How To Stop The Gay Marriage Tidal Wave Before It Is Too Late

I can't comment yet at RedState (have to wait 24 hours) but this is the comment I plan to make. So far there is only one comment on the article:

californiasquish
• 4 hours ago

−

Well written and interesting diary.

FWIW, I think social conservatives lost this fight at least a decade ago, and "removing government from marriage altogether" is a terrible strategy if stopping gay marriage is the goal. There are already mainstream religions who fully support gay marriage, so if you're retreating to the churches you've already lost. The same day government lets go of marriage is the day Unitarian churches start marrying gay couples from coast to coast.

As I've said in other threads, I welcome that. I think the government should have little say in who I marry. My personal pull is fiscal conservatism over social.

Food for thought, tho. Great diary.


Here is my response to that comment.

Sure, you can't "stop gay marriage" by getting the government out. But you're missing the point. Gay marriage is already legal in all 50 states. No gay couple gets arrested for getting married. The question is, what recognition do other people have to give to their marriage? We already have cases in some states where religious people are being sued for not doing things like baking wedding cakes for gay couples. If we reduce the government footprint on marriage altogether, the individuals are free to decide how they wish to interact with said marriages."
 
libertyvidz said:
I think you're missing the point of what TaftFan is trying to do. It's not about "stopping gay marriage". It's about building bridges with a needed voter block in the GOP primaries by helping them see how the only possible way to "stop" gay marriage is to start getting the government out of marriage. I mean, that is still an overall goal of libertarianism right? Reduce the government footprint on everything including marriage? Some people here have taken the "Hey, let's help the gays get their equal rights and worry about reducing the role of government later." Well, that's great, if your target audience is liberals. But if your target audience is conservatives, giving them a reason to support your efforts is a good thing whether or not those efforts actually pay off.
Click to expand...

If the goal is to reduce govt footprint on marriage then govt removing a restriction in an institution they have complete monopoly can equally be argued to be reducing govt footprint on marriage.
 
pcosmar said:
Hatred and prejudice are never "good reasons".
Click to expand...

So you believe that all Christians who don't agree with gay marriage are driven by hatred and prejudice? Because I don't. Not all gay people think that either.



You brought up polygamy. I agree with you that the government shouldn't put polygamists in prison. Does that mean that I have to accept that that is the "true and correct" definition of marriage? Should my church be forced to rent its facility for a polygamist wedding ceremony if that facility is generally open to doing weddings? Should a Christian university be forced to hire polygamist professors? Why force people to go against their beliefs? I don't think that's the best way to a well adjusted, small government society. I don't feel the force of government should be used either way. Do you disagree?
 
juleswin said:
If the goal is to reduce govt footprint on marriage then govt removing a restriction in an institution they have complete monopoly can equally be argued to be reducing govt footprint on marriage.
Click to expand...

Except you've only reduced one restriction. Others still exist. And you're expanding the number of people involved. Your argument is like saying "Well reduce the size of the welfare state by letting illegal immigrants participate in it."

That said, if you're goal is to reach out to liberals, then just say so. There's nothing wrong with that. TaftFan is trying to reach a different target audience. Are you against helping social conservatives see the benefit of reducing the size of government? Nobody can argue that, for example, privatizing social security, which would reduce the government footprint on marriage, expands the size of government. If you're reaching out to liberals, by all means use the language that will win them over.

Edit: But that you are even engaging in this kind of argument shows the folly of people thinking that arguing at RPF is actually doing something. We waste far too much time trying to convince each other why our particular take on liberty is the "right" one. Why not go over to DailyKos and do there the equivalent of what TaftFan is trying to do at RedState? You can even use gay marriage as your "platform", and make a pro-liberty argument as to whatever it is you want to do. Maybe argue "We can't just let gays get married and leave the polygamists out."
 
Last edited:
libertyvidz said:
You brought up polygamy. I agree with you that the government shouldn't put polygamists in prison. Does that mean that I have to accept that that is the "true and correct" definition of marriage? Should my church be forced to rent its facility for a polygamist wedding ceremony if that facility is generally open to doing weddings? Should a Christian university be forced to hire polygamist professors? Why force people to go against their beliefs? I don't think that's the best way to a well adjusted, small government society. I don't feel the force of government should be used either way. Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

I don't thing anyone should be "forced" to do anything. And I don't think the government should give perks to anyone. (Marriage Benefits)
But I do think that the legal status of any marriage should be accepted and respected.

I think the wives of a polygamist should be allowed to visit him in a hospital and recognized as family,, The same with a Gay spouse.

And there is no valid Christian objection to polygamy. It was practiced throughout the bible . and never forbidden.

But that is a side issue.. We are talking about the State,, which is not suppose to give any religious preferences.

I am opposed to registration. Of marriage,, of guns, Cars, dogs. business. everything.

