See what happened when this attacker brought a knife to a gun fight

Politics

Is Gay Marriage Becoming a Conservative Position?

Mar. 6, 2013 8:22am Mytheos Holt

Last week, 80 Republican officeholders and former officeholders signed onto a brief that argued that same-sex marriage, once thought to be an unacceptable deviation from social norms, was actually a constitutional right.

Now, far from backing down, a group of grassroots leaders and consultants told TheBlaze that the issue is a moral and political winner, if the Republican party only has the wit to see it. As one such person put it, “we view it as the right thing to do and actually as something that is philosophically consistent in many of our views with our right-of-center philosophy.”

This type of thinking is a long way from the GOP’s past positions, and to some extent, its mere existence is a sign that not just the party, but the country, has shifted on the issue. Back in 2004, supporting gay marriage was a culture war wedge issue, and the idea of a Republican openly supporting it — even in cases where they had personal reasons to do so — would have been unheard of. Even Democrats were spooked by the issue to the point where President Obama had to pretend to oppose the idea the first time he ran for President in 2008, albeit in much less strident terms than Republicans.

Fast forward to 2012, and now, the tables are turned. Legalizing gay marriage, or at least ending Federal barriers to it, has the support of a majority of the population (and a majority of Republicans). Seventy percent of young voters favor the idea. Gay marriage is seen in some quarters as the natural successor to Civil Rights. As with so much, the landscape has shifted, and Republicans are arguably playing catch-up.

Enter the Respect for Marriage coalition, an unlikely bipartisan alliance that unites libertarian Republicans with a veritable who’s who of gay rights groups. The group has already released ads both featuring and targeted at Republicans, featuring quotations from everyone from former Vice President Dick Cheney to former members of the military in their quest to once and for all normalize the issue of gay marriage.

To get a sense of the thinking behind this unusual partnership, TheBlaze reached out to Craig Stowell, the ex-Marine featured in one of the group’s ads, and also to two of the operatives behind the campaign, to get a sense of why some Republicans are not only jumping ship from long-held orthodoxy, but actively trying to make that orthodoxy sink faster.

As with former Vice President Dick Cheney, who supports same-sex marriage at least in part because of his experience raising a gay daughter, Stowell’s reasons for supporting gay marriage started with a personal connection. In Stowell’s case, that connection was to his gay brother.

“He’s somebody that I’d always known he was gay, and growing up, he would say certain things and I always felt like he was testing us,” Stowell told TheBlaze. “So I went out of my way to let him know that it was wrong to say things about gay people, to let him know that when he was ready, we were gonna love him and we were gonna support him.”

It was in his mission to support that brother that Stowell ended up cutting his teeth in the politics of gay marriage. “In 2009, New Hampshire passed same sex marriage, and in 2011, a Republican by the name of David Bates proposed repeal of the bill,” Stowell said. “For me, when that repeal bill came up, it was one of those moments where I said, ‘Y’know, I have to get involved. There is a real chance that this repeal could pass,’ and we ended up getting them to hold onto the bill for a year, and over the course of that year, we were able to build a pretty impressive bipartisan coalition to go out there and really press what was actually at stake. Not only did we get them to kill the bill, but we got a 2/3 majority of the House to kill it. The final vote count was 216-105.”

Now, Stowell is trying to take the same fight nationwide — a fight that he still sees as essentially built around issues of freedom. To that end, he told TheBlaze that the wider Republican opposition to the concept puzzles him.

“I really can’t figure it out,” Stowell said. “I look back through history and I see so many great moments where Republicans have been ahead of the curve on the issue of freedom. Democrats have the fake ‘contraception is an issue of freedom’ garbage, but we were there when Eisenhower tried to pass civil rights, we were there for women’s rights, and we had our founding at the ending of slavery. I find it hard to believe that any Republican would want the government managing anyone’s personal life.”

This puzzlement at the Republican party’s refusal to back the issue was a recurring theme with the other figures who spoke for the coalition, who universally saw gay marriage as an issue not simply of good policy, but of good politics.

“Obviously, the real rationale for Republicans, conservatives and libertarians who support same-sex marriage to take that stance is not ‘oh, then we will win elections.’ Rather, we view it as the right thing to do and actually as something that is philosophically consistent in many of our views with our right-of-center philosophy,” said Liz Mair, GOP strategist and same sex marriage supporter. “But with that being said, amongst most younger voters who will someday be older and more reliable voters, favoring the freedom to marry is a given, so there is a good political basis for it as well. Furthermore, opposition to same sex marriage is something that makes it tricky for us to get a look-in with technology talent that we need to bring onside in order to have the brain trust needed to really kick butt on the technology and digital front moving forward. It’s just a fact that actual technologists– people working on building actual tools and systems in places like Silicon Valley, Redmond, and Northern Virginia and who aren’t at all interested in the GOP right now– are overwhelmingly either liberal or libertarian. It’d be handy to have the libertarians– who are onboard on a range of other GOP issues– onside, and more willing to devote time and energy to helping the GOP win. Again, that’s not the big reason why the party should be for this, but it also shouldn’t be ignored.”

Tyler Deaton, a member of the Leadership Committee at the Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry, was even more explicit about the youth angle. “We’re the ones who will inherit the leadership of the conservative movement, and we aren’t willing to sit around and wait for things to change,” Deaton wrote in an email to TheBlaze. “The so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denies legally married same-sex couples more than 1,100 federal protections, is harming families across America every day and needs to be repealed as soon as possible.”

“The freedom to marry isn’t a Democratic or Republican value, it’s an American value,” Deaton added, “and as Republican advocates and elected officials continue to make the case for marriage, we are confident that it will soon become a mainstream position of the Republican Party.”

Deaton’s optimism aside, there are noticeable obstacles to his position becoming mainstream in the Republican party. The Republican leadership in the House of Representatives filed a brief in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act, and many hard line social conservatives are prepared to make gay marriage their hill to die on, even to the point of banning gay conservatives from gatherings like CPAC. Moreover, many libertarians are skittish about openly supporting legalization of the practice because they object to the entire notion of marriage being sponsored by the government, and would prefer if the government were removed from the issue altogether. This latter concern left Stowell a little confused.

“I don’t see how it’s even possible,” Stowell said. “Marriage is part of the very fabric of society. I just don’t see how you could separate the two.”

Mair, on the other hand, agreed with the idea in theory, but dismissed it as impractical. “Candidly, yes, I would support government getting out of the marriage business altogether, but that’s not going to happen,” she said. “In the absence of that, giving same-sex couples the right to marry and have their marriages recognized by government is the best policy option, in my opinion.”

Meanwhile, Deaton didn’t rule the idea out, saying his main concern was equal protection. “I believe healthy marriages and a healthy society go hand-in-hand,” he wrote. “The government should treat all marriages equally under the law.”

Even for libertarian Republicans, Deaton, Mair and Stowell are pushing the envelope. GOProud, the most notable group of gay conservatives (whose board Mair sits on), has steadfastly refused to explicitly push for marriage equality. From the group’s statement on the subject:

GOProud believes that stable, loving, committed relationships are the cornerstone of our society and should be protected and encouraged for all couples – including gay and lesbian couples. We believe that the decision about how to best do this is one that should be made at the state level and that these decisions are best made by the people directly or through their elected representatives – not by unelected judges.

Where civil marriage is possible, we support civil marriage. Where civil unions are possible, we support civil unions. Where domestic partner benefits are possible, we support domestic partner benefits. As federalists, we do not believe in a one-size-fits-all approach on almost any issue and that includes relationship recognition for gay couples.

The push to make gay marriage a constitutional right, in fact, goes further than even President Obama, who has said he personally supports gay marriage, but considers it a state-by-state issue. Of course, Obama has also filed a brief to strike down DOMA, which makes this previous hedging look less solid.

At the same time, it’s not clear that any backlash is forthcoming against either Obama or this new coalition of Republicans. Clint Eastwood, who famously derided Obama at the 2012 Republican National Convention via an empty chair, has endorsed the President’s position on marriage:

And as for Stowell, Mair and Deaton? According to Stowell, their only pushback has come from not being forceful enough.

“I actually see more pushback from people that say I should’ve been coming online earlier, or ‘Of course he gets it now because he has a gay brother’ kind of thing,” Stowell said. “I have received nothing since the national ads started, and when I co-chaired standing up for New Hampshire Families, it was very minimal. I had one legislator tell me that I was sending us down the path of the Roman Empire, which kind of made me laugh, but people have been very responsive.”

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (293)

CapnCrumbles32
Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:19am
Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13,Romans 1:26,27 I know where God stands on the issue and what the very laws of nature demonstrate to all men even if they should have no knowledge of the Lord. It will NEVER be acceptable for mankind to lay with another man or for a woman to lie with another woman! This is not the natural way! Can two men lie together and conceive a child? Can two women accomplish this? Stop this utter madness! Government needs to stay out of the business of marraige since it is a sacred pact before God and no Christ professing servant of the Lord should EVER EVER EVER join two men or two women since it is an abomination before God and men! The laws of this nation should second what has been established by God, as it once was. If Republicans do this it will be a cataclysmic mistake. They will loose every Evangelical vote. This has NOTHING to do with civil rights!! Being African American or a woman has nothing to do with a man deciding to screw another man! Oh God save these people from the error of their ways and the consequence that follows!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- V-MindMeld
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:52am
  This is why our country is suffering,we have turned our backs on God will, and he is turning his back on us, and so goes the rest of the earth as we know it. Unless as a country we turn this around we will see and feel Gods wrath more and more…..
  
  Report this comment
- Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 10:07am
  What do you mean *becoming* a Conservative position? It’s always been the Conservative position to get and keep the government out of our bedrooms and our houses of worship. It’s just that the *Social* Conservatives are being found out to be the paper tigers of the political world that they truly are and so the truth of the propriety of getting government out of telling us who we can and can’t marry is manifesting itself.
  
  Report this comment
- jwpowers41
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 10:10am
  Marroage thru out the centurys is between a man and a woman PERIOD. Homosexuals can not get
  married they want to legitimize their unsavory unions sorry….
  
