Dana Loesch: The argument for “marriage equality” is NOT a conservative one

This is the best article I’ve read on why supporting gay marriage is not a conservative position:

…During the Sunday morning talk show circuit, former Bush communications adviser took the moderate position emerging within the GOP against American Values’ Gary Bauer. Wallace tried to argue that supporting “marriage equality” is a conservative position. No, it is not.

I’ve never understood how anyone who spent the past four-plus years lamenting the size of government could then argue for its increase by inviting it into the discussion of marriage. We complain about government in health care, we complain about government in education, we complain about government regulating soft drink size, but suddenly some of us have no problem with more government in people’s relationships with one another. Marriage is a covenant between a man, woman, and God before God on His terms. It is a religious civil liberty, not a right granted by government. It should never have been regulated by government in the first place, and government shouldn’t have an expanded reach in further regulating it now. There is no allowance constitutionally that invites our government to define the religious covenant of marriage.

I’ve no issue with same sex couples entering into contractual agreements with each other or sharing benefits (the military decisions should be made by those with the credit of service day in and day out, not civilian advocacy groups). Isn’t that the goal of this conflict? If so, to me, that’s an issue separate from marriage. In suing over “marriage” itself one is demanding that God change His definition of the union between a man and a woman. If recognition of status, ease with other contractual obligations, and other issues are the issues, why the need to force people of faith to alter recognition of God’s Word on the matter? The people may bend as reeds to lawfare, but God will not. Frankly, I see no point in being on any side other than God’s on any matter, and God is more small government than any player in the scene.

In suing over marriage one is demanding that others modify their beliefs to accommodate another. Do not people of faith retain their First Amendment liberty of freedom of religion?


That has always been one of my biggest points. I’ve told people over and over that if gay marriage becomes legal, the gay population essentially gains a right and we who disagree with it lose a right, and that right is usually the right to disagree with it. Just check out all the lawsuits Dana has listed in her article and you’ll see how out of control this will get if SCOTUS legalizes gay marriage for all 50 states.

Also, I love the point Dana makes that marriage is a Godly institution and isn’t a right given to us by the government. What many don’t understand about the Christian opposition to gay marriage and homosexuality is that God created marriage and he created sexuality, therefore both are sacred just as someone’s race is sacred. God took a rib from Adam and made Eve from it, showing that man and woman were paired for each other. To change the definition of marriage between a man and a woman is to desacralize this institution it and turn it into something God did not intend.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

139 thoughts on “Dana Loesch: The argument for “marriage equality” is NOT a conservative one

  1. I understand this is good for talking to Christians or beleivers in God; but he argument has to be made on the basis of the complementarity of males and female being the basis for society as part of human nature independent of one’s theological position.  We have to make this argument based on physiological and psychic complementarity and the rightof children to have a mother and a father.  Otherwise it becomes a theological argument.  Yes I agree with you but we must convince at secualr level even when we know we are heeding God’s call.

  2. I owe my fellow Scoopers a mea culpa.  A few days ago I argued that a Conservative CAN in fact be gay.  I stand by that.  From a fiscal standpoint, only. I don’t support gay marriage. Because Dana’s article opened my eyes, and the article that sealed it for me was Big Journalism’s “Gay Marriage is the Media’s Vehicle, Destination is to Destroy the Church.”  http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/03/26/Same-Sex-Marriage-Is-the-Medias-Vehicle-the-Destination-Is-to-Destroy-Church Shame on me.  I troll Democratic Underground to tweet their idiocy, and it has always been right in front of my face. Every thread discussing same sex marriage is always, and I mean always, conjoined with the goal of destroying religion.  It is shameful I was so weak.

    1. sybilll A weak person would never issue issue a mea culpa in the first place.  So, no you are not weak but an intellectually opened minded person who seeks the truth.  Happy Easter to you.

  3. While we were awaiting this SCOTUS arguments, the wussies of the APA Psychology and Psychiatry groups have decided to take Gender Identity Disorder out of the new DSM-5, thus have de-pathologized gender confusion and disorientation.
    From now on, feeling like you are the opposite sex is just a new kind of normal in the eyes of the spiritually-blind politically-correct truth-deniers.

    1. This also means women’s and men’s restrooms will be invaded by persons of the opposite sex pretending to be persons of the same sex.   This kind of PC CR*P has already traumatized school children in several States.

