Conversation With GOProud
by Bob ParksA conversation with Jimmy LaSalvia, Executive Director, GOProud
BOB: Hi Jimmy, just wanted to touch bases and find out what your thoughts were about the rather rude outburst by that punk at CPAC. I was getting ready to videotape a following speaker and found the kid’s comments rude and uncalled for.
JIMMY LaSALVIA: It was unfortunate that happened. You know there was a little controversy when we signed on as co-sponsors back in December, but I thought all of that had blown over. I was surprised when Ryan Sorba made those remarks, but it was heartening to see and hear the crowd boo and voice disapproval.
BOB: Why was there controversy? I can imagine but let’s hear it from you. Considering we’re all Republicans and we probably vote close to each other on the issues, what was the problem?
JIMMY: There are some on fringe, some single issue groups, who disagree with GOProud on an issue or two. They threatened to boycott CPAC, but in the end most everyone was there. It was the biggest CPAC ever. I always tell people that there is a difference between policy and principles. We can disagree on some policies, but we share the same conservative principles.
BOB: Specifically, where was the agreement and disagreement?
JIMMY: We happen to believe that it’s a conservative position to be in favor of marriage equality for same sex couples. We believe that marriage is good for society and that gay and lesbian couples should be included in civil marriage. Some disagree with that position. They also may disagree with our position that gay and lesbian servicemembers should be able to serve openly and honestly. Human Events Magazine’s “Conservative of the Year” Dick Cheney agrees with us. We are proud to stand with him.
BOB: Okay, let’s tackle these one by one. Marriage. First of all, I’m glad you didn’t use the activist line equating gay marriage to the black experience when interracial marriage was discouraged. But here’s my take on this.
JIMMY: First let me say that the vast majority of conservatives agree with most of our legislative priorities, outlined here, then, we can get to marriage.
BOB: I know of few conservatives that have an issue with civil unions for the obvious legal reasons. Should I and my girlfriend decided to get married tomorrow and then we filed taxes, the IRS wouldn’t recognize the marriage because we didn’t get a marriage license, the equivalent to a civil union. Marriage is, in my opinion, what the fringe decided to use to basically give a middle finger to the church that’s almost always opposed gays. “Marriage” is totally unnecessary to the legal remedies gays sought.
JIMMY: I would disagree in that I know VERY few conservatives in elective office who would sponsor or even vote for civil unions. The fact is civil unions are available to many people in this country. Second, you know that there is a big difference between civil marriage and religious marriage… and there should be….religious institutions should be left alone to come to their own conclusions on the issue. But you are right, that most of the legal issues revolve around taxation, immigration, and inheritance. There are some private contracts that help with some of those issues, but legislative remedies are required for the vast majority of them. There are conservative solutions that would uniquely help gay and lesbian couples navigate some of those problems. For instance, if we did away with the IRS and instituted the Fair Tax, that would take care of a lot.
There are countless other examples of that type of solution that we can pass today. Then, we can continue the dialogue on marriage. That’s an issue our country will be debating for some time to come.
BOB: I mean, I’ve heard people like Sean Hannity on television argue that gay marriage minimizes the sanctity of marriage and no disrespect intended, but there’s no gay man or lesbian woman who can diminish what I have with my woman, and if it can someone elses, then that’s their problem.
JIMMY: I agree. Divorce is the biggest threat to marriage gay or straight! Again, we should be mindful that civil marriage is a government institution, no sanctity in government.
BOB: Let’s move on to gays in the military.
JIMMY: Cool.
BOB: While serving in the Navy, I had a supervisor who was gay. He wasn’t in your face about it, and because he was (and everyone knew it), he had to be doubly squared away. Through him, I became a much better writer and journalist and our department won two Chief of Information 2nd Place awards for excellence amongst 600 ship and shore commands. With that, why would there be a need for him to come out and force his sexuality on his shipmates?