Do away with it,, or accept all equally under the Secular law.

My preference is to wipe the laws off the books.. but that ain't gonna happen as long as the Social Controllers want to Control the lives of others.
 
The focus of the issue
How To Stop The Gay Marriage ?

I don't care about stopping it.. I don't care about it at all. it is irrelevant.

How do we stop Government from being involved? (In almost everything)
 
I don't give a fuck if two men/women want to form intimate relationships with each other, call it marriage or not. What ever makes you happy.

It's all bullshit.
 
Root said:
I don't give a fuck if two men/women want to form intimate relationships with each other, call it marriage or not. What ever makes you happy.

It's all bullshit.
Click to expand...

It is.
And it should not even be an issue..
 
libertyvidz said:
Except you've only reduced one restriction. Others still exist. And you're expanding the number of people involved. Your argument is like saying "Well reduce the size of the welfare state by letting illegal immigrants participate in it."
Click to expand...

Well, if I came out tomorrow and said I support the idea of forcing white people to pay taxes which go into funding welfare claims but if those same white people happen to meet conditions for it, we should not give it to them. Now would you say opposing this law will mean you want to allow more people into the welfare row and thereby expanding govt spending and function? Ofc the answer is no, the best option is for govt not to be in the welfare business at all.

That said, if you're goal is to reach out to liberals, then just say so. There's nothing wrong with that. TaftFan is trying to reach a different target audience. Are you against helping social conservatives see the benefit of reducing the size of government? Nobody can argue that, for example, privatizing social security, which would reduce the government footprint on marriage, expands the size of government. If you're reaching out to liberals, by all means use the language that will win them over.
Click to expand...

My goal is to reach out to anybody we can win over and for me with conservatives, I try to do it with issues we sorta agree with. This is usually some form of economic issue like foreign aid, central planning by use of FED money printing etc etc and I try to do this while not alienating anyone from the libertarian side. I still commend him for trying, my only problem is that approach he is using to do it
 
pcosmar said:
Social Controllers..They love registering things and forbidding things they don't approve of.
They love the government bat to beat others with.

The same shit that pushes registration of Guns,, Registration of Cars, Registration of Dogs..
Registration of everything..

Push an issue,, or a bill to get the Government OUT of everyone's life,, ENTIRELY.
Or STFU.
Click to expand...


"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to pcosmar again"
Click to expand...

+Rep if I could.

Social controllers are some of the scariest people on earth.
 
pcosmar said:
Social Conservative? Call them Social Controllers,, that is what they are.
The same mindset that pushed Prohibition and Anti-Polygamy Laws.
Click to expand...

Most Democrats in Congress support the drug war as well. Chuck Schumer is one of the biggest drug warriors in the entire Congress. Is he a "social conservative?"
 
Traditional Conservative said:
Most Democrats in Congress support the drug war as well. Chuck Schumer is one of the biggest drug warriors in the entire Congress. Is he a "social conservative?"
Click to expand...

A Social Controller. It is not party specific.. Much like Socialism, which is not party specific.

The old Photo I posted referenced an Arther Capper. A Republican. A Social Controller. Likely would be considered a "conservative".

Also a Eugenicist and Social Controller.
 
Last edited:
I some what sympathize with Taftfan. Prior to when I started posting here and for some time after that I spent a lot of time trying to figure out a way to build a bridge between social conservatives and libertarians in order to advance a smaller government agenda. The truth is there are some social conservatives who understand that using government to enforce their values on others is a deal with the devil, but there are more that absolutely do not.

I have spent years pointing out to them what the very visible consequences of granting government the power to control people are. To no avail. For them it is always "we" win or "they" win. No matter that the entire nation continue it's steady slide into government dependence and lack of personal responsibility. No matter that the people they vote for on "their" side are in many if not most cases indistinguishable from those on the other. "we can't do anything if we don't win......"

I see a steady rise of people who are getting it, but it's like watching grass grow. It sometimes seems mind numbingly slow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Swordsmyth
RFK Jr.’s HHS Orders Lab Studying Deadly Infectious Diseases to Stop Research + More
Replies
0
Views
7
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
J
40 State Attorneys General Write to Congress Opposing Attempt to Ban State Safety Regulations on AI in Trump's "Big Ugly Bill"
Replies
1
Views
17
James_Madison_Lives
J
PAF
The Wearables Trap: How the Government Plans to Monitor, Score, and Control You
Replies
4
Views
35
Working Poor
Working Poor
PAF
From the Moral Majority to a Moral Meltdown
Replies
4
Views
58
ClaytonB
ClaytonB
J
Time to Say It: Trump’s “Real ID” is the Mark of the Beast, is He the Anti-Christ?
Replies
17
Views
107
Firestarter
Firestarter
Back
Top