  4. As Rush Limbaugh noted and so did at least one left wing judge on the Supreme Court noted, what are the real limits in defining marriage other than what it is and has always been intended by God?  Why not multiple marriage partners or even marriage between humans and non-humans or adults and children?  Is not the real result to destroy the definition of anything of value?  For instance, is it not a way to make it easier for child molesters to prey on children?
    I completely oppose any redefinition of marriage.  It is not a right.  To do so is a wrong.
    John Craven – New Orleans

      1. OneThinDime JohnCraven Yup.It has been the mission of the left for decades.If you destroy the family the nation soon follows.

      2. This is very true OneThinDime and you may be interested in knowing who the left hates the most right now for standing up for the definition of marriage as it has always been and who has said virtually the same thing that Rush and that left-wing judge has said:
        John Craven – New Orleans

        1. JohnCraven The fact that the left is going after Carson because of his examples used in his comments has no bearing on his lack of support for our Constitution, particularly the 2nd Amendment.  He sure wants full protection under the 1st Amendment doesn’t he.

  5. Dana Loesch is right overall but I do have to question why do we Conservatives always argue in the arena the Left makes for us?
    Take Prop 8 case that was in the SCOTUS today. Most believe we are arguing over Gay Marriage, with all due respect to everyone who takes the issue seriously that is only the side show of this case.
    What upsets me is no one is bringing up the key fact. Prop 8 <b>Amends the Constitution of the State of California</b> the argument that supporters should be making for Prop 8 is, the “Do voters have the <b>right</b> to amend their states Constitution?” The answer clearly is yes, therefor Prop 8 should be upheld. Gay Marriage is the snapping figures with the purpose of distracting you.

    1. jcrichichi I know you know the answer, the MSM is out there saying this is about gays because they wouldn’t dare mention a state constitution or voter rights.

    2. jcrichichi Suppose they amended it to call for putting all Jews into gas chambers?
      I don’t think you can ever boil these things down to just one principle.

      1. CalCoolidge jcrichichi Did you really have to bring that into the argument? The principal still stands even with your extreme argument. When government is involved a number of atrocities could occur, but I would hope a majority of Californians would oppose such a amendment.

  6. This is one thing that is not open for interpretation – especially if you are a Christian. In God’s Word, the Lord refers to homosexuality as “an abomination” – case closed.
    Our Constitution and our original Bill of Rights were designed by godly men. This wasn’t specifically addressed because the Bible already covered it. And since our founding fathers and founding documents were for a moral people, this was not something that even needed to be considered.
    Accepting a gay lifestyle into our culture has already been distructive to the souls of our nation. This country will become very Sodomesque if this abomination is allowed. And then, how is it that we will be spared God’s righteous anger?
    There’s no such thing as gay rights. This is sick that it’s even being discussed or considered. This is a sin issue. Christians love the person but hate the sin – as God does.

    1. The Sentinel  Yes, John Jay was a godly man. Many of the others were deists. But whatever their personal faith, they lived, moved, and had their being in a Christian culture, with expectations that the Ten Commandments and the golden rule were understood and respected by all.