JIMMY: I don’t think it’s a matter of forcing his sexuality on anyone. It’s a matter of whether he has to lie about it or not. Listen, conduct should be appropriate in the military no matter who you are. But gay and lesbian servicemembers are forced to lie everyday, just to serve their country. It can be significant, like who should we inform if you are killed or wounded? or somewhat trivial just in conversation like “what did you do when you were on leave?” In 2010, our fine servicemembers are more than capable of doing their jobs as professionals whether straight or gay…we shouldn’t make some of them lie in order to do it.
BOB: See, I served before “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, so no one had to “lie” because it was nobody’s business.
Here’s the issue. I think the average civilian would be shocked if they saw just how cramped living conditions are on a ship. I can’t speak for shore or ground commands as I spent 85% of my time at sea, but when you’re in such close quarters, there’s no need for any sexual distractions, whether it’s with gay men or hetero women. The military is a business; a business carrying out and winning war, not social experimentation.
JIMMY: You probably knew which of your shipmates were married, or who had a girlfriend, or any other number of facts about their personal lives. It is a fact of life that we get to know our colleagues in the workplace. Again, the military has strict rules of conduct that should be followed.
I think that we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. I suspect that there is a lot more that we will agree on.
BOB: Yeah, you should read some of my discussions with and or about the Paulies. Disagreement, big time.
Black folk ask me why I’m a Republican and I can cite civil rights history, as badly rewritten as it’s been. When asked why you’re a Republican, what do you say?
JIMMY: I say that I believe in limited government, free markets, strong national defense, less regulation, etc,,,, I understand that the GOP hasn’t always followed those principles, but I find myself more closely aligned with Republicans than Democrats. A lot of gays and lesbians can’t understand me either! It’s sometimes hard to defend to gay people, because in recent years there have been some prominent Republican politicians who have said horrible things about us. As you know, they are in the minority, but they don’t make it easy on us gay Republicans.
I don’t know about you, but when I see Republican candidates winning elections all over the country (McDonnell, Christie, Brown, et al) by focusing on the priorities of the American people – jobs, economy, national security, I am very encouraged. I think more and more gay people will take a look at conservative candidates when they focus on those issues. Do you feel the same about black voters?
BOB: No. Being black and Republican is not an everyday decision made. While politicians encourage people to become active, black Republicans are routinely harassed and demeaned, and I can see why blacks who have Republican leanings stay in the closet, as it were. I’ve been doing this long and publicly enough that my skin is very thick, but I understand why some people just don’t need the hassle.
Now, I have a question I’ve been dying to ask a gay person.
JIMMY: Shoot.
BOB: How do you feel about gay pride parades. Personally, I cringe when watching rap videos because of the impressions it leaves on others of who black people are. Do you see gay pride parades, as lewd as some can be, as a serious PR blunder?
JIMMY: Certainly in this day and age, as more and more gay people have come out and live their lives openly and honestly, the stereotypical images of pride parades don’t accurately portray the reality of the lives of the vast majority of gay Americans. For the most part, we are just like everyone else…sitting at home on the couch as boring as most other folks watching those nuts on TV! Yes, I suspect it’s very similar to your reaction watching stereotypical images of black people. The best thing that gay people can do (from a PR point of view) is just live your life like any other person, and the rest of America will realize that we are no different than them.
BOB: Jimmy, let’s do this again. I will say this: I respect the fact that not once during this conversation did you liken the present-day gay experience to what blacks endured decades, if not centuries ago, as many liberal gay activists do. As we both know, there is no comparison and I’m very happy you didn’t go there. This would have been a very short conversation.
JIMMY: While I think that there are certainly things that gay people can learn from the struggle of black Americans, we are different and should respect those differences while working toward our common goals. Thank you for spending time with me this evening. I look forward to working with you in the future to achieve our common goals.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
72 Comments
Mr. Parks,
Thank you once again for a rather thought provoking article. Your closing sentence perhaps sums it up:
"I look forward to working with you in the future to achieve our common goals."
