroads in Germany too. Mussolini's main concern at first was to push the Communists out of power in Italy. That's why he and his Brown Shirts killed so many suspected Communists once they gained power in the 20's.

You are correct in saying that Marxism/Communism sought to destroy religion in all its forms. However, by the end of the Cold War, the Soviets had long tolerated the existence of Islam, Christianity and Jadaism in its borders. However it controlled them as best it could. Even in China there are state-sanctioned churches operating today. Secretary of State Rice just spoke at one this week during her visit to China. Does that mean that Communism doesn't seek to stifle religious freedom? Of course not. We all have seen the evidence of that in the beaten 80 year old bishops in China and the flow of Chinese Christians coming to the US and other nations.

However, much of fascism is built around the Christian religion. Nazism in particular is secured, in part, on a sense of Christian supremacy. There were propaganda posters in Germany stating that Jews were flawed because they had killed Christ and were destroyers of the Christian faith.

Don't make the mistake many people make in grouping Communists and fascists together. They HATE each other to this very day and it was that hatred that helped fuel the atrocities of the eastern front in WWII. While your assertion about Communism's emphasis on class struggle and the repression of religion, I disagree with your argument that it in any way applies to homosexuality or that fascism is a left-wing ideology.

Lastly, I never said that marriage is a right of everyone. There is no mention of that in the Bill of Rights, nor in any writing on natural rights. However, in the United States, if a couple is married in one state, Article 4 of the Constitution ensures that their legal privledges and rights as a couple (insurance coverage, visitation rights for hospitals, power of attorney, etc) are protected throughout the Union.

The reason, or at least one reason, that the onus of legally protecting or defining marriage is not left to individual churches is that different churches define marriage differently. Concepts of marriage differ between the denominations, much less religions. The basic difference of opinion with regard to divorce, to return to an earlier subject, is proof of that with respect to Christianity. While the Catholic Church does not condone divorce (although it is not impossible), most Protestant denominations allow it, with varying levels of hoops to jump through before it's recognized.

More to the point, even if your church said you were married, what would protect you if you were in another country? How about a non-Christian country? Because your church defines you as married, the US government has no authority to enforce that union. So, why should Saudi Arabia, Isreal, Japan or Albania or Armenia acknowledge your union? Why should a person not in your congregation or denomination accept your union?

So, I was not saying that there is a right to be married. My question pertained to transferring existing powers contained within the Constitution that allow a recognized married couple in one state to enjoy the same privledges and rights in the other 49 (and District of Columbia and all other US territories) and whether you thought that there would be any problems reconciling that fact with the possible passing of gay marriage bans by individual states.

And you never answered my question.

And tonytman, can I ask what you think makes homosexuality different from heterosexuality? I mean, more than just the physical differences. Or is that enough to make them different and thus unequal?

Thanks guys, I appreciate you all answering these questions and debating.
 
pmw he answered your questions completely!

DO you honestly not see a "difference" between a man boinking another man and a man and woman having sex? That was a wonderfully long, and nonsensical response.

Maybe YOU should read the actual Nazi party platform from Germany when they rose to power. If you do you will note that they believed in gahtering up land and distrubting and controlling the means of production. What is that? IT IS SOCIALISM! What does NAZI stand for? WHY NATIONAL SOCIALIST OF COURSE! Dear God are you really as daft as you appear to be on these issues?

You are not "debating". You are making acusations. Please do not waste our time if you cannot even admit to basic facts.
 
J.J. answered my first two questions but he did not answer my third question. A more careful reading of my question and J.J.'s response would reveal that. And let's be clear, I never accused anyone of anything in my questions or remarks. In fact if anyone has levelled accusations it would be you in your remark about my intelligence. Just because you didn't understand what I wrote doesn't make it nonsensical.

I have done my fair share of studies of Nazi Germany and while your basic facts are correct, the differences between Communism and Nazism lie in their details. For one, Socialism is not the same as Communism, but rather a step on the path between capitalism and a Communist state. Secondly, the major difference between Nazism and Communism is each one's respect for individual property rights. Nazism respects property rights (while also saying that the interests of the nation and the race comes before the interests of the individual) while Communism abolishes property rights, putting all ownership in the hands of the state. Volkswagons were part of a German program in the 30's to increase private auto ownership while boosting the government's finances while people in the USSR had to wait years to get a car that was still owned by their local Communist party.

Also, you didn't answer my question, either. I agree that there are obvious physical differences between sex between a man and a woman and sex between two men. I was asking you to go deeper and to tell me why you think homosexual couples should not be equal in the eyes of federal or state law.
 
pmw please don't come here and treat Tony that like some sort of idiot. He is smart wnough to see that you are try to stir up trouble and hurling around accusations about not getting answers to your questions.. And I did indeed answer your third question so before you start going into attack mode back up and reread it. I said "The problem with legally defining marriage even on the state level is that any church that chose to not marry people based on the orientations described in law would be unconstitutional either on the state or federal level depending on the law." You asked if there were any potential "conflicts". I would say that infringement on the first amendment is a pretty big conflict. Perhaps you misworded your question but I still believe that it is simply an answer you did not care for.