      1. OliviaHT The Sentinel  They were not “deists”.
        What is a deist? In dictionaries like Websters, Funk & Wagnalls, Century, and others, the terms deist, agnostic, and atheist appear as synonyms. Therefore, the range of a deist spans from those who believe there is no God, to those who believe in a distant, impersonal creator of the universe, to those who believe there is no way to know if God exists. None of the notable Founders fit this description.
        Thomas Paine, in his discourse on “The Study of God,” forcefully asserts that it is the error of schools “to teach sciences without “reference to the Being who is author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin.” He laments that “the evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching [science without God] has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism.” Paine not only believed in God, he believed in a reality beyond the visible world.
        In Benjamin Franklin’s 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach “the necessity of a public religion . . . and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.” Consider also the fact that Franklin proposed a Biblical inscription for the Seal of the United States; that he chose a New Testament verse for the motto of the Philadelphia Hospital; that he was one of the chief voices behind the establishment of a paid chaplain in Congress; and that when in 1787 when Franklin helped found the college which bore his name, it was dedicated as “a nursery of religion and learning built on Christ, the Corner-Stone.” Franklin certainly doesn’t fit the definition of a deist.
        George Washington was an open promoter of Christianity. For example, in his speech on May 12, 1779, he claimed that what children needed to learn “above all” was the “religion of Jesus Christ,” and that to learn this would make them “greater and happier than they already are.” He charged his soldiers at Valley Forge that “To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.”
        Alexander Hamilton was certainly no deist. For example, Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great: (1) Christianity, and (2) a Constitution formed under Christianity. Only Hamilton’s death two months later thwarted his plan of starting a missionary society to promote Christian government. 
        Jefferson, considered one of the least religious is charged with omitting all miraculous events of Jesus from his “Bible”. Jefferson’s own words explain that his intent for that book was not for it to be a “Bible,” but rather for it to be a primer for the Indians on the teachings of Christ (which is why Jefferson titled that work, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth”). 
        James Madison trained for ministry with the Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon, and Madison’s writings are replete with declarations of his faith in God and in Christ. 
        None of the Founders mentioned fit the definition of a deist. And as is typical with those who make this claim, they name only a handful of Founders and then generalize the rest. This in itself is a mistake, for there are over two hundred Founders (fifty-five at the Constitutional Convention, ninety who framed the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights, and fifty-six who signed the Declaration).
        The reason that such critics never mention any other Founders is evident. For example, consider what must be explained away if the following signers of the Constitution were to be mentioned:
        Charles Pinckney and John Langdon – founders of the American Bible Society
        James McHenry – founder of the Baltimore Bible Society
        Rufus King – helped found a Bible society for Anglicans
        Abraham Baldwin – a chaplain in the Revolution and considered the youngest theologian in America
        Roger Sherman, William Samuel Johnson, John Dickinson, and Jacob Broom – also theological writers
        James Wilson and William Patterson – placed on the Supreme Court by President George Washington, they had prayer over juries in the U. S. Supreme Court room; and the list could go on.

        1. stage9 OliviaHT The Sentinel  It seems I’ve hit a raw nerve and that together we may be guilty of highjacking the thread. I stand by what I wrote; moreover, you’ve neglected to mention the enlightenment influences on the thinking of the Founders; you’ve overlooked the point I made about the Christian culture in which they lived — an important point given the contrast to our present-day liberal, heathen culture. One final thing and then I wish to see this highjacking ended: even today sessions of Congress are opened with prayers, hardly an indication that many or most of its members are actual Bible-believing Christians.

        2. OliviaHT stage9 The Sentinel  I didn’t fail to mention it because it wasn’t as much an issue as many today claim it was.The enlightenment in America was stopped cold in its tracks in large part by something very few Americans have even heard of today. It was an event called the Great Awakening. It was an answer in part to the enlightenment of Europe that was largely atheistic. This spiritual revival in the colonies sparked a fresh wind of religious fervor. While Europe was succumbing to the atheistic driven enlightenment, America was undergoing a return to God. The enlightenment didn’t even reach our shores until a century after it was born. You’ll never hear about the Great Awakenings (There were two) in history today for the same reason you’ll never hear about the other Founders who signed the Constitution — it is too Christian.

        3. stage9 OliviaHT The Sentinel  FYI, stage9, I will concede that the Great Awakenings are likely not taught in our government-controlled schools; but I used to read about them, particularly in relation to Jonathan Edwards and George Whitfield,  40 years ago when I studied the missionary movement of the 18th and 19th Centuries. As to the Founders, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence was a cousin of mine, many generations removed, of course; he was the only Catholic signer, was from Maryland, and his name was Charles Carroll of Carrollton. As to the enlightenment influence on the Founders, I stick to what I wrote; you make them all sound like solid, Bible-believing Christians — they were not ALL so. But they lived in a Christian CULTURE and many were true Christians — but not ALL.

      2. OliviaHT The Sentinel  
        It was indeed a different time and you’re right – people generally followed biblical principles back then.

    2. The Sentinel Good points. The fact that we even have to have this discussion shows how much America has changed in a very short time.

    3. The Sentinel  “This is one thing that is not open for interpretation – especially if you are a Christian. In God’s Word, the Lord refers to homosexuality as “an abomination” – case closed.”
      I am not for queer marriage, but I am not for theocracy either.