Perhaps, if we all kept that mindset, first and foremost, and worked together for our common good, it would make a difference. While there are some lifestyles that I do not advocate, I certainly do not judge either. I simply believe in the golden rule.
Is there a list of words that flag comments for administrator approval? I just made a post that is not offensive in any manner, only to get it stuck in hold for admin approval….
You can post a slew of curse words and that's okay…I don't get it…!?
Or do I just have to post anonymously to post trash like a lot of the trolls here do…?
Yep, ya can't go wrong adhearing to the Golden Rule…!
Isn't it funny how you have to put your hand on the bible to be sworn in at a court hearing, but they don't allow the ten commandment to be posted anywhere on the property…!?
That appears to be one of lifes little mysteries here.
Ask Keith Olbermann and Janeane Garofalo…?
Bob, neither you nor I should allow ourselves to be observed paying even microscopic attention to either Keith Olbermann or Janeane Garofalo. It reflects badly on us. I hope you are not making such an admission here. No, you can't be. While you and I may have little in common other than our conservative political views, I trust you are not confessing to caring in the least about the opinions of someone like Jeneane.
Jimmy, you had me at Fair Tax! LOL
excellent interview and kudos to Mr.LaSalvia for an outstanding exposition of his view
I've always thought that ALL couples should have a "civil union" license as far as the government is concerned & leave the term "marriage" to one's personal beliefs/religion. As a conservative, I believe in EQUAL treatment under the law, but as a Christian, I believe a marriage is not just a committment between two people…its a committment between 2 people & GOD…and that is something the government has no business getting in the middle of.
"Civil marriage is a government institution, no sanctity in government."
Precisely. Marriage began as a religious institution. It has been degraded by getting the government involved. I have no idea why self-professed conservatives want the government sticking its nose into a religious matter that should be between two people and their god.
Oh freaking come on! I am so sick of this crap software. Why can't you guys get it together? Is there anyone actually watching this site?
I agree totally. This is where I can agree to disagree with GOProud….hope they can agree to disagree with me.
"Getting one's marriage license should be downright insulting to Americans. We're essentially asking the government to give us permission to get married. Why on earth should we need the government's permission? Get the government out of all of our lives and we'll all be better off."
I have thought about this often and wondered why do we do this. Why can't we just go to our Preacher, Rabbi, or Priest and declare our intentions with out the interference of Uncle Sam?
Apparently the State is now our master, not God.
Yes sir
Just how Barack likes it…
For the USG to sanction homosexuality dissolves the basis for our unalienable rights. Our rights come from our Creator and must be exercised with respect to our Creator for these rights to have any meaning. Or shall we continue the current charade and invoke God to close the State of Union and functionally declare that people are given the right to life on the basis of the caprice of our mothers?
True, but why did we let them do it? That is the question.
When one runs off the plantation.
Why?
Because there are numerous aspects of such partnerships that invariably involve the government. Primary among these is inheritance. If there is no civil acknowledgement of cohabitation, in what manner can children establish rights to the land held by their parents? How could a widow or widower claim inheritance of the property of a deceased spouse?
Then there are the issues in regards to the dissolution of the partnership. Who is entitled to what property? What of support of one partner by the other? What of children?
As for going to a clergyman, there was a time when people just declared their intent to cohabit with the community. This was not sufficient for religious authorities, and they demanded that such agreements receive religious sanction to be legitimate. It could equally be asked why we cannot just state our intentions publicly without the interference of some religious organization. Freedom of religion must include the freedom to avoid such if one chooses as well.
Also, some religions are willing to sanction marriages that are not otherwise considered civilly acceptable.
Some religions will sanction marriages of a man with more than one woman.
Some religions will sanction marriages of a woman with more than one man. (Admittedly much fewer than the previous.)
Some religions will sanction marriages between first cousins.
Some religions will sanction marriages between uncles and nieces or aunts and nephews. (Often via contrivances, but they will do it.)
Some religions will sanction marriages between mid-to-late teens (13-17 year olds) with each other, or with adults.