  Report this comment
- CapnCrumbles32
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 10:14am
  The route of this country’s problems lies with a condition of the human heart. We need a revival. I am just a simple man, but Pastors from around the nation need to organize a massive event at the national Mall, where they attract millions of attendants who will fast and pray. It will pick up major media attention. There they must illustrate our current brokenness and call upon the American people to repent and believe upon the name of Jesus.
  
  The whole body of Christ must assemble to make this happen, but again I’m just one man with one little voice.
  
  Report this comment
- Chazael
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 10:17am
  “Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!” Matt 18:7
  
  If a person says that they are a Christian and think that they can place/uphold stumbling blocks because a person desires to trip over the stumbling block (all in the name of freedom) think again. That is not the Spirit of God working through you, but rather the spirit of the world.
  
  Upholding the same right for everyone can be upheld in a godly manner. Upholding that everyone’s desires become rights cannot as that will automatically be embracing evil and woe to you.
  
  Report this comment
- Halgar
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 10:27am
  And that post sums up perfectly why the GOP will die.
  The inability of people to figure out if they are politician or preacher.
  
  The whole gay marriage issue is easy solved at the federal level… since it is NOT a federal issue. Done. Let the states deal with it how they like. No different from anything else.
  
  You can have your faith, but your faith should not dictate government policy. That is the concept behind the infamous “separation of church and state” line. It wasn’t to chase out displays of religion from the public square it was to keep honest with the Constitution.
  
  For example, you can’t support going into the Middle East and/or backing Israel because you believe the bible says you should. This goes against the fundamental concept of having no foreign entanglements, being friend to all and enemy to none.
  
  Faith has it’s place but it has NO place in determining government policy.
  
  Report this comment
- JohnofOregon
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 10:30am
  This is the final blow to remove religious liberty out of the constitution. Once government succeeds in defining religion and open p the civil rights issues, it’s over.
  
  Civil unions, the government institution is not the goal. We have that in oregon, that was the conservative view point. Marriage is the defined religous term of all major religions. The goal is to have the government, not God define it. Once that is done, the left can define all rights as they seem fit and religion will finally be subservient to politicians.
  
  I am still wondering why beck is promoting state religion?
  
  Report this comment
- 00100111
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 10:39am
  That’s great, so…how is it the role of the federal govt to enforce that?
  
  Report this comment
- Pontiaku
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 10:45am
  Why gays want to be bound by an archaic marriage contract is beyond me.
  Develop something better and exclude heterosexuals from it.
  Problem solved.
  
  Report this comment
- 00100111
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 10:45am
  John, no one is removing religious liberty from the Constitution. You are and always will be free to exercise your faith as you deem necessary, and so will I. The thing here is that it is NOT the role of the federal govt to have any involvement at all with marriage. To that point, DOMA should be repealed, why would you want the govt to be involved in your marriage, that isn’t their role. The role of govt here is simply to recognize the contract. If you don’t agree with gay marriage, the same way I don’t, then just don’t have one. We can’t use the govt to enforce our beliefs. That is not the role of the federal govt. This is a state issue.
  
  Report this comment
- Soulfire1975
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 10:46am
  Doesn’t matter what man says, or if a man marries two men or two women, In Gods eyes it would not be a marriage.
  
  Report this comment
- iampraying4u
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 11:36am
  same sex-xsex sucks
  
  Report this comment
- The_Jerk
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 11:39am
  The socially abnormal GOP defending the sexually abnormal. A true marriage, when you think about it.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 11:40am
  Your belief in a magical sky diety and his book of myths is not the laws in this secular republic. Once the Christian stop attemtping to impose their beliefs on the nation, the country will be a better place. Your logic is no different that the WBC, blaming some god for punishing the nation when it extends liberty and freedom to all of its people.
- CapnCrumbles32
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 11:48am
  Keaton, It’s weird because I live a few blocks from a court house built in 1830 which has the Ten Commandments Inscribed framed and displayed beside the main entrance. This is very typical of judiciary buildings of the period. Our founders aimed to prevent the establishment of one specific state mandated Church as was the case in England, but they never aimed to separate God (refering to Yahweh the God of Judeo Christian teaching) from our government since THEY RECOGNIZED HIM AS THE GIVER OF ALL RIGHTS! It’s as simple as this: you want to divorce Him from public policy you will loose your rights. Keep it up it’s happening as we speak. We will see what ‘good’ it brings you. Your lack of historical Accuracy is disturbing. If it is as you say it is homosexual unions should have been there early on, except they weren’t and have never been accepted!
  
  Why are you on here day and night 24/7? Don’t you have anything more productive to do than spend all your time on a website full of people that are severely opposed to your views. What’s your objective?
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 11:56am
  Off topic
  
  My favorite picture of a reverka
  
  http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=20349
  
  Report this comment
- rangerskippy
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 11:56am
  support of gay marriage is an immoral position regardless if you are conservative or liberal.
  
  First off, a marriage is the union between a man and woman. It is not between three women and one man, or between a man and his dog, or between two men……
  
  This is not new. Nations in the past have devolved to the same sort of immorality. Rome became wicked with sex parties, homosexuality, and men with little boys….. and same goes for Greece, Persia, Babylon. When nations accept sexual deviance as normal, they are on their way down.
  
  We still have a fist amendment, where we have free speech and freedom of worship. As a Christian, I have the freedom to believe the Bible. The Bible is clear on marriage, and it is also clear in Lev 18 22 and Romans 1 that homosexuality is evil.
  
  Science shows us that gays are only 2.5% of the population, and they have 64% of the nation’s syphilis, they were 57% of new HIV cases last year in the US, they lead in suicide, and have higher drug and alcohol abuse rates. They are a sick and diseased bunch. The only STDs they do not lead in, are those that are not passed on by gay sex. From disease to gay bowel syndrome to hemorrhoid issues, they are not healthy.
  
  Criminally, we know that gays do 1/3 of the child molestations. Jerry Sandusky was gay. We know that lesbians lead in domestic abuse. We know that gays recruit young people. Homosexuality is a deviance, just like rape, child molestation, bestiality, polygamy….
  
  Report this comment
- carbonyes
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 12:07pm
  Marriage is between man and woman. Plain and simple. Always was and ways will be. Republicans who are caving on this issue are nothing short of fools and are further contributing to the moral decline and destruction of our country. A travesty? That and then some. God is who He is and profoundly will not be mocked. America’s days are numbered. She has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. She has already been judged by the Word.
  Now comes the judgement! It is one thing to be gay; it will be worse for the fools who promote and acquiesce in their aberrant lifestyle. Don’t rejoice in their punishment for it is eternal damnation.
  The Truth will prevail in the end. Always! Whether you want to believe it or not, the Truth will prevail.
  
  Report this comment
- rangerskippy
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 12:15pm
  The root word to conservative is “conserve”
  
  To conserve is the act of conserving; prevention of injury, decay, waste, or loss; preservation: conservation of wildlife; conservation of human rights.
  
  Marriage in every culture and every religion is a union between a man and a woman.
  
  Changing a definition of the word, to fit liberals and social deviance is not conserving, it is bowing to political correctness and allowing wickedness.
  
  I am conservative, and want big government out of my business; I also do not want big government changing the definition of a word, to appease the wicked.
  The founding fathers knew that marriage was a union between one man and one woman,
  
  “Homosexuality was treated as a criminal offense in all of the original thirteen colonies, and eventually every one of the fifty states (see Robinson, 2003; “Sodomy Laws…,” 2003). Severe penalties were invoked for those who engaged in homosexuality. In fact, few Americans know that the penalty for homosexuality in several states was death—including New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and South Carolina (Barton, 2000, pp. 306,482). Most people nowadays would be shocked to learn that Thomas Jefferson advocated “dismemberment” as the penalty for homosexuality in his home state of Virginia, and even authored a bill to that effect (1781, Query 14; cf. 1903, 1:226-227).”
  
  Report this comment
- The_Jerk
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 12:31pm
  Encinom, it’s not a religious argument. that is your created distraction. The argument is completely secular. Natures laws made a man and woman. Nature made the process of attraction. It is Natures way of extending the species. It is naturally, not too complicated.
  
  Nature, not being perfect, also blunders in it’s code making. Natural law is a law of trial and error, failures and successes. Homosexuality was an error, not bad or good, just an error. As such, society has no obligation to promote, protect, or normalize the abnormal.
  
  Report this comment
- joey g
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 12:43pm
  its not a conservative position…its an “up the tailpipe” repukin position……
  
  Report this comment
- carbonyes
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 1:10pm
  Mytheos Holt, check your facts! A majority of Republicans DO NOT support legalizing gay marriage. Are you trying to promote something yourself that is not true?
  
  Report this comment
- naughtycal
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 1:13pm
  Funny I don’t recall the amendment that gave government the right to control marriage. Fact is I thought this country was established to keep that sort of thing from happening in the first. There’s no debate marriage is a contract between two consenting adults the government has no right to benefit from it or control it. IT’S NOT THEIR BUSINESS
  
  Report this comment
- joey g
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 1:17pm
  not a conservative but an ” up your tailpipe” repukin position…
  
  Report this comment
- HellboundandDown
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 1:43pm
  you do know that Leviticus also sez your cotton/poly blend shirt and that shrimp cocktail is also an abomination, right?
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 1:55pm
  HellboundandDown
  you do know that Leviticus also sez your cotton/poly blend shirt and that shrimp cocktail is also an abomination, right?
  ***
  
  You know that those particular lies have been shot down numerous times? Even wikipedia says they are lies. How much are you being paid to lie?
  
  Report this comment
- rangerskippy
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 2:03pm
  Hellbound
  
  You would do well to read the entire book.
  
  The books of the law were laws for the children of Israel. In the New Testament, the diet restrictions on pork and fish were lifted.
  
  In Romans, (New Testament), were are still told that homosexuality is evil. As a matter of fact, reprobate is used.
  
  Report this comment
- Xylliab_of_the_Znarghh
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 2:35pm
  Yeah, the Bible is anti-gay, so what? This isn’t 15th century Spain, so the rest of us don’t have to pretend to believe that it really represents the word of God. It is not an infringement of your religious freedom that people who don’t believe in your religion don’t have to follow its rules. It would be an infringement of their religious freedom if they did.
  