  7. I don’t even understand why the government is involved at all anymore. Marriage as an institution of God really isn’t defined as a series of benefits or legal protections from the government.  It is a commitment before God and the church that you will be faithful to each other and will bear the responsibility of any kids produced in the relationship. Why don’t we just get the government out of the marriage business completely? If you want certain protections or directives in a marriage (like I will someday) then write em up in your own private contract.

    1. cherpers If you want government out of the marriage business get rid of all of the liberal Democrats. Christians and conservatives never ask the government to make laws that coincided with their beliefs until liberals decided to make them accept, by law if necessary, beliefs against conservative beliefs on Marriage. Christian conservatives and others never ask for this fight but now that it’s here were in it to win.

  8. Under Obama – approving gay marriage has become the Political Correct default setting and mandatory if you want to say a prayer at a government function (Giglio) or have a food service on a college campus (Chick-Fil-A) or get a job in any government funded entity. This despite the preponderance of evidence to the contrary that children are better served by a stable heterosexual family.
    But this is a government that makes decisions by the wishes and needs of the noisy 1.5% who have (conditioned) same-sex attraction due to family dysfunction, trauma and nurture deficits, absent fathers, (like Obama’s upbringing).
    As they say, Misery loves company. Obama and the fatherless, parentless crew are operating in rebellion against God’s law, commandments and design (see Romans 1:18-32) and are hell-bent to change the world to make it accomodate their own self-willed, angry, inner mental landscape.

    1. Isaiah 54 Exactly, and we know what happens to those who rebel against God. I pray they discover this before their last breath.

  9. Studies show children reared in homes where parents are practicing deviant
    sexual lifestyles are more likely to have identity confusion and addictions.  
    To approve same-sex marriage opens the door to polygamy, intra-familial
    (incest), inter-species (bestiality) and intra-generational
    (pedophilia/ephebophilia) marriage on the same basis – rights, justice,
    This agenda to change marriage for political reasons violates Scripture,
    the Commandments, the Gospels, words of Jesus, the Epistles, 4000 years of
    Judeo-Christian theology and teaching. There is nothing in any of these that
    approves same-sex sexual acts, orientations or lifestyles.
    This agenda also violates reality and factual evidence – years of science
    research, clinical practice, CDC, police and coroner statistics, anecdotal,
    behavioral and factual evidence. There is a drastic increase in STDs, including
    many incurable ones, hepatitis, HPV, herpes, HIV among homo-bi-se*ual partners,
    as well as an increase of mental health and other physical health issues.
    Cancers, violence, injuries, addictions, depression, emotional and relational
    instability, suicide, early death and the more approving the geographic region,
    the greater increase in the percentage of negative outcomes. The LBGT lifestyle
    isn’t healthy for adults or children.

    1. Isaiah 54 Exactly: if “love” is the criteria upon which marriage is adulterated and equality before the law the legal justification, then there can be no legal limits on the multitudinous combinations of “marriage” partners.

      1. StevenValdez Isaiah 54 Sodomy, until recently, was illegal in many states. The American Psychiatric Society held up until the 1970’s that homosexuality was a mental illness. I think you know where I’m going with this. But I’ll spell it out for you: our laws about what is acceptable, legally, are one-by-one devolving as the culture built on Judeo-Christian morality crumbles, a process accelerated by liberal “agents of change” whose mission is to “transform” America into a Marxist utopia: they call themselves progressives, but in reality harken back to ancient pagan civilizations.

    2. Isaiah 54 The Left doesn’t care whether someone marries an animal or other of God’s creation but God does and so woe to them.

  10. I just think that if gay marriage ever become legal in all 50 states, then marriage itself should just be abolished. You just know that if gay marriage is passed, it won’t be long before people will demand that polygamy be made legal, especially on religious grounds (if you’re a Muslim or some Mormon, you’d be going for this).  And why is it that the rest of the country needs to bend over and destroy an institution that has been around for thousands of years just because the gays say so? They make up maybe one or two percent of the population, yet they get to tell everybody else how we’re going to live. Whenever this has been put up for a vote, it fails, yet that doesn’t seem good enough for either the courts, the gays, or the liberals in the White House. No, if this passes, you will probably see fewer and fewer people actually getting married. I think that’s what happened in Europe when gay marriage was passed, so I won’t be surprised if it happens here too.

