Comments on: What Is Conservative About The Defense Of Marriage Act?

By: Hood

Hood — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:40:09 +0000

My stance on this is souly about the fact that human behavior and therefore human sexual behavior is in part a part of nurture not just nature. If you agree with this then there is very little wiggle room for argument.
Adaption laws have a large amount to do with marriage status. And since I believe sexuality can be affected by what children are shown and taught at young developmental stages, I cannot justify giving people with sexual deviations children to train in their life outlook. If science were to prove otherwise my view would change but until it is the risk is too great.

By: Tea Time

Tea Time — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:31:23 +0000

I will give you a reason that no religion or belief system invented. It is called BIOLOGY. Man + woman = CHILD. The state has an interest in THIS combination and none other. I’ve visited this ground before, and destruction of the family unit and stay at home parents is bad for everyone.

http://www.foundingbloggers.com/wordpress/2009/06/exactly-right-about-gay-marriage/#comment-40619

If you want to get rid of THE MOST INVASIVE form of government and shrink government as well as take away the indoctrination system of the LEFT, then go after socialized, institutionalized, gov’t schools and bring families back together. That is where the nanny state begins, it is the habit we all can’t shake, and we are paying the consequences of not educating our own.

By: Sully

Sully — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:26:41 +0000

Gay marriage has become a giant red herring issue. I think that the government should have no say on the issue and it should be left up to the individual churches to decide what is best for their congregations.

At most, the government should simply recognize civil unions with marriage being included as a form of civil union.

There are clearly those on both sides who would rather have the argument than the solution. Both use the argument to demonize each other and both are intolerant of dissent.

The Massachusetts supreme court decision to allow gay marriage without a vote created a national backlash that would not have happened if the law was voted on by the state legislature or citizens of the state as a ballot question.

What it was in reality was a bunch of cowardly politicians with higher aspirations didn’t want their names anywhere near a piece of legislation about gay marriage. The pressure was on the supreme court to take the problem off their hands even though it was clearly not the job of the court to create law.

In a twist of irony, the one gay member of the court wrote the dissent pointing out that it is the job of the legislature to make law.

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:54:00 +0000

I think the act is a reaction to judges somehow finding in certain states’ constitutions a nebulous right for people of the same gender to marry.

By: BackwardsBoy

BackwardsBoy — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:33:28 +0000

It’s not so much that the defense of marriage is a conservative issue, it’s the framing of the question by the leftists to paint us as the enemy. This issue was framed by them, not us.

Not too long ago, this was a moot point. Everyone knew (and acted on the knowledge) that a family consisting of a mother and a father was the bedrock of civilization. No one gave it a second thought. But the forces that seek to destroy not only our country but our souls began to advance the lunatic fringe of thinking and logic into our mainstream culture. Now, if you support what is still normal, you’re somehow painted as a close-minded bigot with a heart full of hatred.

Such overreaction is laughable. It seems there are a lot of people out there who think you hate them if you disagree with them, or there’s somehow something wrong with you. Or you have some unjustified fear. Just because I don’t care for rutabaga, and therefore don’t eat it, doesn’t mean I’m afraid of it.

By: Douglas

Douglas — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:20:22 +0000

well, isn’t DOMA just supposed to prevent the application of the interstate commerce rationale as it applies to marriage?

Since all 50 have a common definition of certain marriages, but not of others?

I’m pretty sure there are more than a few objectionable portions of DOMA,(it was written by legislators.) but it’s basic goal is to not require states to recognize another states definition of marriages outside of it’s own definition.

I say just get rid of ANY marriage legislation and benifit.