  Report this comment
- fanoftheman
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 2:50pm
  TWO BIG Amens!!!! Many believe that we as a country still have hope II Chron. 7:14, but I believe we have sinned away our day of Grace. The last election, the people of this Country said loud and clear we don’t need God we need Government. I have no reason to guestion the findings of the thinking of the young Conservatives, because they have live in a country that has driven God into the closet and many A-moral idealogies as the norm. This has been acomplished by the educational system, and the entertainment industry. Just as Israel wanted a king to be like all the pagan nations, God granted and it would be the beginning of the eventual demise that disperse them as a Nation for over 2000 years. For the believers our hope is in Christ Jesus, just remember we are sojourners, our citizenship is heaven, so live in God’s truth.
  
  Report this comment
- rangerskippy
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 3:19pm
  FANOFTHE MAN
  
  Outstanding comments, I agree with you.
  
  There are certain wicked things that this nation has done, that lead me to believe that we have gone past a point of no return, and that destruction is neigh.
  
  Abortion is one of those things. The murder of unborn is evil.
  
  Allowing degenerate sodomites to adopt innocent children is another evil that I think marks just how depraved we as a nation have become.
  
  all of that being said, God sent Jonah to Nineveh, and they repented of their wickedness.
  
  Report this comment
- Brentley
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:25pm
  Exactly right…who cares what COLIN Powell thinks. or Obama or any other individual when it comes to what is right or wrong. Only 1 person matters…and that is what GOD says.
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 10:42pm
  I think conservatives are slowly starting to rally around gay marriage. They are stating to realize that equality is more important that finding a couple’s private life icky.
  
  Report this comment
- Obama_In_PeePee_By_Zee_Arteeest_Beck
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 6:27am
  “Is Gay Marriage Becoming a Conservative Position?”
  
  The FÀGGOTS are OUT-in-force and backed by deep-pockets businesses that don’t advertise their twisted ASSociations. BUT THERE IS A WAY TO FIND OUT ABOUT THESE PERVERSIONS and they are doing it themselves. It’s called “Human Rights Campaign” and their existence is for the sole purpose of pressuring business to support homosexuals in the workplace & beyond:
  http://www.hrc.org/
  
  They publish a brochure of the companies they have infiltrated and give them ratings on the degree of “hòmo-friendliness”:
  http://www.hrc.org/corporate-equality-index/
  
  Download this 2013 brochure! Don’t just BOYCOTT the BAD BUSINESSES. Write to them, call them, and tell them why they have lost your business and your sales (for big ticket items). Be calm, be reasonable, and be firm. Vote early, vote often, with your pocketbook — it’s your children’s future you are buying!
  
  Also listed are businesses who don’t care (be vocal & help them along) and those that don’t do ****-business (the best & encourage them).
  
  PART 1 of the
  * Hòmo-Corporations 2012 List *
  
  THESE ARE REALLY NASTY – THE SPONSORS ! !
  
  American Airlines
  Citi
  Microsoft
  Nationwide Insurance
  Bank Of America
  Ernst & Young
  Lexus
  Mitchell Gold & Bob Williams
  Prudential
  Deloitte
  BP
  DV [?]
  Caesars Entertainment
  Chevron
  Google
  MGM Resorts
  checkmark [?]
  Chase
  Cox
  Cunard
  Dell
  
  Report this comment
- Obama_In_PeePee_By_Zee_Arteeest_Beck
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 6:27am
  PART 2 of the
  * Hòmo-Corporations 2012 List *
  
  THESE ARE REALLY NASTY – THE SPONSORS ! !
  
  Goldman Sachs
  IBM
  Met Life
  Morgan Stanley
  Orbitz
  Paul Hastings
  PWC [?]
  Macys Inc
  Replacements Ltd
  Shell
  crown woman [?]
  TD Bank
  Tylenol PM
  
  THESE ARE THE NASTY – THE SUPPORTING RETAILERS ! !
  
  Barnes & Noble
  Best Buy
  Dynex
  Future Shop
  Geek Squad
  Insignia
  Magnolia Home Theater
  Rocketfish
  Delhaize America
  Bloom
  Bottom Dollar Food
  Food Lion
  Hannaford
  Harveys
  Healthy Accents
  Home 360
  My Essentials
  Nature’s Place
  Reids
  Sweetbay
  Taste of Inspirations
  eBay
  Half.com
  Rent.com
  Shopping.com
  StubHub
  Limited Brands
  Bath & Body Works
  C.O. Bigelow
  Henri Bendel
  La Senza
  Victoria’s Secret
  White Barn Candle Company
  Office Depot
  Sears
  Kmart
  Staples
  Corporate Express
  SUPERVALU
  Acme Markets
  Albertsons
  Cub Foods
  Farm Fresh
  Hornbacher’s
  Jewel-Osco
  Lucky
  Osco Pharmacy
  Sav-on
  Save-A-Lot
  Shaws
  Shop ‘n Save
  Shoppers Food
  Star Market
  TJX
  HomeGoods
  Amazon.com
  Diapers.com
  Soap.com
  Wag.com
  Woot
  Yoyo.com
  Zappos.com
  Costco
  Hallmark Cards
  Walgreens
  Beauty.com
  drugstore.com
  Duane Reade
  VisionDirect.com
  Kroger
  Baker’s
  City Market
  Dillon Food Stores
  Food 4 Less
  Foods Co.
  Fred Meyer
  Fry’s
  Gerbes
  Jay C
  King Soopers
  Kwik Shop
  Loaf ‘N Jug
  Owen’s
  Pay Less
  Quality Food Centers
  Quik Stop
  Ralphs
  Scott’s
  Smith’s
  Tom Thumb
  Turkey Hill Minit Markets
  OfficeMax
  Safeway
  Target
  Home Depot
  Home & Garden
  
  Report this comment
- Obama_In_PeePee_By_Zee_Arteeest_Beck
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 6:28am
  PART 3 of the
  * Hòmo-Corporations 2012 List *
  
  THESE ARE THE NASTY – THE SUPPORTING RETAILERS ! !
  
  Corian
  Kevlar
  Nomex
  Real Touch
  SentryGlas
  Sorona
  Teflon
  Tyvek
  Zodiaq
  Herman Miller
  Mitchell Gold + Bob Williams
  Owens Corning
  AttiCat
  Berkshire
  Duration
  EcoTouch
  FOAMULAR
  INSUL-DRAIN
  INSULPINK
  Oakridge
  PINK
  PROPINK
  QuietR
  QuietZone
  RapidFlow
  Supreme
  VentSure
  WeatherGuard
  Woodcrest
  Woodmoor
  Replacements, Ltd.
  Sears
  Country Living
  Craftsman
  DieHard
  Kenmore
  Weatherbeater
  Whirlpool
  Amana
  Estate
  Gladiator
  Jenn-Air
  KitchenAid
  Magic Chef
  Maytag
  Roper
  Macy’s Inc.
  Hotel Collection
  Tools of the Trade
  Newell Rubbermaid
  Amerock
  Calphalon
  Irwin
  Kirsch
  Lenox
  Levolor
  Pelouze
  Vise-Grip
  Target
  Room Essentials
  Smith & Hawken
  Classified Ventures
  Apartments.com
  HomeFinder.com
  HomeGain.com
  Home Depot
  Behr
  Glacier BayHampton Bay
  Husky
  TrafficMaster
  Vigoro
  Monsanto
  Roundup
  
  Report this comment
- termyt
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:54pm
  Might be easier to list the corps you aren’t boycotting.
  
  Report this comment
PeteOH
Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:18am
In ALL of human history, marriage is defined as being between a man and woman… That’s it. Anything is NOT a marriage. Redefining is BS. Call the gay relationship anything you want, but it’s NOT marriage. Gay have the right to marry… Just like everyone else. However, “marry” has always been “man and woman”… Making this a civil rights issue is a cheap attempt at legitimacy on the backs of true civil rights issues… Blacks, women, voting, slavery, etc. Not this feeble attempt at validation. Conservatives do NOT agree with gay marriage… No such thing. If they wanna marry, fine! Just with someone of the opposite sex like the rest of us. Oh… California sucks.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Eastinfection
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:29am
  That’s not quite accurate, Pete.
  
  Gay marriages where common in the Zhou Dynasty period of China, the Early Roman Empire, Greece, Spain in the 11th century, and other places as well.
  Not saying they were right or wrong… just saying they existed.
  
  Report this comment
- VRW Conspirator
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:36am
  Hey Peteoh…
  did you know that CA citizens have voted 3 times in the past 20 years to define marriage as ONLY between a man and a woman…Prop 8 was the most recent…since it was passed in 2008, the law has been tied up in court over and over and over again…even now before the SCOTUS….
  the support for traditional marriage in CA used to be in the high 60′s but the last Prop 8 vote was low 50′s….mainly due to the large demographic change in CA…hispanics now make up the largest ethnic group…even over whites by 4%…in the state…and while they tend to be more religious and traditional…they vote more with the Dem’s and liberals…stupid and weird but true…
  
  so..don’t bash CA…2/3 of the counties in CA are solidly red…the 1/3 that are blue just have almost 60% of the state’s population in them….so the state goes blue 55-45% for the last 20 years…
  
  and besides…regardless that there is a religious and moral arguement against gay-marriage and redefining the term….it is a State’s Rights Issue and the National GOP should say that and state it that way…. gay-marriage DOES NOT belong on the National party platform..
  
  if the RNC would simply make a statement saying “we know the religious and moral arguments against redefining marriage but we must hold to the Constitution and the 10th Amendment, this issue belongs at the state level, like abortion, drug legalization, and many others”
  
  Report this comment
- PeteOH
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:40am
  Why are we letting Libs dictate the narrative on this? There is NO gay marriage… In every corner of the globe, in every culture, in every religion in all of history, there has NEVER been gay marriage. You wanna live together… fine! It’s no marriage. However, to be fair, gays DO have the right to marry… Someone of the opposite sex, just like we all do! So, this is all about a sexual preference and abnormalities. Keep marriage as is and traditional. Don’t back down. Take a stand! We can tolerate gays. But we don’t have to change our morals, traditions, history, definitions & culture to do so. Trying to redefine issues to assert your right is like.. HERE! I’m a straight guy trying who talk his wife into threesomes with hot nannies! If you deny me, then you are a hater! It’s just who I am. I’ve know it for years. I’m a “nannysexual” and I demand my rights… Redefine marriage to include my wife and I marrying a smokin’ hot nanny! Yeah… that’s the idea!There is a societal benefit from heterosexual marriage… It’s called PROCREATION! Gay marriage doesn’t offer that… So, there is NO gay marriage. Plus, to show my appreciation to society, I promise to procreate with my two hot wives!
  