    1. Libertyship46 You might be pleased to learn that the French people are actively resisting the imposition of homosexual marriage. See here: http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2013/03/france-for-the-french/

      1. OliviaHT Libertyship46 I saw that and was absolutely shocked. These are the same people who think married men should have mistresses and affairs are the norm. Some high profile French officials and news writers openly supported Clinton’s affair in the White House saying what was the big deal, so yes I was shocked to see they cared a whit about homosexual marriage. I guess that means they don’t want you have a mistress of the same sex…or maybe not.

    1. stage9 I found this quote particularly salient: ” But if marriage has a higher purpose, then anything that undermines its traditional framework also threatens to undermine its desired result—the rearing of healthy, productive, contributing citizens. Promoting the General Welfare.”
      A must read article! Thank you.

  11. It is a powerful argument.  Unfortunately it’s one that only resonates with people of faith.
    This is why Jefferson very carefully used the phrasing “Our Creator” instead of directly referencing God.  I know you folks see it as one and the same sometimes, but in the realm of philosophy, there’s a world of difference. The phrase “Our creator” allows for the poor atheists to be included.  They don’t have to believe in God (Jesus knocks, he doesn’t coerce), but they did get created, somehow, and it doesn’t matter what they call it (evolution, magic, “the selfish gene,” …whatever). Thus, our unalienable rights are a part of us, inseverable, regardless of how God (or whatever agency the atheists believe in) managed to make us exist.

      1. stage9 K-Bob Well, that’s my point.  It isn’t the strongest argument unless you are pitching it to people of faith.  The people of faith don’t need studies and data. They just follow the Word.

        1. K-Bob stage9 I agree 110%! And that’s kind of what frustrates me about the church. When they argue this issue they argue from faith. Which like you say is great if you’re a person of faith but has absolutely no meaning in a secular culture like ours.
          So, the next question is, “Is there an argument to be made without invoking faith?” and the answer is a resounding YES! And it’s a BETTER argument at least from a cultural standpoint.
          I mean ultimately God will judge the behavior too, but from the standpoint cultural sustainability, I don’t need to invoke God to make the case against homosexuality and counterfeit marriage.
          I just wish the church  and some family organizations would see that.

        2. stage9 K-Bob I find the argument much the same on homosexual marriage and abortion the same.  While they are very important to Christians, we have to understand there are so many more secular people, while maybe they believe they’re Christian but don’t have a problem with H. marriage or abortion.  We need to change the argument to fit with a more secular society.
          Good points both of you.

        3. stage9 K-Bob You’re correct.  We need more of the old, Augustinian/Aquinas type philosophers, who could pitch an argument so that it is in line with their beliefs, but does not resort purely to catechism, and makes thorough use of logic and reason as much as possible.

        4. AmericanborninCanada stage9 K-Bob We happened to catch Rush the other day (a rare occurrence around here, due to timing), and he made a very salient point which is solid enough to put down money:
          If the court forces this on us, it’s going to be jsut like what happened with the Roe v. Wade decision, and it will only ratchet up the polarization.
          I’ve maintained for years that the moment that decision came down was the genesis of the vast gulf between left and right; a gulf that did not exist prior.

        5. K-Bob stage9Exactly! It’s what the Apostle Paul did on Mars Hill. He debated the philosophers by arguing with terms they understood. Not Jewish/Christian religious doctrine. It wasn’t until he had them hooked that he was able to point out that their statue to the “unknown god” was in fact Jehovah. The God above all gods.

      1. waytngtym AmericanborninCanada K-Bob It’s not a waste of time, so don’t apologize for it.  Sorry though that it took a while to get back.  It could be the system.  I can’t even get comments to show at all if I’m on AOL or IE.  I’ve not tried going on Chrome, so it could be.  I know with firefox I can’t get some of the videos to show, but that’s only because I haven’t plugged in any extra apps on here. I jump around so much from here to AOL and IE so I just watch the videos while on one of the others 🙂

    1. waytngtym K-Bob If you click those when they pop up, it takes you to where they appear, in proper order (which of course will fail, if you get past the dreaded, “Show More Comments,” button).  Yeah, I think Disqus chose correctly, by keeping the new stuff separate from the old, and also giving you a button to click if you wanted to.
      Scoop can’t do anything to control that, I would guess. (Other than perhaps to turn off real-time updating altogether.)

