Just when you're about to give up hope on the Repubmocrat majority in Virginia's State Senate, they do a single praiseworthy thing.
'Seems that our estimable Senators have passed a Marriage Amendment identical to that passed by the House.
And oh, how the far Left is in high dudgeon over daring to protect the language. It's precious. High school student Ben Kyber calls it "A Sad Day." I guess reading comprehension is yet another defect in our public schools.
Then there are the boys and girls over at Raising Kaine, who call it "A Sad, Sad Day in Virginia History," and have claimed over and over again that judging people according to their behavior is somehow inappropriate. They actually list the votes, and I note that my State Senator, Toddy Puller (gulp!), is one of those eleven nihilists ... er, Democrats, who voted against it. Chesty must be turning over in his grave.
And for all his reasonableness on the Kaine tax increase, Virginia Centrist also likes the idea of re-defining the fundamental unit of human civilization to satisfy the demands of perverts.
Even the Richmond Times-Dispatch, usually a bastion of reasonableness, is editorializing against it. Norm Leahey takes his shot here.
I'm planning a rather long post (when I get the time to write it!) on the subject, but this isn't about virtually anything that the far Left and partisans of the radical homosexual agenda claim it is. What this is about is standing athwart the efforts of the far Left to exercise the power of government to change society and the language to suit their whims. It is about raw political power, nothing more. Decent Virginians and Americans will have to stand in the way of these efforts, and now that the battle has been joined, it is necessary to defeat the demagoguery and misdirection of the far Left in order to protect the integrity even of our language.
It is a sad day when we have to do that, but hardly for the reasons that the nihilists on the far Left claim it is.
11 comments:
I've deleted Willis' peurile post, above. It was the words to Imagine, by John Lennon.
No liner notes philosophy in my space, willis.
Willis, grow the hell up. All you're doing is boosting my site traffic. And if you think your will is stronger than mine, then you obviously don't know me ... well, at all.
Just explain this one thing, in keeping with your comments:
"What this is about is standing athwart the efforts of the far Left to exercise the power of government to change society and the language to suit their whims. It is about raw political power, nothing more."
If a gay couple goes to a church (or other institution) that grants them a "marriage" ceremony, how does requiring the government to treat that relationship in the same manner that the government sanctions my marriage increasing the power of government? Also, if these private citizens and a religious institution take it upon themselves to engaged in matrimonial services, and the conservative-controlled government denies them that ability, how is that NOT an exercise of political power to suit a particular agenda?
I've yet to hear a conservative answer those questions without resorting to the "traditional values" argument. As such, they also fail to acknowledge that the concept of one-man-one-woman is a modern concept, that biblical figures themselves were not a party to.
Gee, Conaway, isn't "requiring the government to treat th[e] relationship [of a couple of homos] in the same manner that the government sanctions my marriage increasing the power of government" because they go "to a church (or other institution) that grants them" what that institution wrongly calls "a 'marriage' ceremony" sounds a lot like an establishment of religion to me. How 'bout a guy and two women (lucky SOB)? A guy and his dog? A woman and two men?
Just because there are certain "churches" --- and I hesitate to call the Unitarians a church, since there is no "church" that I can think of that more fully reflects Isaac Asimov's observation that "Man creates God in his own image" --- that choose treat those relationships as licit and decide to call them "marriage" is no more valid than if those churches decided to call a dog's tail a leg.
We can certainly discuss the wisdom of some other societal recognition of such relationships, though I would oppose it. But calling it "marriage" is as perverse as those who engage in same-sex relationships.
And to answer your question, it "increas[es] the power of government" because it reflects an extreme positivist view of the law, i.e., that there is no natural law, only that which is manmade.
'Fact is, the so-called "conservative-controlled government" would not deny them the ability to "engage[] in matrimonial services," as you describe it. It (the government) simply would not grant license to those who engage in them.
We'll just leave Willis' latest liner note philosophy up, so that he can come up out of the basement when his mommy calls to tell him to take a shower. If I don't, he'll probably post it another four or eight times, as he has already.
As TC noted, it's for comic relief.
'Course, I've got another "imagine": imagine there's no willis.
James, why all the vitriol toward gays and attacking other religions? Calling them "a couple of homos" and "perverse" is a bit unpolite, and insulting Unitarians (including persons such as Ralph Waldo Emerson) is just rude. Don't traditional values mandate decency and respect of other people, even if you disagree with them?
Sure, I'll grant you that "marriage" is by its very definition only reserved to people of opposite sex. However, the current amendment in VA goes way beyond defining marriage and into taking contractual rights away from non-married individuals, regardless of gender. It's always been my understanding that the sanctity of contracts is part of natural law and also capitalist theory. Thus, the VA amendment itself could potentially be a violation of natural law. However, I'm not a big proponent of "natural law" per se. Actually, nowhere in the US Constitution is "natural law" referred to. Actually, it seems that those who advocate their idea of natural law, especially through the courts, are simply judicial activists themselves.
As for your failure to address my point about biblical marriage being one-man-one-woman, historically marriage was a contract between a man and the suitor he picked for his daughter. In biblical times, men could even have more than one wife. Marriage was designed to create male children (not to mention female infanticide). Thus, the very ancestors of our Judeo-Christian heritage were against one-man-one-woman.
-- Conaway
Rude? Impolite? I think it's rude and impolite to attack 5000 years of societal norms.
Listen, Conaway, I'd prefer not to think about them at all. And I don't think it's impolite to recognize their practices (can I call them "queers"? Isn't that what they call themselves?) for what they are. And I make a distinction between those homos who keep their private lives private, and those individuals who keep their private lives, well, "private."
As for the Unitarian Church, you have probably not seen the kind of rhetoric emanating from some of them about those of us who dare to believe in biblical teaching on the subject.
And I dispute your assertion that "the current amendment in VA goes way beyond defining marriage and into taking contractual rights away from non-married individuals, regardless of gender." I know that's the talking point, but I've read the amendment, and the only way it can be read that way is by an activist judge. Perhaps its genius is that it should cause far Lefties to oppose judicial activism.
And I didn't address your "biblical" marriage point because I don't think one needs to rely upon biblical teaching to understand the definition of marriage.
Sure, Conaway. They're the ones who write new "rights" into the Constitution, and say that "marriage" is something it isn't, and never has been.
Whoa. Mistake. Willis, not Conaway. Thought that was out of character for Conaway.
Is the Richmond Times-Dispatch "far Left," or is it a "partisan of the radical homosexual agenda"? I'm trying to figure out where they fit here.
So am I, Waldo. So am I.
Post a Comment