Some religions will sanction marriages between adult men and pre-teen girls.
In which, if any, of these should the government have the ability to step up and say "That is all well and good, but not only will we not give legal standing to such marriages in our courts, but we may also bring charges against you there if you actually consummate said marriage!"?
Legally, "consenting" and "competent" must have some relevance, and there must be some control over the contractual obligations implied by any marriage.
Thank you BronxZionist.
As easy as it is to say "get Government out of marriage period".
You remind us why marriage or civil unions are one of the few areas that the government really does need to be involved in.
My personal belief is there would be much less trouble and misunderstanding if we just too "marriage" out of the dialogue all together and every union would be a civil union. It doesn't really matter who gets "married" but it does matter who gets a "civil union".
I'm sticking with what is called the only inspired Scripture ever given man, which is the Hebrew Old Testament! If the Hebrew does not agree with all these other religions mentioned above; it is NOT of Yahweh or Yahshua! Of coarse this especially is true with the New Covenant, and they DO NOT DISAGREE!
See info@icyahweh.org
There are reasons the government must be involved in the contractual side.
There are equal reasons the government must absolutely NOT be involved in the religious side.
If it takes a silly bit of semantics to secure that separation, then so be it, but the separation MUST be achieved. I can write an equal series regarding other religious sacraments demonstrating just how much anybody would want government having even the least say in those rituals.
And if one wishes to solemnize a civil action with a religious ritual, let them. As long as they are willing to accept the religious consequences, and keep those separate from all civil requirements and proceedings, that is on them, and Constitutionally no business of anyone else.
Mr. Park, why did you allow Mr. LaSalvia to characterize social conservatives as fringe groups and single issue groups. Liberty has been a proud sponsor of CPAC for many years. Did CPAC and others consider it a fringe group when they accepted its money? Are they willing to denounce it now as a fringe group? Is Liberty a single issue group? Why are you enabling Mr. LaSalvia to attack one conservative group without attempting to cover both sides of the issue? Mr. Park, why are you engaging in the same shoddy journalism that we condemn in the MSM?
I would suggest that we replace the civil marriage contract with a domestic partnership contract that would cover everyone for the purpose of taxation, civil rights, etc. Then government would no longer be in the business of defining our individual adult relationships. All of the current traditional marriages would be grandfathered in so no one has to jump through a bunch of bureaucratic hoops to retain their civil rights under the domestic partnership contract laws. And churches could still marry those that qualify according to their beliefs, but the private marriages would be completely separate from legal domestic partnerships.
I consider that a fair solution to the problem that also satisfies my conservative principles. It increases individual liberty and decreases government power.
I guess it would be considered shoddy journalism by someone who repeatedly misspells the name of the person you're criticizing. Also Kipling, did he say "all"? I believe he used the word "some".
My apologies for getting your name wrong. I assure you that it was not intentional.
Now please address the larger questions I asked.
Your claim that Mr. LaSalvia said "some" and not "all" simply does not wash. He used "some" in the context of the conservative movement to refer to social conservatives as represented by either Liberty or by the fact that they disgreed with him on a "single issue." In that context, he is refering to "all" such groups.
Please stop playing word games and answer the larger questions.
Well, excuse the hell out of me for not letting you talk down to me further.
And if it seems I'm playing word games, it may just be because you're asking the wrong person. He said what he said. If you read into any more than that, take it up with him, but seeing how I don't know you, don't talk down to me like your child.
I already have a president doing that.
It is not my intent to talk down to you and once again I apologize if it appears so. I am simply following up with your points. It was you who said Mr. LaSalvia used the word "some" and not "all." I simply put those words in the context of the discussion. I am not reading anything more into it than he said.
As to who is attacking and condesending to whom, it was you who responded to my intial post by correcting my spelling rather than addressing the larger questions. The questions I asked are legitimate ones about CPAC and Mr. LaSalvia characterization of Liberty as a fringe group. Do you plan to contact Liberty and present their side of the controversy?
Good, let's get childish.