    2. K-Bob Here’s how you make a secular argument against gay marriage: Get the government out of the marriage business entirely. Remove all benefits, tax exemptions, and special rights for married people. This allows people of faith to get married as God intended and gay couples to do what they like. If you do want certain protections or directives in your marriage then have your own private contract. More freedom for everyone and we don’t have to be divided about it. 
      Unfortunately some people still won’t accept this argument because they have a greater agenda to destroy the family and make the state everyone’s god. At least it is a rational argument to present to non religious people though.

    3. K-Bob The real powerful argument is whether or not voters in a state, under the 10th Amendment, have the right to amend their Constitution.  If not, then the argument will come that state laws are meaningless.

  12. From Allen West’s Facebook page:
    So let me get this right… SCOTUS just heard arguments over the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, something that was presented before the electorate, voted upon, and passed back in 2008. The opponents of Proposition 8 decided they did not like the results of the peoples’ democratic decision, so they took it to the courts. Now we have the courts potentially overruling the referendum of the people. Is this a case of legislating from the bench to appease a special interest group? If the people decided by vote on the matter, should that not settle the issue? Or have we come to a point in America where a minority special interest can protest and use the court system to mandate their whims and desires? I’m sure I’ll get some flak for bringing this up, but dang I thought the right of free speech and expression extended to everyone – even conservatives. I certainly do not see in my Constitution anywhere addressing the RIGHT to marriage…just a thought.

    1. AmericanborninCanada As someone else has said, “It will be interesting to see how the court answers this fundamental question in light of its decision on ObamaCare. Will the court conclude as it did with ObamaCare that if the DOMA law is to be repealed it is up to the legislative body of Congress to repeal it? OR will it rule by edict? The future of our civilization IMO rests on this landmark decision.”

        1. AmericanborninCanada Rshill7 I’m a long-time “danger.” Got it from years of Gary Larson cartoons.

        2. AmericanborninCanada K-Bob Rshill7 Why, thank you, Duckie!
          There’s a “science” museum (hands-on style) out in California somewhere in or near San Fransisco  (I forget where… Hey, I had little kids at the time) that has a Gary Larson wing. I loved it!

    2. AmericanborninCanada I A right to marriage or a power to legislate over it.
      But on the other question, just because people vote on something, no, that doesn’t settle the matter.  It’s my understanding that the country was founded on a principle – unalienable rights.  That means they are not up for vote.

      1. CalCoolidge AmericanborninCanada I agree.  The founders had it right in their wording meaning our rights come not from any human government.  But long time of people either enjoying government given benefits or allowing our liberties to be eroded, people have forgotten that while government can not grant rights over what God or our Creator has already given, nor does the government have any right to take them from us.
        We’re seeing that now with so many things, people get angry, but they don’t get angry enough to tell the government to stick it- these are rights that are given by God- not Washington politicians.

  13. Those were great points. Gay marriage is not a conservative position. Period. You are not a conservative if you are for gay marriage.

  14. I’m so THRILLED major voices are starting to “get this”, or at least argue the point publicly.
    One of the major reasons that homosexuals want the state to act in regard to marriage is because they have a faulty premise in regard to the purpose and origin of marriage.
    I was watching a show the other day and the girl in the show mentioned that she didn’t want to get married because it represented an institution invented by the male dominated state to keep women submissive.
    Think about that! Women shouldn’t WANT to get married and have children, something that is a natural as the earth orbiting around the sun, because she would be allegedly enslaved by a male-dominated institution!
    And this is what homosexuals believe too. That marriage is a cultural construct invented by the state!
    Michelangelo Signorile, homosexual activist and writer, says the goal of homosexuals is to “fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake…is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.”
    Paula Ettelbrick, the former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, has stated,”Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so….Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society.”
    Gay pundit Andrew Sullivan has said the “openness” in many gay relationships would in reality fortify heterosexual marriages by allowing straight couples to see that adultery doesn’t necessarily destroy a marriage. Furthermore, once gay “marriage” is allowed, the faithful nature of traditional unions will be transformed accordingly.

