Comments on Conservative for Change: The Tea Party and The Illusion of Fiscal Conservat...

Love : always wondered who invented that. It was t...

2010-04-11T06:10:05.087-06:00

Love : always wondered who invented that. It was the French, you say. :)

I know you did. My objection was to the word '...

2010-03-21T14:53:14.725-06:00

I know you did. My objection was to the word 'traditional'. Since marriage has been an forever evolving concept with the French adding the concept of Love in the seventeenth century......

As I said in the commentary; marriage was a privat...

2010-03-21T14:37:16.928-06:00

As I said in the commentary; marriage was a private institution. That's what was destroyed by the federal take-over.

With regards to that vid... The concept of LOVE w...

2010-03-21T13:18:03.804-06:00

With regards to that vid...

The concept of LOVE was only added by the French in the seventeenth century.....

Another evolving concept within marriage.....

2010-03-21T13:15:27.025-06:00

This comment has been removed by the author.

I will check out the clip you posted.

2010-03-21T13:13:22.114-06:00

I will check out the clip you posted.

You appear to have misunderstood my words than Rog...

2010-03-21T13:07:57.990-06:00

You appear to have misunderstood my words than Roger.....
In this Youtube vid David Boaz is saying exactly what I mentioned above.

Marriage should be a private institution for ALL people. But if it is run by govt as it is today, ALL people should be treated equally under the law.

My focus is not on same sex marriage but it includes same sex marriage.

If you agree with this YT vid like I do, I think we must be on the same page than?

I think you should find one of the response videos...

2010-03-21T03:43:26.486-06:00

I think you should find one of the response videos more interesting, as it seems to better fit your frame of thought just now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6tevk455Xs

David Boaz presents the same position I have. Your...

2010-03-21T02:43:55.529-06:00

David Boaz presents the same position I have. Your focus is on support of same-sex marriage while the focus of my commentary is on the damage done by nationalization; because marriage is no longer a private institution now that it has been nationalized.

I communicated the ideas Boaz presents to Cato 10-15 years ago with a series of communications and articles. At the time, they had some "experts" who had jumped on the nationalization bandwagon and I argued that they were wrong. Since then, the federalizers have all gone from Cato and they've accepted my position. Based on Boaz's comments, that was about 10 years ago.

of course that last paragraph being you in your ow...

2010-03-20T21:10:06.139-06:00

of course that last paragraph being you in your own words when I offered the exact same answer as the Vice President of the Cato Institute and Libertarian thinker David Boaz. Which be the way I had not heard.

Oh and just to add, David Boaz holds the same &quo...

2010-03-20T21:07:35.065-06:00

Oh and just to add, David Boaz holds the same "Goofy opinion" as I do.....

Now you're trying to use the premise that the Constitution defines government as all powerful and the only protections against intrusion provided must be specific and explicit. This is one of the goofiest arguments the anti-Civil rights crowd offers - right up there with Nancy Pelosi's "broad mandate" under "general welfare."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXrUdgTMG4E Execut...

2010-03-20T19:44:23.821-06:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXrUdgTMG4E

Executive Vice President of the Cato Institute and Libertarian thinker David Boaz advocates for the privatization of marriage.

And finally I read up on some of your articles whi...

2010-03-20T18:35:13.958-06:00

And finally I read up on some of your articles which are a reflection of your personal stand with regards to this topic and which are indeed reflected in the paragraph with regards to marriage in the article above...

************************************************

Divorced Dads: Family Champions

July 14, 2003

by Roger F. Gay

"The spearhead of the anti-family movement has historically been aimed at fathers, and has often been part of an attack against men generally. "Women's Liberation" was largely about liberating women from the "slavery of marriage," a difficult concept to grasp without a "vast conspiracy against women in a male dominated society." Feminists regard all women everywhere as some kind of mass communal or spiritual family. Men need not apply unless they want to donate money and sperm to a family to which they can never belong.

The feminist campaign was successful. The United States is unique in having established the first reverse Islamic culture in which women hold all family rights and men have none. Children are generally treated as the property of their mothers. Fathers are assigned responsibilities and can be punished severely, by the will of mothers and with the full support of states and the federal government, if they do not do as they are told. Many fathers lose their homes, their incomes, and their children simply because their wives lose interest in them. Government support for the practice is so strong, that changing spouses after children have been born has become a viable method for women to accumulate wealth. "
***********************************************

The Anti family movement? While the position of women in marriage throughout history has been vastly documented, the existence of an Anti-family movement does not exist.
Intellectual dishonesty and the denial of Individual rights to those that do not fit 'traditional molds' whatever that may be in a multicultural and ethnically diverse society are at the center of fake conservatism.