You initially accused me of shoddy journalism. First of all, I am not a journalist and haven't been since 1989. I write commentary. I was at CPAC, saw the rude outburst, the young man booed off the stage, and I took it upon myself to contact Mr. LaSalvia and ask questions. You may have noticed that on the two major issues in the conversation, we disagreed.
As far as contacting Liberty, I don't know anyone there and I'm not involved in anything between any groups attending CPAC. All I know is this: GOProud votes pretty much down the line like conservatives do and I don't think it wise we start tossing people out whose votes we need.
So you would not characterize social conservatives who disagree with you or GOProud on issues such as the redefinition of traditional marriage to include homosexual partnerships or the repeal of DADT as fringe groups?
Would you characterize Liberty University as a fringe group?
Who specifically were the groups who threatened the boycott? Specificity here might well solve the problem all around. As conservatives well know, a favorite tactic of the left is to smear those who disagree with them as fringe or extremists. I just want a clear call here rather than a broad strokes.
Yep! We have been living-off an inheritance from our Forefathers and it’s just about gone.
Just who is this GOD mentioned in the Constitution? And just what does HE have to say? Does HE have expectations? Does HE do our bidding?
One would think that Americans would be soooo beholding to HIM that we would want what HE wants. In ALL things. HE is ONLY the MASTER DESIGNER – CREATED HE them male and female. WORD!
I apologize for accusing you of being a journalist. You presented your commentary in the form of an interview so I pointed out some tough follow up questions I thought should have been asked. I recognize the points of disagreement between you and Mr. LaSalvia.
As far as contacting Liberty University and/or others, that is completely up to you. However, your commentary/interview allowed Mr. LaSalvia to attack other conservatives as fringe without giving them a chance to respond. Tactics like that will drive away more votes than an honest discussion.
.BOB: ….Considering we’re all Republicans and we probably vote close to each other on the issues, what was the problem? I do want to know why?
Great interview Bob. Jimmy, Bob is right, we're all Republicans – come one come all. So why come under a specifc grouping?
How by any stretch of the imagination, homosexuality can be said to be a legitimate part of the American conservative tradition is still an unanswered question. Yeah, Walt Whitman was one, but he was no politician, but regardless, what is this type of conservativism attempting to conserve, if from time immemorial, marriage has been between a man and a woman?
And don’t bother with the propaganda about discrimination.
Able bodied heterosexual males already are discriminated against if they can't marry their mother, sister, daughter, aunt, any female under 12-16 or more than one woman at one time, before we even start taking about the prohibitions against the usual man, boy, dog or bicycle. So what gives?
You got it. It’s not about equal rights. It’s about special rights. Those of us who consider it a wretched and narcissistic perversion get it shoved in our face. They want to cut the line and be the top dog, if not the only self righteous “victim” of “discrimination”.
Cry me a river and get in back of the line, while you are at it.
As for the remarks regarding Sorba being a punk (if they don't merely qualify their author as one himself) granted normally it would be rude to bring something up in regard to a guest at such an occasion, but who invited them in the first place? It is even ruder on GOProud’s part that they would try to insinuate that they are conservative – unless the definition includes conserving libertinism, rather than the traditional family and social, moral and even religious order. Like it or not, the West still operates in largely Christan terms, not pagan and amoral.
As for the military, again give me a break. Why don’t we just make everything coed, whether bathrooms or barracks? That’s the only way to make sure that heterosexuals are extended as much freedom and liberty as the homosexuals. Otherwise they are discriminated against. (Boo. Hiss.)
Oh? It’s OK if we discriminate against the heteros?
Like I said, it’s not about discrimination.
I know.
The question was perhaps rhetorical.
I have always respected what you write, and the way you say it. You and I both know, that the DNC and their perpetual motion machine and favorite tool, the MSM must have victims in order to survive. Without victims, they are relegated to irrelevancy.