  Report this comment
- CapnCrumbles32
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:56am
  I’m tired of this line “Hispanics are more religious”. Anything can be your ‘religion’. Religion just means a system of beliefs and practices. To say someone is ‘religious’ is to say they have a belief system, which every human being does whether it’s established and popular or not. Be specific. When you say they are religious do you mean that Hispanics are Christians? Because they are not! Most worship images of the virgin Mary and the pope and they have no knowledge or understanding of scripture or a relationship with Christ. Sad but true! This expectation on behalf of conservatives that deep down Hispanics hold the same beliefs as us is a farse. They are very liberal through and through.
  
  Report this comment
- VRW Conspirator
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:57am
  Peteoh
  
  actually…the libertarian and constitutionalist movement have been on this issue WAY before the liberals/DNC…..they have been screaming that abortion and marriage and education belong at the state and local level…
  the liberals simply saw an opportunity to lock up one more voting block and took it…they REALLY do not care about gays or any other group, like blacks or hispanics, they just want the power and the votes…and once they have it…you will see Hitler again…and the first thing that Hitler did was KILL all of the groups off that got him elected….
  the gays and minorities will be the first to be locked up in the camps….and the right wing extremists that once decried the dictator will praise him not realizing that they are next….
  
  Report this comment
- JohnofOregon
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 10:22am
  This is the issue that the democrat party finally destroyed the Republican Party with back in 2005ish.
  
  By placing rino’s in key legislative position, liberal democrats got the Republican Party to not just spilt into 2parties, but they were successful in splitting it into 3 parties.
  
  The republicrats
  
  The constitutional party
  
  Non affiliated conservatives and Christians
  
  Pick ups were made in libertarians and independents. The democrats lost some to the greens.
  
  The Republican Party damaged itself so bad that it will not be able to gain a state wide seat for decades. The bizarre twist was when the republican senator Gordon smith used far left liberals in his commercials because of his support of gay marriage ended his career while Jeff merkly portrayed himself as a typical guy worried about jobs and families. Conservatives voted in that election. They did not vote in that race.
  This was engineered completely by log cabin republicans. That’s the ones that support bigger government, less freedom, more taxes, anti-free speech, less states rights and the elimination of religious liberty.
  
  You know …democrats
  
  I cannot believe beck continues to promote cupp and other democrat operatives. The end game is elimination of conservatives and a smoother transition to accepted socialism.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 10:30am
  @Peteoh
  
  “In every corner of the globe, in every culture, in every religion in all of history, there has NEVER been gay marriage.”
  
  Reread Eastinfection’s response to you. He provided several examples proving your sentence here factually incorrect.
  
  Report this comment
- PeteOH
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 11:19am
  In fact, a few same-sex marriages were performed by the deranged Roman Emperor Nero (who was gay and the 1st Roman Emperor to “marry” a man) and would still have NO legal standing in Rome… It was basically ceremonial with no legal impact. Otherwise, most or all references in ancient times state “same-sex unions”, “marriage-like” and “relationships”. No reference to Greeks EVER referring to same-sex unions as “marriages”. EVER. As for Spain, there was ONE performed by some priest in 1061. Wanna guess his fate or what the Church did about it? In China, they weren’t marriages. They were ceremonies where a guy would “bound” himself to another. Not a marriage. And to your point (which was well made), there may have been some same-sex “marriage” by a rogue authority. I believe in states rights and am comforted that marriage has been held traditional in Ohio by law. Per the 2010 census, gays are 1.8% of the US population. I would never support denying gays rights. They do have a right to marry. Just not to redefine it. It’s simple. Quoting scattered obscure examples thousands of years old hardly makes the point in today’s America. Gays can have their unions or marry someone of the opposite sex. This is about a sexual preference, not rights. Aside from great decorating and “fabulous” yard parties, there is NO societal benefit to “gay marriage” (if it even existed). There is a societal benefit to “true” marriage… Procreation.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 11:36am
  @Peteoh
  
  “Aside from great decorating and “fabulous” yard parties, there is NO societal benefit to “gay marriage” (if it even existed).”
  
  So… you’re saying there are benefits? And it doesn’t harm anyone? And the government shouldn’t even have constitutional power over marriage in the first place? Welcome to the conservative case for allowing gay marriage.
  
  “There is a societal benefit to “true” marriage… Procreation.”
  
  If you think marriage is required for procreation, you might want to review basic biology. :-)
  
  There are many benefits for being married (inheritance being one of the important ones; 5th amendment being another) that have nothing to do with procreation. And while creating a stable environment for children is definitely one goal of marriage, it certainly is not the only one (nor should it be; I’m sure my aging parents would be very upset if they were declared not married because children no longer live with them).
  
  Personally, when it comes to tax benefits, I think married couples should only have them when they have children living with them under the age of 18. Tax benefits simply for being married seems ridiculous; saying that they are to encourage procreation is silly (just confer the benefits once the child is alive).
  
  Report this comment
- VRW Conspirator
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 11:38am
  @John
  
  you are right about this issue splitting up the GOP into factions but it was not a Democrat issue really…as I already stated, the libertarian and constitutionalist issue way before that….whether you believe the right to decide marriage/abortion/education policy belongs with the States or the individual religion/community…that predates the Progressive inclusion of this plank into their platform, which only has happened openly in the last 20 years.
  
  what the Republicans need to do it stick with the big pillars laid out by Reagan and those of his era… strong defense, low taxes/pro business atmosphere, protection for life at all stages and in all places, and MAXIMUM personal liberty and the lowest possible government intrusion into your daily life.
  
  Reagan tried to give the States back control of several areas, like education, but he was fought even by elements of his own party.
  
  I think Glenn said it best last week while talking to three different heads of libertarian organizations. You can’t win by just jumping back to 1791 in one step…you need to work over a long period starting with the low hanging fruit, like return of control on education, drugs, marriage and the like to local and State levels. All of these ideas are something that the majority of American voters approve of and would rally behind. THEN you can start with major entitlement draw down and removal and foreign policy issues.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 11:49am
  Eastinfection
  I have read stuff about homosexuality in Rome. It was something to hide or be ashamed of unless you were immensely powerful.
  
  People complained about Hadrian’s Bythnian lover. Legionaires made fun of Ceasar’s Bythnian escapades. He survived because he was from a noble family & there was no proof. Later he was a successful general.
  
  Generally Roman men had to be tops. If they were bottoms they were toast. That does not sound like a ringing endorsement of homosexuality to me.
  
  I also read that Caracalla or Commodus had a gay lover. Upon becoming emperor & traveling to Rome for the hinterlands, well Sartorius …uhmmmm… didn’t make it. It does not sound like people accepted it except at the point of a sword (or barrel of a gun).
  
  Perusing the latest issue of National Geographic would be in order. It has a good article on Bonobos. It is not all that it is cracked up to be.
  
  Also in ancient Greece I am not impressed by the relationships by rich property holding Greek men & young boys. Generally the sexual part of the relationship ended when they boy became hirsute/ hit puberty. Why is that? It might be dangerous to continue as before. After all the youth is stronger , more willful & independent than before. that is someone might get shanked if they tried to carry on as before. Why would the “couple be on friendly terms after the boy hits puberty? POWER. I am not impressed.
  
  Report this comment
- VRW Conspirator
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 11:57am
  @Lock and Peteoh
  
  see…we all do agree…it isn’t that the conservative/libertarian case for “gay marriage” isn’t logically sound it is simply that on a purely religious/faith based level…many Americans disagree with calling it “marriage” since God created the institution of marriage between one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation and even states that “a man will leave his father and woman will leave her mother, and the two shall become one”…meaning in body, mind, and spirit….
  
  but the government per many of the Amendments SHALL NOT infringe on the individual in this area…
  
  Report this comment
- carbonyes
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 12:28pm
  There is nothing conservative about the gay lifestyle or gay marriage, nor is it a conservative position to support either. It is the death knell for all those she support that aberrant lifestyle and the demise of the wayward, timid Republican Party, which in many respects has already lost its mooring. The demise and destruction of any nation on the face of the earth has followed the acceptance of immoral behavior and the promotion of the same – invariably. America will be no exception.
  Obama has a special place prepared for him in Hell. He is the furthest thing from being a Christian, and nearly everything he promotes is contrary to God and His Word and further Obama has mocked God and Christianity. Others have done like him and died a horrible death. Doubtful that he will be an exception.
  The naysayers on here. You may want to reconsider your positions. Better to discover the Truth here and be set free than to be judged by the Truth in the hereafter.
  
  Report this comment
- carbonyes
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 1:00pm
  EASTINFECTION, better recheck your “facts” – no gay marriage in Rome, Spain or Greece, and I don’t believe there was in China either.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 2:27pm
  This is the closest thing I can find. This is based on Boswell’s work.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelphopoiesis
  
  If Boswell is right, then why did it not continue?
  
  I misspelled someone’s name. The name is Saoterus not Sartorius. The insinuation is that Saoterus was Commodus’s lover. Well if gay marriage was accepted in Rome, you would think that you would not be able to insinuate against it. Need I say more?
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 2:37pm
  The Zhou. Well Darn, I’ll have to look it up.
  
  I basically remember the Han (1st & 2nd Periods ) the Tang, the Sung, Yuan, Ming & Qing.
  
  I did find this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Leveret_Spirit
  
  It is confined to 1 province. Although provinces in China can be rather large. It is repugnant to me.
  It follows the same relationship. Older male with younger male like the Greeks, The Persians, The Turks, the Pashtuns. I do not like it when the Pashtuns do it (Bacha Bazi), why would I respect this.
  
  It seems more a matter of poverty or gold digging. I have never cheered on gold digging or May December Romances.
  
