Comments on: Alternate View on Gay Marriage

By: Give me Liberty, or Give me Death

Give me Liberty, or Give me Death — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:19:32 +0000

I agree with Leave me alone. Gay marriage should be left in the hands of the people…but the whole “domestic partnership” just seems like some more frivolous unecessary actions.

I also think it interesting to say, that if one takes the Constitution to heart, and realizes that it is a living breathing document, then wouldn’t the Constitution support gay marraige. Wouldn’t the words, life, liberty, AND the pursuit of happiness include this…wouldn’t separate but equal being deemed unconstitutional also mean that by separating gay people and preventing them from getting married also be unconstitutional?

At any rate, marriage is something of the people, not of the federal government. Family and religious decisions are something of the people, not of the federal government. The moment we accept the federal government to nanny us in every personal aspect of our lives is the moment our liberties disappear. Regardless of how you feel about gay marriage, it is something that should be left completely out of politics.

By: Leave me alone.

Leave me alone. — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 06:52:04 +0000

I don’t need the government to difine for me that which is already in the dictionary. In my sense of the word: marriage is a union by God of a man and a woman. Instead of replacing the word marriage on my tax papers with “domestic partner,” as the writer proposes, I’d rather see the IRS burned and outlawed, never to return.

Everyone has the priviledge to obtain government marriage. We’ve jsut defined it as a man and a woman. It’s a special permit the gov. gives out, so it can give it to whomever We the People allow.

Instead of subjecting more people to government tyranny, i’d rather see the whole thing disappear as a State function. When did we become such slaves to the government that we needed them to tell us this sort of thing, anyway?

I don’t celebrate equality; I celebrate Liberty.

Never give the government more power. They have enough of it already.

By: Sherman

Sherman — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:36:05 +0000

If the only reason for marriage is procreation, then shouldn’t we refuse women past menopause the right to marry? Shouldn’t men or women who aren’t fertile be denied the right?

By: Older than you

Older than you — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 02:31:06 +0000

Fullmer, that’s only true if being “small government” necessarily means being conservative in maintaining traditional ways of doing things…it doesn’t. Conflating the two ideas is to, in reality, promote conservatism, not a smaller general role of the government.

By: Fullmer

Fullmer — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 18:33:44 +0000

An Alum -

I could just as easily say that it is antithetical to small-government principles to use the government to completely redefine the meaning of a term that, rightly or wrongly, has meant a certain thing for all of recorded human history.

By: A Conservative

A Conservative — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:27:28 +0000

We should fight against all challenges to marriage. Stop the gay, polygamist and Islamic assaults in their tracks!

By: An Undergrad

An Undergrad — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:40:13 +0000

How is opposing gay marraige antithetical to small-government conservatism? Gay marriage enjoys very little support (see DOMA acts both in President Clinton’s term and in the 11 states that voted in 2004).

Activist judges and anti-family radicals are joining up in an attempt to destroy the societal linchpin that is heterosexual monogomous marraige. Ruling of “rights by judical fiat” sure is something (tyrannical? undemocratic?), but it’s not conservative.