Just the fact that you responded to me here, and I am responding to you, will drive the moonbats here wild. I push the envelope here on a daily basis, the sole goal being to get people to think. Guys like you and I have more things in common, to bring us together, than we have differences to drive us apart. That is the key; dialogue.
Awhile back you wrote a thread here that really impressed me. Impressed me enough that I would vote for you if you were running and I were eligble in your district to vote for you. You are one of the people that can make a difference. I want to thank you for standing up and being counted.
Thanks!
You actually feel discriminated against because you cannot marry your mother, sister, daughter, aunt, a girl under 17, or have more than one of the previous as a wife at the same time?
Seriously?
And you feel equally put out at the thought of men being able to marry men (and presumably women being able to marry women) while not being able to marry dogs (likewise presumably including other animals), or bicycles (again presumably including other vehicles, though perhaps also including all mechanical objects)?
Really?
what?
So they can collect the fee's!!!! Why else would they do it!!!!
Just happened to me, too.
What Creator? You mean the Creator of the Deists? Not all the founding fathers were Christian or believed in the Bible. That Creator said nothing about homosexuality other than it occurs in nature.
Mr. Parks, I don't know who the hell you are, but you just earned a fan. You and Jimmy both. I'm going to be eagerly looking forward to more from both of you.
Mr. LaSalvia,
So you would not characterize social conservatives who disagree with you or GOProud on issues such as the redefinition of traditional marriage to include homosexual partnerships or the repeal of DADT as fringe groups?
Would you characterize Liberty University as a fringe group?
Who specifically were the groups who threatened the boycott? Specificity here might well solve the problem all around. As conservatives well know, a favorite tactic of the left is to smear those who disagree with them as fringe or extremists. I just want a clear call rather than broad strokes.
What is clear from the conversation is this: conservatives who disagree with each other can still have a civil conversation without any ad hominem attacks. Their disagreement is respectful and they absolutely agree to disagree.
That's the way it should be.
Well, there is no "right to marriage" in the Federal Constitution. Marriage/civil union is a STATE issue and should be left as such.
Sorry, but I'll have disagree with your reasoning.
"And in all of that you deliberately exclude the simplest example of all as you know it will disrupt the entire basis of your rhetorical posturing. That being, what it is about is whether any individual can marry any other consenting, responsible adult, over which no undo influence can be expected to exist (the exemptions covering close family)."
Vell said. Excellent point. It is about a single consenting adult marrying a single consenting adult. It is none of the gov'ts business.
Wonderful interview. A shining example of how to debate 2 very contentious issues. Only conservatives could do it.
You are welcome.
And as I said, I could do an equal horror list of why the government has to be kept as far away from marriage as possible. That is why I favor stripping religious sacrament from civil institution completely. It is the only way I can see freedom and rights being properly served.
Please share…
Well, the first place we start is simple:
If government determines who cannot be married, they can tell various religions who they cannot be married. In fact, this has already happened, with the LDS back a 140 years or so.
Next we consider that if the state can determine who you marry, they can determine who you can unmarry (divorce). Oh wait, that already happened too. And while it is changing, in some places the government still makes it very difficult to divorce.
So the government decides who can marry, they decide who can divorce, can they decide when you get married? Well, yes. They set age requirements, and impose familial restrictions. Now mind you, we approve of those, but this is still government being able set limits on who can receive a particular religious rite.
Kipling,
I didn't characterize social conservatives as fringe groups. I was only talking about those few voices who called for a boycott of CPAC. Many groups of social conservatives were co-sponsors of CPAC. Liberty U. made a choice not to participate in the premier annual gathering of conservatives in the country. You should ask Liberty U. why they weren't at CPAC, when most social conservatives were there. (I have to tell you that they didn't have a problem as a co-sponsor of the College Republicans convention with GOProud….our booths were near each other.)