  Report this comment
- Bikkiboo
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 2:57pm
  “Marriage” is between a man and a woman. I don’t have a problem with some kind of legal contract with a ceremony, but it is not a marriage. That’s like calling a dog a cat.
  Remember where we are in time: As the days of Noah were…
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 10:44pm
  It really doesn’t matter if it’s always been done that way. Up until 150 years ago, the world had always had slavery. Did that make it right? Your argument here is not valid, and frankly not true either.
  
  Report this comment
- ree758
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 6:42pm
  No one has a problem with civil unions. Gay maraige will be used to tear down religion.Why are we talking about this
  
  Report this comment
Sargeking
Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:09am
I propose the “Gay Marriage Indefensible Act”, just say no!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Tri-ox
Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:01am
IS GAY MARRIAGE BECOMING A CONSERVATIVE POSITION?

Is The Blaze (now known as ‘The Gayze’) becoming a state-run propaganda outlet for obama’s gay agenda? The daily push of obama’s bizarre liberal agenda by ‘The Gayze’ is ridiculous and tiresome.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Sargeking
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:19am
  Are you one of those infiltrators from La-La Land? You’re obviously not getting the same message the rest of us are. What’s up with that? The BLAZE rocks!
  
  Report this comment
- gbfreak
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:27am
  Troll…..enough said!
  
  Report this comment
- Eastinfection
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:37am
  Tri-Ox is a troll?
  
  lol.. are you guys new here? Tri-Ox has been pummeling trolls since the day he signed up.
  
  Report this comment
- VRW Conspirator
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:41am
  Hey Tri-ox
  hmm…ever heard of libertarianism..?
  marriage, abortion, health care, education, labor, food and drug administration, environmental protection.. and the like.. all BELONG AT THE STATE LEVEL…read the Constitution and the 9th and 10th Amendment specifically…
  the National government should only do what they were licensed to do in the Constitution… defend the nation, protect the rights of the people and have a judicial system in place that is used for that end, regulate trade between states and other nations, settle disputes between the states, and control taxes, tariffs, and fees on imports and exports with other nations..
  
  so Tri-troll….Umm… read much??
  
  Report this comment
- UBETHECHANGE
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:44am
  @tri-ox The Blaze is reporting that 80 mis-informed and mis-guided R’s have signed a brief saying marriage is a constitutional right. These politicians are re-defining marriage and spitting in God’s face. Is that newsworthy and should it be debated and the “conservative” “small government” charlatans be exposed? Absolutely. I’m a gay conservatarian and vehemently disagree with this shift within the R party. But it’s not surprising that RINOS would cave to pressure just to get votes. They are typical opportunist slimy politicians. Same thing with the RINO participation with the “Gang of Eight” and the immigration sham. I will never vote for anybody that sacrifices their principles to pimp for votes. The R’s are naive and will soon go the way of the Whig Party, to think militant gays and Hispanics are going to vote for them for this shift anyway.
  
  Report this comment
- Tri-ox
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 10:45am
  LOL. I am amazed that there are Blaze readers who have missed the daily ‘gay advocacy’ and push of obama’s gay agenda at this website. Since obama was sworn in for his second term and began his all-out GAY push, ‘The Blaze’ has been pushing gay marriage and acceptance of gay/ transgender issues every single day (more than ever before in Blaze history) – posting up to 4 articles a day on these issues, and ALWAYS putting these issues in a positive light – many of these articles are just breathless, slobbering praise and defense of unknown “celebrities” who have come out in support of obama’s gay agenda, and parents who abuse and neglect their children by transgender-izing them.
  
  This particular article is a good example – YES, it is “news” that a bunch of progressive Republicans have signed off on support of gay marriage – BUT, The Blaze has already covered this story MULTIPLE TIMES. Every day at ‘The Blaze’, we are treated to celebratory, gay “coming out” stories, gay marriage stories, transgender advocacy stories, etc., etc., etc.. AND, another HUGE problem is that the staff of ‘The Blaze’ constantly tries to blur the line between CONSERVATIVES and REPUBLICANS – over the years, these have become two distinct groups, but, ‘The Blaze’ would have readers believe that they are one and the same.
  
  I’m sorry that those here who support obama’s gay agenda are offended by my pointing out that ‘The Blaze’ has become a gay advocacy website.
  
  Report this comment
- 00100111
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 10:50am
  It’s not that gay marriage is becoming a conservative position, it’s that the position should be that the federal govt has no role to be involved in marriage in any form. This is a state issue. The only role of the federal govt here is to recognize the contract. If two dudes want to go to city hall, sign a contract with each other with all the same legal benefits and they want to call it marriage, then whatever. It doesn’t affect me or my marriage, as long as they don’t try to force my church to approve, perform, recognize it. Keep govt out of marriage. Social conservatives need to learn they can’t use the federal govt to enforce their social beliefs, that isn’t the role of the federal govt.
  
  Report this comment
- marybethelizabeth
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 10:57am
  There’s lots of stories on theblaze with a homosexual theme because this appeals to the male Republican readership here.
  
  It’s all about the money. Homosexuals have more disposable income.
  
  Glenn Beck will take money from anyone and at the same time claim that he isn’t doing so.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 11:24am
  marybethelizabeth
  
  That is a canard. What is disposable income? Disposable for whom? If gays adopt or have gabies, they will not have anymore disposable income than anyone else. In the past gays have concentrated in metropolitan areas due to discrimination. those areas have higher incomes but also higher expenses.
  
  The world is going to change MBE. I suggest you keep up. If you are keeping your eye on “the” ball, I submit that you are not well informed.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 11:38am
  Tri-ox
  As I told one of my kids “The gays won. Get over it”. I also told them that “We are entering a new phase.”
  
  What we can do about gay adoption. Make sure your wills are up to date. That way the courts cannot place your kids with a gay couple as opposed to your relatives or someone else you designate. That is the fallback to a supplementary position.
  
  Churches are more important now than ever. The pastor should ensure that everyone has a will. The congregation could pay attourneys to make up wills for poor people in the congregation or the general public.
  
  Science has been perverted. Due to my collegiate training I believe there may be more than 1 reason that people are gay. Only a minority may be born that way. The APA was perverted a long time ago. This will take a long time to correct. Paradoxically ObamaCare & open gay relationships will provide evidence to the ill effects of the gay lifestyle choice and the causation of gayness.
  
  Report this comment
- matabrava
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 4:37pm
  That is exactly my question. The world is burning, the president just declared that he has the right to kill anytime, anyhow, and TheBlaze is concerned about gay marriage. Really Glenn, I don’t which Glenn runs TheBlaze, and which is at 5 Pm on TheBlaze TV. By God I would to know.
  
  Report this comment
BlackCrow
Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:57am
Conservative? How about Karl Rove RINO cave in? Homosexuals are perhaps 3% of the population they will NEVER be a factor in an election. They do know how to make a LOT of noise, remember “Act Up” during the early days of AIDS. They have a lot of money and they donate to liberal Communist causes and if Republicans think they will get some of that money if they support f@g marriage they are smoking weed!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- 00100111
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 10:52am
  They may only be 3% of the population, but there are many more than that who know it isn’t the role of the federal govt to be involved in this.
  
  Report this comment
- Xylliab_of_the_Znarghh
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 2:10pm
  Gays are a minority, but most people in America have at least one gay cousin. It was okay to be a bigot in the old days, when you could pretend that your gay cousin was just an odd cousin who didn’t do well with the opposite sex, but now that we all know who our gay cousins are, decent people can’t continue to support systemic inequality based on ancient superstitions and irrational prejudices.
  
  Report this comment
SpankDaMonkey
Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:56am
.
People the “Baby Jesus” said Don’t Put That In Your MOUTH!!!!!!………

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Sargeking
Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:56am
I’ve been reading these comments carefully. I must say that anytime an honest and proper stand is taken to reveal Gay marriage for what it truly is, the good poster is immediately called hateful by the Gay supporters. To me that is a very atrocious, arrogant, and condescending response to the truth and universal reality, thereof. When the pundit remarks that Liberalism is truly a mental illness, he (or she) is right as rain!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- jodi
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:00am
  Don’t judge lest thee be judged,those without sin cast the first stone,love like Jesus….
  
  Report this comment
- jettson
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:02am
  Ya think
  
  Report this comment
- ImChiquita
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:18am
  “Don’t judge lest you be judged” is such a cop-out.
  
  The Bible does not say that at all.
  
  Report this comment
- Jezreel
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:35am
  JODI. You are taking God’s name in vain. Using the word of God to fit a person’s agenda when they have no intention of loving God or honoring him is a very spiritually destitute quality and sure to bring plenty of judgment upon YOU. When you “judge” a person, you actually perform something that causes that person suffering or grief. Discernment, a gift of the spirit is not judgment. When a person discerns that something is evil, is evil. That is not judgment. So, I am sick and tired of wicked people using God’s word and scriptures when they have no love for Him in the first place.
  
  Report this comment
- guntotinsquaw
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:37am
  @ Imchaquita. Mathew 7:1
  
  Report this comment
- jodi
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:38am
  Mathew 7 verses 1&2,look it up
  
  Report this comment
- CapnCrumbles32
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:41am
  Matthew 7:1 does indeed say “Do not judge lest thee be judged”. It goes on to remark that a man must first remove the ‘plank’ (greater sin) from his own eye that he may see clearly to remove the ‘splinter’ (lesser sin) from his brother’s eye. Paul says that we ARE to judge those within the faith to hold each other accountable and build one another up, but that we are NOT to judge those outside the faith for their actions, since we were once as they were before our rebirth.
  
  The bottom line is this: We MUST be able to identify sin in the world and warn others against it! Christ NEVER EVER told us to obstain from doing this. That is a fundamental misrepresentation of the text! Those words (‘do not judge’) are aimed at those who cursed, condemned, and stoned others for their sinful behaviors out of a misguided sense of self righteousness. We are to lovingly point out the error in their ways and direct them to the grace of God offered through Christ Jesus.
  
  Report this comment
- jodi
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:46am
  @jezrel I love all people, we all get there a different way,my church does not have to marry same couples…and if you don’t like my church stance,go some where else. We are free in America,God is the only judge…be careful….I know scripture and am not sinless ,who am I to say which sin is worse only God…..
  
  Report this comment
- Spitfire1938
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:47am
  @JODI: You need to read you Bible a little closer…”Social Justice” is not mentioned, anywhere.
  