      1. ryanomaniac stage9 It is. I have been following this movement for years, and I have watched as it has grown and it has shocked me how successful hit has been. Otherwise reasonably minded people buy into the lie. And it’s really because no one is shedding light on the what’s REALLY going on. The liberal media is silent because it has a stake in pushing the liberal agenda.

    1. stage9 Adultery good for marriage? What’s next? 
       I suppose Sullivan thinks “thou shall not covet” is outdated.

      1. PhillyCon stage9 And dude, this is just THE TIP of the iceberg. I’m not even going to get into how Kevin Jennings, Obama’s “ex-Safe Schools Czar” tricked the state of Massachusetts into adopting counterfeit marriage there.  OR how a book called “After the Ball” written in the 90’s became the blueprint for what you’re seeing today.
        This entire movement is just downright evil.

  15. In any form of tyranny the first thing which needs to be accomplished is the removal of God and all that is holy, thus making the govt the seat of worship. In this the govt, not God, will dictate the morality as to whatever it thinks serves it best. However, as we know throughout history any govt which has done this has destroyed itself; Rome, Babylon and in more recent times the Soviet Union and Hitler’s Germany. The Lord will NOT tolerate false gods or worship to them and so prayer is needed that we as God’s people will be victorious in the court’s ruling and marriage will remain as written in Bible between one man and one woman.

  16. Yes, great exposition of the true ‘conservative’ position. I had not realized until seeing all of these abhorrent law suits just how far down the ‘slippery slope’ we are.

  17. Well done Dana. There are actually a lot more cases than what Dana listed. State by state, regardless of whether gay marriage is legal or not, people are being sued.

    If gay marriage is forced then kiss your property rights good bye.

    1. Laurel A What is truly appalling and worthy of another 1776 would be the government’s attempt to normalize homosexual behavior using the public school system, beginning with children in kindergarten — a complete conditioning of society to accept perversion as normal and healthy and a direct attack on freedom of conscience.

      1. OliviaHT Laurel A That is already happening. If gay marriage is upheld it will go into hyper-drive.

        1. Laurel A OliviaHT Yes, I knew it was, as I followed closely the case of the Helena (MT) school board “debating” the issue with irate parents and liberal “agents of change.” That was at least two years ago. I knew also about the despicable Kevin Jennings and his “influence” as Safe-Schools Czar. But your point is well-taken: normalizing would be the LAW and dissenters prosecuted accordingly.

  18. “That has always been one of my biggest points. I’ve told people over and over that if gay marriage becomes legal, the gay population essentially gains a right and we who disagree with it lose a right, and that right is usually the right to disagree with it”
    <<< there you go in  a nutshell! You must strip ALL people of their 1st amend right to create a new right for ONE class of people .

    1. KzPage Absolutely! It is the suppression of freedom of religion and freedom of association!

    2. KzPage I may be wrong but I think it started with Hate crime legislation. Accepting that there should be a crime because of sexuality is ridiculous. Beating, murder or whatever can be a crime no matter who it’s directed at and as an American citizen you already have the protection of the law and courts. Accepting that homosexuals deserved extra penalties if attacked was the start of special rights for homosexuals. It was a considerable win for the radical left that most if not all Republicans went along with.

  19. “Do not people of faith retain their First Amendment liberty of freedom of religion?”
    Well, actually, no. Not according to the EEOC and its Obama-appointed Commissioner, Chai Feldblum, who unequivocally “argues for homosexual rights over Christianity,” stating that “society should ‘not tolerate private beliefs that adversely affect’ homosexuals.” 
    Miss Feldblum, not surprisingly, is a lesbian. You can read about her here: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/015394.htmlKnow your enemy. Sun-Tzu.

  20. This is funny.
    They are hearing ‘oral arguments’ about gay marriage today 🙂
    I know…booo,…hisss!

        1. Rshill7 AmericanborninCanada Also “Eat Worms”
          (which I only offer up for purposes of information)

  21. This part sums it all up and is exactly the point… ” It is a religious civil liberty, not a right granted by government.
    It should never have been regulated by government in the first place,
    and government shouldn’t have an expanded reach in further regulating it
    now. There is no allowance constitutionally that invites our government
    to define the religious covenant of marriage.”

  22. I keep getting these red box that says I am trying to post using “malformed content”. It is a big fat time waster and is raising my blood pressure.