You most certainly DID make an accusation:
"Marxism/Communism is not at all related to Nazism or fascism, which is universally defined as a right wing nationalist ideology."

That is blatantly false. You will not be warned again. You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts. If you have done as much research into Nazism as you claim then you know that they are in fact a left wing socialist ideology. A look at teh NAZI party platform revelas this. Point number 13 clearly says "We demand the nationalization of all trusts."

You will also note that socialism and communism is not about private ownership of goods such as autos, toasters, pots and pans in general but rather both believe in the collective ownership of the means of production (i.e. land). Socialism and Naziism (which is fascist socialism) believe in the private ownership of land but the public control of it. In other words you might own the factory but the government tells you what to make. This is also called Nationalization and even America has done this in times of war.

Also please note that no one here ever said that socialism and communism were the same thing. They are distinctly related however in their desire to bring public land under the control of the govenment even if not teh ownership of the government. This kind of banter may work among your friends however it will not work here because you will be called out for it.

Once again you can have your own opinion, but not your own facts here. You are given just one oportunity in your next post to correct those two mischaracterizations of the posts you have recently made. I won't tollerate people making up their own facts and then calling it "debate".
 
I see you beat me to it by about a couple minutes there Jeff.

Anyway pmw, nice try but he did in fact answer your questions. I don't know why you are trying to come here an stir up trouble but I have my suspicions. And God knows Jeff and I disagree on a lot of things (since I like socialist programs like SSI and Welfare) but you are just being completely disengenuous. But I think we agree here that you are very good at ignoring "facts".
 
pmw even you lost me when you stepped up to the plate with that "NAZIs were evil right wingers" charge and claiming that this was somehow common knowledge.

Sure, common knowledge perhaps among socialists that refuse to admit the horrors that arise from government controlled societies like Communism and Socialism maybe, but certainly not common knowledge to anyone else. There isn't a single thing in the NAZI official party platform that would suggest your contentions are true. Now, maybe in their propaganda there might be, but the platform they rose to power on and eventually used that power to usurp power in Germany tells a very different story.
 
I can not wait until the tide turns. Prejudice and hate are really being disquised here in platitudes and slogans. You have no argument. Right to life and you want to kill people, you start a war. Right to life you fight for Terry Shaivo which I am with you on but you want the death penalty. You call liberals Marxism, I am liberal own a business, believe in free enterprise. You want to show your goodness but you let people starve in this country. You say everyone has a even chance and degrade people with mental illness and your mouth pieces use it as a degrading remark to put down liberals. Can you tell me where you think you will be in 20 years. You will be doomed to eat your words and will have to again become enlightened or in the closet.
 
You are ignorant. Your own statements show that. You make blatantly false accusations in an attempt to justify your position. You say I fight for the right to life of Terri Schiavo. You do not read my opinions on this very well. I fight for the upholding of the law whether I agree with it or not and the process to change it to correct problems that have arisen.

You own your own business and call yourself a liberal. You seem to imply that justifies you as not being a Marxist or a socialists or a Stalinist or a Leninist. It does not.

The only person here with weak arguments is you as you resort to simply making more accusations. And for all your enlightenment you stumble around in the darkness in the vain attempt to find a rational thought.

Next time, before you make an accusation perhaps you should read what I have written a little more instead of looking like a fool.
 
Hey Mr. "annonymous" maybe before you make accusations about what he believes you should read more than one post on his blog? No, no, no that would mean effort. How you ever succeed in running your own business with such little effort is a mystery.

Probably either accept a lot of government money or you are lucky enough to have smart people doing all the hard work while you reap the rewards.

Try to put forth a little effort next time.
 
Oh, and by the way to our new "anonymous" poster, in case you have been living under a rock, "we" didn't start any war.

Saddam invaded Kuwait.
American and her allies kicked him out.
He signed an agreement to save his ass.
He broke that agreement.
We finished it.

I know it is easier to live in a fantasy land but reality is REALLY a much better place to be in the long term. While you're at it, why don't you just say that conservatives and right wingers are "Nazis" too like pmw did. Come on, you know you want to!
 
The tide will turn eh? The tide will turn to what? A world where you and your fellow pseudo intellectuals rule?