  Report this comment
- jodi
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:51am
  @capncrumble nicely said ,agree,do all things in love..
  
  Report this comment
- jodi
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:57am
  @spitfire I believe all life matters and we can’t mandate people to do the right thing ,we didn’t get here over night,we fix by loving ,that dosent mean I tell them it’s ok if asked,my friends know my belief and that it is based on natural law,God’s law…but I can only shine a light in darknes,and like Jesus and the prostitue love each other like God loves us,unconditional,our actions have consequence,love and truth
  
  Report this comment
- Eastinfection
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 10:07am
  Live your life according to the Bible.
  Legislate according to the Constitution.
  Stop mixing the two up.
  
  When i go to church, my pastor doesn’t whip out the Bill of Rights and base his Sermon on that.
  I don’t want my Congress pulling out the Bible and basing law-making on Scripture.
  
  Report this comment
- CapnCrumbles32
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 10:48am
  @Jodi, thank you for your compliment. On the issue of certain sins being greater than others, I will say this: Scripture is clear that Christ laid down his life for the multitude of our sins. As it concerns our salvation, every sin is equal, no one is righteous before God apart from the Son. Thus the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, that is to say that one should deny the Spirit made available through the atoning work of Jesus. Having said this scripture is clear that certain sins arouse the wrath of God and carry more severe earthly consequences than others. Acts of wickedness that tear at the fabric of society and threaten to plunge an entire people group into chaos, confusion and darkness, should be legislated against! You will find that people groups around the world, even those ignorant of God and his word legislate against such things simply to preserve their people. Such sins include murder, rape, theft. I feel that homosexual unions are included in this group because it severely undermines the sanctity of marraige and the family, which is the basic building block of society. You connot control their sexual activities, but to encourage and promote it will devastate current and future generations. The consequences are innumerable.
  
  Report this comment
- jodi
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 12:10pm
  @capncrumble i really believe mandates and laws are not fixing things,we will stand as individuals for marriage as one man and one women,in our homes,and churches ,let them duke it out in washington, this is a dividing issue,by saying no ,we encourage,people only hear no and you cant show the benefits of natural family because we are fighting.God gave us free will,true freedom takes a while to get right. Lets show love they will find their way…a lot of homosexuals i know are victims and someone showed them compassion,who do you want that to be,predators or true God loving people?
  
  Report this comment
- carbonyes
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 12:54pm
  SARGEKING, good posts. The wackos from the RINO end of the Republican Party should be exported ASAP. They are a detriment, and their vote and influence are more negative than positive, and make it difficult for a strong conservative platform, e.g., McCain and Romney. Believe it or not, strong, conservative positions, like a hand up not a hand out, free enterprise, property rights, traditional family values and hard work, would be welcomed by the Spanish community and a significant portion of the Black Americans. We have not been placed upon this eart to go along with either the gay agenda nor the ignorant foolish ones who support them.
  If they were smart, they would go back in the closet where they belong – at least with respect to trying to shove their aberrant lifestyle down our throats.
  
  Report this comment
- carbonyes
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 1:41pm
  For clarity and understanding a out the liberal mindset, purchase a copy of The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D. Board certified Forensic Psychiatrist with 35 years of forensic clinical practice. You can pretty much pigeon hole all of the nit wits leading the Democratic Party, including Obama. Seriously, truly enlightening. Can get on amazon or http://www.libertymind.com/
  
  Report this comment
Southernsoul
Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:55am
Ah, no. Gay marriage is becoming a RINO position. Watch who supports this idea and realize that they are not Conservative, despite what they say, and accept that they are RINO.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DLV
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:27am
  I know, the Blaze needs to stop asking stupid questions. Gay marriage is a libertarian approved (sometimes, although they mainly say leave it up to states) not a conservative one.
  
  Report this comment
- resme
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:38am
  “Gay marriage is a libertarian approved (sometimes, although they mainly say leave it up to states)”
  
  I agree in a sense. But… The libertarian position isn’t to leave it to the states ( That’s constitutionalists). We advocate getting the state out marriage completely. I no more want the king in DC telling me what to do than an king at the local level.
  
  I don’t approve gay marriage, IMO. But that’s between God and him/her. I’m not in the position to judge someones inequity. When I sure as hell sin myself. But.. I reserve that right if you are a politician, :).
  
  Report this comment
- 00100111
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 10:58am
  Exactly, Resme. To quote Benjamin Martin (Patriot): “Why should I trade 1 tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants 1 mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man’s rights just as easily as a king can.”
  
  Report this comment
- DLV
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 3:34pm
  Resme- True
  
  Btw, you say you are anacho-capitalist, now I know America isn’t designed that way but wasn’t the articles of confederation the closest we came to it?
  
  Report this comment
- resme
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 3:50pm
  @dlv, Yes. The advocators of the articles of confederation were upset by (What they called the aristocrats) of how they jammed the constitutional conventions down their throats. They argued the articles of confederation only needed a few tweaks — not a complete reworking.
  
  I’m a bit rusty on the articles of confederation. I do most of the supporters were farmers. I’ll read more into it. Read the Anti-Federalist papers — One farmer predicts a future civil war in america so accurately…
  
  Report this comment
- resme
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 3:51pm
  made a few errors was typed quickly.
  
  Know* should be in there somewhere, lol.
  
  Report this comment
RANGER1965
Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:50am
I’ve always submitted to a live and let live policy when it comes to Homosexuality. As a Christian I see Homsexuality as a sin, the Bible is abundantly clear on it. But since I’m a sinner too, all I can do is judge the sin, not the sinner. At least if I want to avoid utter hypocricy.

As an American I want maximum freedom, so I am not opposed to anyone doing whatever they want in their bedrooms. But I am also a believer in clear definitions. Let marriage be between a man and a woman. If you want to afford same sex couples with the same tax breaks etc as married couples, fine, but let’s not muddy the waters regarding marriage. It is what it is.

The GOP really needs to re-think things. Their desire to be younger, more hip, and cool is a Karl Rove fantasy which will strip them of their base. They are swifly becoming “liberal light”, and who wants light when you can have the real thing?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- jodi
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:59am
  I agree with much of what you said and feel that marriage is between a man and a woman…..the government should have nothing to do with who someone loves,as long as my conservative church is not forced to marry same sex couples,than by all means love who you want….the bottom line is we can respect without trying to change,love like Jesus….wish we could call it civil unions,so the church can be sure to have clear definition….sin is sin and God loves us in spite of our weaknesses …
  
  Report this comment
- Eastinfection
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:59am
  I agree, RANGER…
  
  Somewhere between what you posted, what SOY posted, and what i posted lies a practical solution.
  MORE government oversight is not the answer, and will never give anybody more “freedom”.
  
  Report this comment
- resme
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:29am
  I’m sure we can all agree not to let the state be the definer of marriage. Let’s let the churches, synagogues, and other religious institutions marry. No tax deductions at all for being a married couple, or single. 0 TAXES BABY WOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  
  Let’s get the state out of marriage, and dang-nabbit East’s cannabis emporium!!!!!!!!!!!!
  
  Report this comment
- VRW Conspirator
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:53am
  @Ranger
  
  i usually agree with you completely…but I don’t think this is just a Karl Rove thing…this is the GOP getting back to the Conservative/libertarian roots of the party..which go back much farther than Lincoln and the Civil War but back to Jefferson and the Anti-federalists…Democratic Republicans….
  
  it is a State’s Rights issue…it falls under the 10th Amendment just like education, abortion, drug legalization, labor laws, transportation laws, FDA and EPA, and many others….
  
  now the classic liberal position – IE libertarians with a small “L”…the Libertarian party is the “liberal lite right now”… would be that if your religion/church/whatever agrees to marry people of the same sex, than that would fall under the 1st Amendment and the federal government could not touch or say anything about it…the federal government and state government should not be involved in a “social contract” between people and their god.
  
  now as a life long Catholic and by default a Christian…I might believe you are living in sin by acting on your sexual choice and I have a duty to tell you so in a loving and caring way but it is not my job to judge….also as a Conservative libertarian…many would say Constitutionalist…I believe in following the 1st and 10th Amendment and put this issue and many others under the guise of “a power left to the States and the people”
  
  Report this comment
- kujo55
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 10:07am
  So as long as it stays in the bedroom who am i to say anything? live and let live? What about a pedophile with a minor or someone with a family member or someone with an animal? I think its pretty clear there is right and wrong in all of these scenarios, unless you swallow the crap about being born that way. If that is true about G@YS then it must be true about all the others. That’s where this mentality will take us.
  
  Report this comment
- resme
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 10:15am
  “What about a pedophile with a minor or someone with a family member or someone with an animal?”
  
  You can always play the what if game. What if we legalize driving and a person runs off the road???
  
  Stupidity has no bounds. Punishing Freedom for something that “might” happen is asinine.
  
  Report this comment
- kujo55
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 10:36am
  RESME
  
  It’s not a might, it happens everyday. Look at what Yale just did (another story on the blaze) and I’m sure its not a single instance.
  
  Legalize driving…runs off road? There are laws for this??? You counter your own logic.
  
  Punishing someones freedoms, so my freedom could be to pull a gun out and shoot someone under your logic.
  
  The problem is that when there are no absolutes which many people want to stay away from then it becomes who are you to tell me what to do or how to live. When we don’t have infallible God given laws, then we rely on mans view. (thousands of different judges, politicians all with a corrupt sin nature) to tell us morality. How has that worked out for us?
  
  Report this comment
- 00100111
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 11:02am
  Kujo, sexual relations with a minor are already illegal, as the minor cannot consent. You’re going a little extreme. It is not the role of the federal govt to define or regulate marriage between two consenting adults. It is not the role of the federal govt to enforce social mores.
  
  Report this comment
- RANGER1965
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 11:10am
  @VRW….I truly hope your right, but I’m seeing just the opposite. It seems to me that the GOP is going further away from the Libertarian position.
  
  @KUJO55…..Ahhhh so when someone says live and let live, you quickly point out how dangerous that is because someone will use their freedom in an evil way, such as a pedophile.
  
  You do realize that this jackass reasoning of yours is the same logic that is used to tell us why…WE THE PEOPLE can’t be trusted in our bedrooms, in our jobs, in raising our children, loving our wives, driving a car, or having a gun. Because someone is stupid with their freedom, immoral, or truly evil, we should do away with freedom in the bedroom and elsewhere?
  