      1. AmericanborninCanada
        I’ve had it happen somewhere between 10 times, and a baker’s dozen, but keep forging along like Don Quixote chasing another windmill.
         Hey windmill! C’mere a minute!
        Good grief! It happened on this very post!

    1. Rshill7 My guess is that the Rich Text javascript doodad isn’t smart enough to know whether all necessary “other javascript doodads” are loaded, so it thinks it’s all ready to go when you hit “Post comment.” Then, when the other supposedly-loaded doodad fails to run, you get pudding on your screen.

      They need a timed check of loaded components.  It only has to happen when you have given the focus to the text box.
      Sorry for the geek-speak.

      1. K-Bob
        It always seems to happen when I’m saying the coolest stuff too, which is pertnear every time 🙂

  23. One potential problem is that the SC can duck and just punt with a procedural ruling. Which would mean the lower courts ruling would stand and gay marriage would be legal (at least in those states).

  24. I don’t care what anyone says. I’m not into emotional arguments, but sound policy. I will always be against gay marriage till the day I die. This is non-negotiable. Humanity existed before the government. And its the structures that keep humanity whole are those that I am more concerned in.
    BTW, that argument, let’s get the “government out of the business of marriage” is so absurd. They are already there! When someone wants a divorce —> gov’t. Domestic abuse? —> government. Orphans —-> gov’t/ private org. Etc. Etc. So please spare me that argument.

    1. Booker Well it’s obvious that it has become a way to redefine marriage, not to protect legal rights. Often, married couples have to sign additional documentations. Wills, power of attorney, even documents that say it’s okay for my doctor to discuss my health with my husband–none of these are guaranteed by getting married. You can certainly enter into a contract, so the designation of marriage is not necessary unless you just have ulterior motives. Then you have companies that, for religious reasons, don’t want to be forced to provide insurance benefits to those living together. If they’re forced to recognize a gay couple as married, they will have to provide benefits. Certainly, if companies want to provide same sex or other benefits, they can do so, but it shouldn’t be forced on a business because they have a “title” of marriage.

    2. Booker “Spare you?”  Please.
      Wrong is wrong. Otherwise the Dredd Scott decision would still be law..

  25. Agree with your points, Right Scoop, and those made by Dana.
    It is strange, isn’t it, that at a time when governments at all levels promote single-mum “families” with no fathers except as sperm donors, suddenly ‘marriage’ is a ‘right’ which has been ‘denied’ to ‘victim groups’.
    Governments in their haste to desecrate marriage and kicking religion into the long grass are overlooking one point: islam has treated gays worse than any other religion. Funny that none of the gay rights activists have taken up the plight of gay muslims … 

    But then, we know that this act is solely aimed at Christianity.
    Pity the left doesn’t learn from their own history: look at how Christianity survived even 79 years of blatant, militant atheism!

    1. colliemum Christianity is the finger in the dike holding back the flood of totalitarian — and global — rule. Of course it must be first marginalized then utterly destroyed. And the Marxist-atheist tools are foolish enough to go up against God Himself. This will not end well for them, eternally speaking.

      1. OliviaHT  There is one thing which we all know: at the Last Judgement Christ Our Saviour will stand with us. 
        I cannot imagine what it will be like for those who will have to face God on their own.

        1. colliemum OliviaHT Perfectly stated: Jesus will speak for us, while His deniers will face God without an advocate, pleading their own merits which count for nothing.

  26. Awesome Article!  Thanks for posting this RS! 
    I might also add…
    Bringining Government into Marriage = The Marriage Penalty Tax!

      1. Conservative_Hippie 
        I think the Bush tax cuts eliminated that didn’t it? It may make a comeback in 2013 though. That’s what I read somewhere. Could be wrong.

        1. Rshill7 Conservative_Hippie I knew a couple, back in the day, that would not get married due to this tax being too much of a burden on them.  They lived in Northeast Philadelphia ( i.e The Hood ).  With borderline poverty and raising two kids it was too muich for them.  Leave it to the Givernment to punish someone for doing the right thing!

      1. I like fire better, it’s quicker. I’ve also noticed something about fire in our fire pit out back. Every time I throw stuff in there it gets a lot smaller, and after a short while is unrecognizable.

Comments are closed.