Listen Mr. Anonymous or PMW or whoever you are, I've been reading this blog and Mr. Jackson's stuff for years and you only show your own ignorance coming here and making such idiotic statements about his beliefs and about the war on terror. First of all he's right about Iraq. We did not start it. Second of all, if you read correctly his opinions you will notice that he is completely against government interference in the practice of religion and the concept of marriage. But heaven forbid if he disagrees that two men having sex is unnatural right? You can’t deal with that one! OH THE HOOROR!

I happened across your blog last night where you turn to typical liberal name calling in a temper tirade about this post and you didn't even have the balls to post a link back from here or give any thing other than an anonymous response here.

I guess you were really just too scared to let people see your typical attack tactics. So go back to your hole and wallow in your own words. But I thought that anyone following up on this post would be interested to know what your actions behind the scenes are. They are truly cowardly. And truly left wing.
 
Oh, you found his blog? Email it to me Louis. I would love to read his "intellectual" stuff. I am sure that it is excatly as you say, full of name calling and temper tantrums. Because, well that is just they way these left wingers are.
 
Dear J.J., Louis, Tony, Anonymous, and PMW- I was reading this webpage this evening and was intrigued by the comments on both sides of the "debate." From a fairly middle of the road perspective (aka, moderate) I would have to say that based on the language that the opposing sides use, it's actually both sides that are inflammatory with the "name calling" and "temper tantrum" throwing particularly strong on the conservative/libertarian side of the debate. Before slinging wide assumptions such as "well that is just they [sic] way these left wingers are" it might help future debates if both (and here again I note BOTH) sides stopped using incendiary stereotypes. Perhaps it will make future debates more illuminating. Just a thought :)

Oh, and on a sidenote- why does homosexual sex have to be referred to as [a man boinking another man] while heterosexual sex is simply [a man and woman having sex?]. Do you feel it necessary to make homosexual sex innately crass and degrading? That is another stereotype that does not help with differences of opinion either.
 
As a "moderate" I like socialism. I don't know what the problem is you have JAF. J.J. and I disagree on a lot of issues but even on this one there is no way you can claim the vitrol is coming from both sides.
 
You can believe that if you like JAF. If you consider calling a Marxist a Marxist or pointing out the falacy of the bs "NAZIs were right wingers" argument as "inflamatory" then so be it.

Remember, a moderate is simply someone that thinks a little bit of socialism is ok. I suppose that is not something that "moderates" like to contemplate. TonyTMan is a "moderate" and freely admits that he is a socialist-lite ask him about it.

And by the way, are you saying that homosexual sex is not a man boinking another man? Don't distract from the fact that it is. If you ou don't like the truth, I don't care.
 
I've now been following this thread and want to comment on what I see as pretty much typical rhetoric from liberals and many moderates. Someone posts an opinion about how Americans are getting fed up with how they try to destroy the foundations of America. Liberal responds with some questions. Original poster writes back a reasoned response.

Then it goes to hell. The liberal implies that NAZIs were not socialists but were really right wingers. They are confrtonted on that and then the claims of vitrol from both sides starts.

Give it a rest. Everything was fine here until pmw and his/her fellow travlers started hurling accusations.
 
There have always been homosexuals throughout the centuries. Why, all of a sudden, do they want to get married? Why not just continue to live the lifestyles they have lived for centuries? Forgive me for sounding "too Catholic", but marriage, aka "Holy Matrimony" is a sacrament of the church by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, and by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of the offspring. Homosexuals are unable to fulfill the requiremnets of partnership of Holy Matrimony. However, if they wish to come up with some other form of legal aggreement with similarities to a marriage, let them knock themselves out. However, it can never be called or classified as a "Holy Matrimony."
 
um, the Nazi's rounded up homosexuals and killed them. And F.Y.I. America is supposedly a secular country, which is why the gay issue is on the agenda. It's not about homosexuality, it's about whether a particular religious position should influence legislation.

But I don't think the church should EVER have to recant on their position about gay marriages. Freedom of religion!
 
"And F.Y.I. America is supposedly a secular country,"

Falacy. This is not supported by the facts of our history. America was not created to be a secular country. It was created as a country accepted certain truths (i.e. there is a creator, that it was founded in the "year of our lord" U.S. Constitution, etc) and that it was willing to accept certain things but not all things.

For example the first amendment says that you have freedom of religion. If that religion requires you to run into someone else's house, kidnap their daughter and sacrifice them to your god are you protected?

Answer: No.

This is an extreme example but it shows the first amendment in context.

The issue here is the State taking over religion which is what was meant to be prohibited by the 1st amendment. The state took "marriage" and said you can't be married without a license, etc which takes the institution away from the church.

The state can promote marriage but it should never be allowed to dictate laws stating what is and what is not marriage.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Support the Troops T-shirts & Apparel American Eagle
$1.00 from each purchase is donated to the Unmet Needs Program
archives
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
August 2005

Support Our Troops