  If Liberty isn’t the answer, what’s your solution?
  
  Report this comment
- resme
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 11:38am
  “Punishing someones freedoms, so my freedom could be to pull a gun out and shoot someone under your logic.”
  
  Lol, A law won’t stop anyone from committing a crime. Let the government tax us at 100%, I surely can’t spend it right << that's your logic. Give man freedom and he's too stupid to know how to us it.
  
  Same argument they made for alcohol prohibition.
  
  "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It is be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences." ~ C.S. Lewis
  
  Report this comment
- VRW Conspirator
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 12:26pm
  @Ranger
  
  I see the same thing as well…for those of us on the Constitution’s side, we need to jump ahead of the game and get the guys we trust… Bachmann, Cruz, Lee, Toomey, DeMint, Paul, and the like…talking about this in the right context…we need to frame the argument instead of letting the Progressives do it and then paint anyone that doesn’t go along as a bigot, homophobe, blah blah blah…
  
  we have already lost VA… McDonnell and his Lt. Gov have turned tax and spend RINO’s..MI is the same…of our 35 Governors or whatever that were Republicans, they are already dropping like flies to the GOP establishment…
  
  if the Republican governors start taking action for State’s Rights on marriage, education, drug policy and the like…and frame the argument the right way…the Progressives will not have any ammo for the social wedge issues come 2014 and 2016…then they will have to actually try and make the case that MORE taxes and MORE spending is a good thing…which every American knows in their heart is a bunch of CRAP…since we have already had 5 years of it and all we are doing is holding stable with increasing damage and debt hanging in the future…
  
  Report this comment
Eastinfection
Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:50am
The true Conservative, Constitutional position should be to get the government out of the marriage business, altogether.
Want to get married?.. join a church that endorses your lifestyle.

In the mean time, fix the tax-code regarding partnership unions because that is where the real inequality is.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- sta
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:56am
  That’s how I feel. Get the government out of marriage.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:59am
  Amen, East.
  
  Report this comment
- jodi
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:01am
  Yes!!!!!!!!!
  
  Report this comment
- Gonzo
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:18am
  The problem is, when they mandate legalization on a Federal level, they will also mandate that companies provide gay partners the same benefits as straight married partners. Then a Hobby Lobby (and many others) will either have to drop benefits for all employees or go against their religious beliefs.
  
  Report this comment
- resme
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:31am
  “fix the tax-code regarding partnership unions because that is where the real inequality is.”
  
  Don’t fix it. Implode it!
  
  Report this comment
- Eastinfection
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:34am
  GONZO… i also think corporations shouldn’t be providing health benefits, either. Give employees the extra cash and let them decide what benefits they wish to purchase. problem solved.
  
  Report this comment
- Gonzo
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:54am
  You should run for office East.
  
  Report this comment
- Eastinfection
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 10:01am
  GONZO
  
  You should run for office East.
  
  **********
  
  lol.. Nah… then i’d have to shave everyday, or risk looking like a slob. We all know how well that worked out for Gary Johnson.
  
  Report this comment
- resme
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 10:11am
  “We all know how well that worked out for Gary Johnson.”
  
  Local east, Local. Self avowed anarchist in New Hampshire won a democratic seat. Hide your colors till you get into office and start imploding stuff.
  
  Become a liar… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPe0hhyUCx0
  
  Report this comment
- Eastinfection
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 10:28am
  lol RESME…
  
  this is more my style:
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vgQalXaIxs
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 11:04am
  Many benefits came about due to the wage & price freezes enacted during WW2.
  
  -As East Infection has mentioned get rid of benefits & give the employees extra money & let them buy their own benefits.
  
  -Also go to a flat tax. they is no benefit to being married then nor is their a penalty. The government would be neutral.
  
  - Call everything from a government stand point civil union from the standpoint of law / contract law.
  People can say they got married at whatever church. And we can roll our eyes if they say that they are really married.
  
  My biggest problems are adoption & public education. Too many gays are psychologically damaged. They don’t even know why they are gay. I just watched TV show about the fallout of a guy who suffered abuse as a kid. He killed his wife. Chased his 2nd wife with a knife. Cross Dressed & died of AIDS. I believe that Dan Savage’s campground rules on relationships are a farce. How could they not be when gays have tops, bottoms, talk of package size, etc. Dan Savage said he was so mad he wanted to grudge f___ people & suggested others do the same.. Is that like a fat’wa. Do a word blending on that.
  
  Consider Joseph Pikul & tell me these people are not damaged.
  
  Report this comment
- 00100111
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 11:05am
  Personally, I’d posit there be no tax incentives or credits for marriage, neither straight nor gay. Leave it at the church level. Get the govt out of it completely. Couples can sign legal contracts with each other for purposes to provide them all of the other rights and privileges of “marriage”, but no tax stuff. Everyone should file their own stuff.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 11:30am
  00100111
  
  With a flat tax joint or filing separately makes no difference.
  
  Why should the money that you earn on Saturday on forced overtime be taxed differently than money your earn on Monday? It is a fact that the money earned on overtime was harder to come by & harder to achieve. It was more fatiguing. Plus you miss out on recreation & sales. Just by working overtime you cost of living goes up & yet the PROGS want you to be taxed more.
  
  Report this comment
soybomb315_II
Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:48am
leave it to republicans to screw up a perfect opportunity….

Republicans had every opportunity to say it is not a function of the federal government and should be decided by the states…..Instead they are pushing for a federal solution and saying it is a constitutional right when it is clearly not

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- progressiveslayer
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:19am
  Funny isn’t it with this collectivist regime we find ourselves under,they say we have a right to a house,automobile,food,employment and gay marriage. None of those are rights and the gay marriage issue should be handled by the states but the tenth amendment was killed many years ago. What we really need is a two party system,a party with strong libertarian leanings vs. the communist party currently ruling us.
  
  Report this comment
- theBru
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:33am
  If you guys actually think any of the major old line repugnants in office are conservative, you have had your heads in the sand for awhile…but, I agree with the fact that it is an issue as far as equality of rights go, I think they should have the same rights as any NORMAL married couple, and I don’t care what you call it…it is a non-issue that should not have any reason for being an issue…again, more smoke & mirrors from out gov’t, whose main purpose for the last 12 years is to destroy and strip us of our rights, all in the name of security…BUT, we concentrate on gay issues, have gay hating marches, gays boycotting businesses, gay bashing, hate crimes against gays, and all kinds of other gay crap, over nothing other than a different lifestyle, that really has no consequences nor solutions to the root of our problems…America is sick on both sides of the aisle…
  
  Report this comment
- resme
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:46am
  The thing is Conservatism changes with each country. If gay marriage, fascism, or women inequality is the norm of that country than you would be apart of the conservative party. When our founders were up against the crown the conservatives were the ones defending it. (Fighting for the crown also)
  
  Example : Germany (Hitler), Russia, China, Egypt, etc.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 11:59am
  RESME
  
  You soil yourself when you equate classical liberals with Loyalists or neo-Liberals with Revolutionaries.
  
  Report this comment
- termyt
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 12:02pm
  I have only questions.
  
  What, exactly, makes a list of former and current Republicans conservative?
  Where does the Constitution mention marriage?
  Absent a mention, what authority does the Federal government have to legislate it?
  If you can’t answer those questions honestly and still support your “Constitutional Right” mockery, are you really a Conservative?
  
  If gay marriage becomes a Constitutional Right, will heterosexual marriage also become one?
  How about polygamy?
  What happens to a minister who refuses to marry a gay couple?
  That minister will be guilty of violating the rights of those individual. Does he/she go to prison?
  Will the state declare who can or cannot be a minister of a religion?
  And since when was a person’s labor (the act of marrying a couple) the right of someone else?
  
  You can’t claim that marriage is a Constitutional Right and be a Conservative. The two are mutually exclusive. You can certainly claim the the Constitution prohibits the government’s involvement, but in no way is it a right enumerated by the Constitution, nor is it a right at all – it’s a contract between parties.
  
  Report this comment
HOOT_OWL
Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:44am
Well Obama is taking on the republican party head on.
As Rush L. pointed out yesterday on his show ,he’s going to inflict as much pain on the American public so there will be so much disdain for the republican party ,that the mid terms coming up will be a clean sweep for the dems .This move from the LBGT community, I believe is ANOTHER part of that part of that ‘group effort’ to undermine and cause MORE division in the repubs camp and will contribute to the GOP’S demise.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
kdshell1
Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:44am
Just as homosexuality is an abomination and perversion of God’s creation, so is “gay marriage.” If homosexuals become free to “marry,” will I have the like freedom to treat them as NOT married, because, no matter what they call it, they can never be truly married (God created and established marriage) unless they “marry” someone of the opposite gender. That’s (creator) God’s definition. Even Jesus addressed marriage when he said, “Therefore, a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife.” My question for a homosexual “married” couple would be, “Which of you is the man, and which is the wife.” Or are we changing those definitions as well?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Gregb
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:56am
  total agreement – marriage was defined thousands of years ago as between a man and a woman. They do not have the right to redefine the word “Marriage”. They either need to create their own word or call it a civil union.
  
  Report this comment
- SovereignSoul
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 12:39pm
  The earliest use of the word ‘marriage’wasn’t until the 13th century. So, we’ve already redefined God’s original words at least once.
  
  Report this comment
hauschild
Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:42am
The RINO’s have once again succeeded in allowing the lunatic left to define the narrative.

Again, will “necessarily” need to get a whole lot worse before something functional emerges from the GOP. Many don’t want to see it, and that is why it is taking so long.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Gofish
Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:40am
“The freedom to marry isn’t a Democratic or Republican value, it’s an American value,” Deaton added, “and as Republican advocates and elected officials continue to make the case for marriage, we are confident that it will soon become a mainstream position of the Republican Party.” If that’s the case, I’m without a party.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Sargeking
Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:39am
The only way Gays should be permitted to marry is if they marry a member of the opposite sex. Civil unions are bad enough but Gay marriage demands mainstream acceptance and that is something they will never have. The other leg of the matrix is where the next line would be drawn. If we allow same sex marriage then what is to prevent man marries boy, woman marries pair of show cats and so forth? Gay marriage equates permissive behavior with human rights and therefore any relationship would be automatically sacrosanct. The Gays are wrong and it is painful to society at large.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Xylliab_of_the_Znarghh
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 2:01pm
  Gay marriage is between adults who are capable of giving informed consent. Because everybody in the country believes that informed consent should be a requirement for marriage, it will not lead to animal or child marriage.
  