Jimmy LaSalvia
I have done a little bit of research and I find the whole allegation of a boycott to be overblown. After a short google search for "CPAC Boycott" I found only two groups that had committed to a boycott due to GOProud – the Americans for Truth and the Free Republic. The websites for these two groups confirmed their intention to boycott. All other allegations about a boycott came from either pro-homosexual blogs or from liberal / leftist blogs. From what I could find Liberty University only had a problem with GOProud being a co-sponsor of the event. They had no trouble with GOProud being at the event as Mr. LaSalvia implied. Liberty University, as far as I could find, did not boycott the event but simply pulled out of being a co-sponsor.
Conclusion: Mr. LaSalvia and other pro-homosexual groups are hyping a boycott that never happened in order to generate buzz and garner as much press as possible. If my reseach is faulty, then please Mr. LaSalvia name the offending parties and let us have done with these unsubstantiated allegations.
This vile slander against true conservatives is the last straw for me. Don't worry about ever seeing me again, because I am purging these vile sites – ALL of them – from all three of my computers. I do not appreciate this hostile takeover of the conservative movement.
Thank you for your explanation. It is clear at times that the government must set boundaries for abuses, you laid out more than I would ever dream of…naive I suppose.
AMEN! I 100% agree.
You dismiss the idea of expanding marriage to include multiple spouses or children. Why? There are plenty of people who would like to be married to multiple partners. Why should we discriminate against them. There are also plenty of people (called pedophiles) who feel that "God made them that way" and they just can't change. Why not allow them to marry children, if the children want. I mean some children are 15 or 16 and can make that choice. Isn't is arbitrary that we have this silly age cutoff? What is the government doing in this anyway. I know some people REALLY love their dog and given the option would want to marry it. Why not?
You are so narrow minded to keep the definition of marriage so narrow as to include only two adults.
I mean marriage has been between one man and one woman since the beginning of time and look at the mess it has gotten us into. The expansion of marriage to include homosexuals won't stop there. People want and demand freedom and they will get it. It is about time that full and complete openness in marriage happen and that all these meaningless government rules about who can marry what finally be overthrown. Then we will be finally to what God says in Romans 1…"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
I had my original post to Mr. Parks disappear as well.
Hello, must this be Approved also?
"I mean marriage has been between one man and one woman since the beginning of time and look at the mess it has gotten us into."
Really?
How many women did Abraham have children with?
How many women did Jacob (Israel) have children with?
What was the relationship of the two women Jacob (Israel) married?
Who did Lot have children with?
Who were notable descendants of Lot?
How many wives and concubines did David have?
How many wives and concubines did Solomon have?
It is true that all of the above marriages and other relationships are no longer considered acceptable today, nor am I advocating for them. That does not change the fact that it is incorrect to assert that marriage has been between one man and one woman "since the beginning of time". That is simply not true.
Govt. should have no place in marriage period. Most people don't realize that when one gets a marriage license that there are 3 parties to that marriage – the 2 people such as man and woman, and the state. The marriage license make the state a third party to the marriage. That is why the state has such a controlling interest in divorces, child custody, parents rights over children etc. When a married couple has children and they got a marrriage license, the children are also property of the state, just as much as they are custodians of the parents. My friend found this out in court when he fought a case on child support and the state – via Court tried to say he and his ex-wife couldn't have a private agreement between themselves for lowering child support while he was unemployed. The state tried to say he owed them the money instead of his ex-wife for the child. Read up on law some, you will be amazed what lies hidden in the open bright light.
First, why are they not acceptable today? Just cause we say so?
From a Biblical perspective, none of those marriages were at the suggestion or approval of God. That is like saying there was child sacrifice listed in the O.T. so that means it was OK with God (it wasn't).
If we are talking Bible, here is what we do know. God gave Adam ONE wife. (a woman by the way).
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Gen 2:24 (notice the singular)
and some N.T. passages say…
However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. – Eph 5:33 (notice singluar)
Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 1 Tim 3:2
A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well. 1 Tim 3:12
An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Titus 1:6
So, if you want to talk Bible, then it is clear what God sanctions and does not sanction and it is REALLY clear that He does NOT sanction perversion such as Homosexuality.
