Skip to content

Republicans Against Marriage

 

AS IF we needed further proof that the GOP is a dead party, 75 prominent Republicans, including four former governors and two members of Congress, have signed a Supreme Court brief in favor of homosexual marriage. The brief, filed in support of the challenge to California’s Proposition 8, which bans homosexual marriage, claims to represent family values.

There is no effective political opposition to leftist tyranny in this country.

—- Comments —-

Terry Morris writes:

Pretty amazing what passes off as ‘family’ and thus ‘family values’ in liberal dominated society. Speaking of which, you should consider changing the post title to Republicans Against Family.

Mr.  Morris continues:

By the way, this just reinforces the need for the advent of the American Traditionalist Society (see here and here).

James N. writes:

I have come to the conclusion that the Republican “leaders” have chosen to become subordinate to the Leading Party, just as there were token “opposition parties” in the USSR, East Germany,and NSDAP Germany.

It is essential that an opposition party be created while it is still permitted.

Conservatives must realize that the GOP is the enemy of change.

Jesse Powell writes:

Social conservatism is much weakened in the political landscape.  Thinking back to 1995, the cultural battleground was between social liberals and social conservatives, i.e., Democrats and Republicans.  In 1995, homosexual marriage was outright radical not even getting much support from the social liberals of that time.  What counts as “social conservatism” today is much more liberal than what social conservatism meant 20 years ago.  These Republicans promoting homosexual marriage are using a libertarian idea of “conservatism” and applying their libertarianism to the social realm.

Homosexual marriage is an intrinsically radical idea.  To support homosexual marriage is to deny the value of the heterosexual bond and to erase meaningful differences between men and women.  I think this is the fundamental reason why homosexual marriage is being pushed, to try to delegitimize the differences between the sexes and thereby delegitimize traditional sex roles.  In this way, homosexual marriage is indeed a fundamental assault on the family and is intended as such.

What seems to be in sharp decline is moderate social conservatism that was a significant political force just 20 years ago.  Now the cultural landscape is divided between very radical liberalism (represented by the Democrats and by the libertarian pro-business side of the Republicans) and a small part of the Republican Party that is radically socially conservative.  In other words “moderates” in terms of social views are in sharp decline and no longer seem to be a significant political force while the liberal radicals make up the large majority and the conservative radicals make up a small minority.

Mr. Morris writes:

Did you notice that the amicus brief also claims that support for gay marriage is to support the Conservative value of limited government?

Apparently the only way to have limited government is for the federal government to exercise unlimited, unchecked authority to overthrow duly enacted state and local laws, in direct violation of both the spirit and the letter of the U.S. Constitution. And the only way to achieve that is to convince a majority of the unaccountable Poitburo of Nine that this is the definition of limited government; that openly thumbing its nose at the Constitution is a conservative value.

So let it be written; so let it be done.

Laura writes:

Thank you for pointing that out. They are telling us that only through tyranny can we obtain libertarian freedom and limited government.

Mr. Morris responds:

What a fitting response. You wrote: “They are telling us that only through tyranny can we obtain libertarian freedom and limited government.”

As my friend Michael Tams used to warn me from time to time about Libertarian-Republicans, ‘They act as though limited government is a strategy, rather than a goal.’ I don’t think I fully appreciated the value of his insight at the time. Nonetheless we quickly became very guarded about the way we used the term limited government in our correspondences, adopting, in its place, the term balanced government as our stated means to achieving the goal of limited government.

Later, after becoming acquainted with Mr. Auster’s writings pertaining to Constitutional Government, I inserted the term Constitutional, rendering it Balanced Constitutional Government that I was advocating.

Share:EmailFacebook28Twitter2Pinterest0Google+0