  Report this comment
- Nevertakecandyfromsocialists
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 4:04pm
  If you redefine marriage the question becomes where do you draw the line? If same sex marriage is allowed on the premise that they are consenting adults who love each other then how do you deny polygamists who also have historical precedence. If you accept polygamists, how do you deny polyamorists on the same grounds. Both of these groups are capable of producing biological offspring without outside help. Then does that embolden the Muslims who have international and sharia law precedence on their side to attempt to lower the age of consent? Which is typically 15 in Muslim countries, but is 13 in Iran. (All the while being cheered on silently, maybe with monetary support by NAMBLA.) Is there a line or is it all just moral relativism?
  
  Report this comment
ihasa
Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:38am
Interesting article. Yes of course anyone who knows someone who is gay personally will not take these hateful, hardline anti-gay positions based on the proposition that being gay is a ‘sin’.

For the republicans accepting gay marriage will be a divisive issue, but the proper response would be to remove unconstitutional barriers to gay marriage for a start at least.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- HOOT_OWL
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:51am
  You right ,the name of the game is ‘destroy the republican party‘.
  What I mean is ,this coming midterm is for all the marbles.
  I believe this is a effort to weaken and divide the GOP. That add to the division ,
  making way for a mid term victory for Obama and the dems.
  
  Report this comment
- barber2
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:17am
  HOOT: You are correct. The Democrats have ratcheted up the old Divide the Conservatives Campaign to Destroy the Republican Party. The Democrats, who hold no moral standards , know they can win with this tactic.
  
  Report this comment
- ihasa
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:23am
  So just remove the Federal barriers, and then let the states decide, thus avoiding getting entangled in the issue. This isn’t just an difficult issue for the Republicans because it will split their party – it also loses them votes from moderate conservatives. The ‘hail and brimstone’ bible bashers you see here on The Blaze are vocal indeed, but are a shrinking minority. With more gay people ‘coming out’ these days, more and more people know one or more gay people. And find it hard to reconcile the hate spewed about gays, with the people that they know.
  
  Report this comment
- ihasa
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:32am
  If Republicans drop the anti-gay marriage stance, the party will be divided. If they stay anti-gay, many people will continue to not vote for them. Tricky. From a tactics point of view, as I said, they should use the libertarians standpoint of ‘keeping the guvmint out of marriage’. That’s a position both sides ought to be able to compromise on, and if the Evangelical wing of the party want to make it a divisive issue, the division is THEIR fault and theirs alone.
  
  Report this comment
wingedwolf
Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:37am
This is exactly what it is going to take to further split the party.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- gac1218
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:43am
  Gay marrage and conservative is an oxymoron.
  
  Report this comment
Locked
Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:36am
I’ll admit, I was surprised Billy Hallowell didn’t write this article. Ah well.

To answer the central question: is gay marriage becoming a conservative position, the answer is NO.

Why is that?
- Because social conservatives are against gay marriage
- Because gay conservatives (such as GOProud, listed in this article) are conservatives first, gay second
- Because libertarians aren’t FOR gay marriage; they simply don’t think the government has a right to deny it
- Because fiscal conservatives (such as myself) don’t give a fig one way or the other

None of these groups are “Pro-gay marriage.” What is happening is that most conservatives are realizing that it’s a social matter that the government just shouldn’t be involved with. Saying “it’s not the government’s place to legislate morality” is much different than saying “yes, gays should be married!”

In the same way I’m not “pro-divorce” or “pro-remarriage,” I’m not “pro-gay marriage.” I simply don’t think it’s the government’s place to ban these sinful behaviors. If it doesn’t hurt anyone, and isn’t forced upon me or my church, why should I deny two people’s happiness? As a fiscal conservative, I’d much rather focus on reducing government than forcing others to comply to my religious views.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- 2GodBeTheGlory
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:41am
  @Locked
  
  You beat me to it. I thought Billy had penned this article as well. Was surprised when I found out that he did not.
  
  I also agree that with what you said but take it one step further, the Republican party is no longer the conservative party, just a less progressive party.
  
  Report this comment
CWPrequired
Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:35am
Stick a fork in the repub party. And NO it’s not a conservative position Mytheos. Nice try.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
UBETHECHANGE
Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:34am
You can’t be a limited, small government person and be for gay marriage.

The Limited Government Case Against Gay Marriage http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/11/the-limited-government-case-against-gay-marriage

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Locked
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:57am
  @Ubethechange
  
  An interesting article, but almost from the get-go it veers away from small government into the author’s socially conservative views. It also makes a lot of assumptions, the most fallacious of which is that the SOLE reason for marriage is procreation. The author attempts to dismiss all relationships that don’t fall into the man-woman=babies category, dismissing those who are infertile, those on birth control, those who don’t even want children, and not even mentioning those who are elderly or have a spouse who died.
  
  The part that stuck out to me especially was when the author said in effect “Women aren’t getting knocked up like they should” by claiming that separating marriage and procreation is a BAD thing. Some folks just don’t want to have children.
  
  Claiming marriage is solely for procreation is false. Laughing away the idea that marriages should be based on love (while logical to some extent) is insulting. And using religiously-based values as the justification for big government banning certain activities is the exact opposite of what is meant by “limited government.”
  
  Report this comment
- UBETHECHANGE
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:19am
  @Locked I’m a conservatarian gay woman and I am against gay marriage. It’s not called HOLY matrimony for nothing. Traditional marriage was created by God. Marriage is a covenant with God, a man and a woman and is for pro-creation. To deny that is to deny God and Truth. Traditional marriage is the biggest fighter against child poverty and the welfare state. Traditional marriage is the most important foundation to Western civilized society. Re-difining marriage is to spit in God’s face and civil society. Marriage is not a right, it’s sacred covenant ordained by God. Period.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:37am
  @Ubethechange
  
  “I’m a conservatarian gay woman and I am against gay marriage.”
  
  Irrelevant, but what’s a “conservatarian?”
  
  “Traditional marriage was created by God. Marriage is a covenant with God, a man and a woman and is for pro-creation. To deny that is to deny God and Truth. Traditional marriage is the biggest fighter against child poverty and the welfare state. Traditional marriage is the most important foundation to Western civilized society.”
  
  I don’t deny anything you’ve said here.
  
  “Re-difining (sic) marriage is to spit in God’s face and civil society.”
  
  How does it “spit in the face of civil society?” If you wanted to get married to your partner, it doesn’t affect me one iota. I’m not going to suddenly want to marry a man. My church isn’t going to consecrate your union. But it doesn’t hurt me at all; I’d simply tell you homosexual actions are sinful, and hope you repent for your sins before you die.
  
  Marriage in the US has NEVER been biblical. We have divorce; we have remarriage; we have different races marrying; we have have non-religious marriages; we have non-Christian marriage. Are you saying that none of this anti-biblical stances on marriage are spitting in God’s face?
  
  “Marriage is not a right, it’s sacred covenant ordained by God.”
  
  Now we run into issues. The SCotUS has said, over many cases, that marriage is a fundamental right. And in the US, legal marriage is not religious in nature.
  
  Report this comment
- UBETHECHANGE
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:52am
  The Constitutionality of Traditional Marriage http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/the-constitutionality-of-traditional-marriage
  
  Report this comment
- StandingOnMyHead
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:59am
  UBETHECHANGE: I completely agree with your assessment, same sex may have a civil union (with all the same civil rights of a “married” couple), but never can they call it a “marriage”.
  
  LOCKED: You are simply using semantics to redefine “marriage”, a typical liberal spin tactic!
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 10:28am
  @Standing
  
  “You are simply using semantics to redefine “marriage”, a typical liberal spin tactic!”
  
  How so? Please, by all means, provide examples of where I’m wrong. What I’m hearing seems to have no basis in reality. “Marriage” in the US has never aligned with the Biblical definition of marriage; I pointed out several cases where our CURRENT marriage laws are distinctly contrary to the Bible’s view of marriage. Most of the outrage seems to be based on some idealized view of how the country should be, rather than focusing on what it is and has always been.
  
  Homosexual actions are sinful. A gay union (marriage, whatever) is living in sin. So are most cases of divorce. So is remarrying after divorce. So is non-Christians marrying.
  
  It’s on the individuals to follow God’s laws: it’s not the place of government to force people to do so, nor should it be within their constitutional power.
  
  Report this comment
- Xylliab_of_the_Znarghh
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 1:57pm
  Religion does not own the concept of marriage or the word either. It’s not just about same sex couples. There are millions of straight couples in this country who were married by the government without having to seek the permission of any church, and their marriages are just as real as anybody’s. It’s been like that for a hundred years before we were born and nobody ever objected until they started talking about giving same sex couples the same opportunity. It’s not just a religious institution, and it hasn’t been for a long time. And if the government did get out of it, there would be gay marriage in every state. There most be a hundred religious sects in this country. There are bound to be a few who would say yes.
  
  Report this comment
CWPrequired
Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:33am
Stick a fork in the Repub party. And NO it’s not a conservative position.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
CWPrequired
Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:31am
Hell no! It’s becoming a we need votes position. Who do we let under the tent next?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- barber2
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:35am
  CW: I think murderers are being ” discriminated against…” Call Al. Call Jesse.
  
  Report this comment
NO_MORE_OBAMA
Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:30am
A true conservative will never accept Gays getting married. Only the RINOS and they will be fired sooner than later.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Gonzo
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:36am
  No, they are just redefining what a “true conservative” is.
  
  Report this comment
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:51am
  GONZO, Yeah, they have had an internal group watering down that title for decades.
  
  Report this comment
Gonzo
Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:29am
The fact the we are even having the discussion means the secular progressives have won this one.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- limalima
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 9:19am
  You are so right.
  
  Report this comment
- truthnstuff
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 10:33am
  The faux conservatives are dragging us across the finish line inch by inch. Too many have stopped fighting and just thrown up their hands.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.