Pending my full reply being approved:
They are not acceptable today because standards change over time.
From a biblical perspective, all of those marriages and other relationships were approved, and indeed blessed with children. To focus on one, one of the children of Lot was the founder of Moab. Ruth, of the Book of Ruth, was a Moabite. David, King of Israel, was one of her descendents. I expect you know who was of the House of David.
Yo, Bronxzionist,
You don't get it in your reply to mine above. It doesn't have anything to do with feelings. Discrimination is discrimination across the board, even whenever heterosexuals are forbidden to marry the members of the opposite gender on the basis of blood/family relationships.
But such is the level of discourse, if not propaganda these days on the issue.
A far cry when even the pagan Hippocratic Oath recognized and repudiated abortion.
Likewise when the Marquis DeSade spent his days shuttling between jail and the mental asylum.
But we have grown up/evolved to a higher consciousness since then.
Right.
Between consenting adults all things are lawful?
Maybe, but let's not pretend it's marriage.
The family is the future generation and conservatism – by definition – is not about enabling libertinism, never mind conserving it.
As regards health care, your point is incoherent, if not immaterial.
Thank you.
Right.
I most certainly do get it.
You want government to have greater power to interfere in family life.
You consider this expanded power to be "conservative" because you perceive it as enabling a conception of the "traditional" family.
To support this, you are willing to parse terms in extreme examples, and hope that nobody thinks about it more carefully. For example, I could easily agree with you that people are "discriminated" against by not being allowed to buy rotting, diseased meat. Fortunately, rational people will quickly see that is taking one definition of "discriminate" ("to distinguish between") and improperly conflating with it with another definition of "discriminate" (to grant unequal privileges and rights").
Yes, this shows the grace of God in the midst of man's wrong decisions. This is why the geneaology of Jesus shows so many people with checkered pasts such as Rahab. This doesn't mean that God condones prostitution, but shows His grace and mercy.
Government condoning Homosexual marriage would be like government condoning prostitution or polygamy. Period.
If you want to continue to rationalize something…go ahead. It will never make it right.
People have been rationalizing their behavior for a really long time.
Our founding fathers were genius…I pray to God we have not eroded away the foundations of the constitution to the point of where an "activist" govenment can take the those liberties away from us. I must admit I fear we are on that precipice…thank you for sharing your thoughts. I do find I am limited in my knowledge of the law and your sharing gave me much food for thought.
The absence of right to marriage in the Constitution would not necessitates states having the liberty to betray the source of our inalienable rights.
If you ask "What Creator?" you have also expressed the equivalent "What inalienable rights?" A founding father's 2 year stint with soft theism does not legitimate your political agnosticism. The Creator said that homosexuality is the ultimate mark of rebellion against God (Romans chapter 1).
First, the Constitution mentions no source of our rights.
Second, taking the Declaration of Independence as the source, it refers to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's [Deity]". No biblical citation is included, nor any mention of a specific religion, or doctrine.
Third, if we are to take religious texts as additional inspiration, you are going to wind up with the demand for the recognition of Islamic texts, which will result in legislators declaring that laws prohibiting marriage to pre-teen girls are both unconstitutional and blasphemous. (Not to mention all Christians, among others, having to suffer various legal disabilities.)
What wrong decisions?
No law was given against any of those actions, so there was no wrong decision possible.
Later laws were given to the Jews against some of those relationships, but those were laws only for the Jews, and not for others.
As for whether government does not outlaw something, you confuse that with government mandating something. Smoking cigarettes is legal. That does not mean you have to smoke. Neither would homosexual marriages being legal mean you have to wander out and marry someone of your own sex.
First, this country was founded/birthed with The Declaration, not the Constitution. The Declaration is more foundational to America than the Constitution.
Second point is irrelevant.
Third, The Declaration classifies Islam as organized crime and not as a religion. Koran 9:29 explicitly rejects the golden rule evident in "all men are created equal." Koran 4:3 sanctions rape of non-Muslim women…
You must be logged in to post a comment.