Thank you for your time. You are indeed correct. There is no honest debating of facts when one wants to debate on irrational topics like marriage and its 'traditional' meaning.

Roger, calling my argument emotional is an adhom a...

2010-03-20T14:24:03.675-06:00

Roger, calling my argument emotional is an adhom attack.

When people resort to adhominum attacks they usually cannot deal with the argument presented to them.

Good luck with your articles.

Respectfully yours
Maria

Maria: I understand that you want to carry on an ...

2010-03-20T13:46:54.758-06:00

Maria:

I understand that you want to carry on an emotional argument with someone. But I'm going to bow out here. You're obviously not interested in my views and need to look for a better match for your debate.

And this....quoting you "It is point #2 tha...

2010-03-20T13:12:17.263-06:00

And this....quoting you

"It is point #2 that you are logically trying to argue - that more and deeper government intrusion is called for, because there has been government intrusion. Generally speaking, an American political conservative leans more toward minimizing government intrusion, not expanding it. Logically - it's obvious that if government intrusion is the problem - the politically conservative solution (and certainly the one that makes sense) would be to reduce or eliminate the intrusion."

does NOT equal this....quoting myself

"The Bible does not have a monopoly on the concept of marriage and if people are granted Freedom of Wor shipping under the U.S. Constitution, and history shows us that the concept of marriage existed in all cultures, among all peoples from different countries and among all religions for different purposes, I say.....TRUE conservatism is INDEED leaving the concept of WHAT marriage constitutes and leave it up to the INDIVIDUAL."

Roger, I suggest you stop feeling personally atta...

2010-03-20T12:32:00.922-06:00

Roger,

I suggest you stop feeling personally attacked and drop a condescending tone in your posts...( I have now asked four of five times).You constantly either demean or lecture me on how goofy my argument is or how I do not understand.

When I said ...
""But Roger, who tried to Amend the U.S. Constitution at the Federal Level to pass a Defense of Marriage Act???"

.......quoting myself

"Also, may I remind you ( with regards to the attempt of so called 'conservatives' to amend the United States Constitution to include a definition of marriage to be between an man and a woman ,that the U.S. Constitution has NEVER been amended to restrict Individual Rights but ONLY to expand them."

I do understand Roger.

And when you say and I quote
"
Generally speaking, an American political conservative leans more toward minimizing government intrusion, not expanding it. Logically - it's obvious that if government intrusion is the problem - the politically conservative solution (and certainly the one that makes sense) would be to reduce or eliminate the intrusion."

I say.....it comes right back to my original post and question............

WHO is to define the concept and definition of marriage when history has shown us that there has been an evolving of numerous concepts with regards to marriage as well in this country as throughout the world.

It is you I believe , who is unwilling to answer this question.....

Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna of Russia, third da...

2010-03-20T12:16:02.603-06:00

Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna of Russia, third daughter of Tsar Nicholas II and Tsarina Alexandra Fyodorovna. Her murder following the Russian Revolution of 1917 resulted in her canonization as a passion bearer by the Russian Orthodox Church.

Maria; Your arguments are confusing at least part...

2010-03-20T11:00:07.209-06:00

Maria;

Your arguments are confusing at least partly because you don't read or don't understand what I've already commented on. I oppose defense of marriage amendments. I've written some articles stating my opposition, and mentioned that in posts above.

"But Roger, who tried to Amend the U.S. Constitution at the Federal Level to pass a Defense of Marriage Act???"

--- Not me. If this is the argument you want to have, why don't you find someone who did?

As for your adhom attacks on me Roger, they do not...

2010-03-20T09:47:37.720-06:00

As for your adhom attacks on me Roger, they do not suit the American way of respectfully Agree to disagree!

Also, may I remind you ( with regards to the attem...

2010-03-20T09:42:46.918-06:00

Also, may I remind you ( with regards to the attempt of so called 'conservatives' to amend the United States Constitution to include a definition of marriage to be between an man and a woman ,that the U.S. Constitution has NEVER been amended to restrict Individual Rights but ONLY to expand them.

'Your continued argument continues to be as co...

2010-03-20T09:26:19.928-06:00

'Your continued argument continues to be as confused as it has been all along. You're trying to make increased government intrusion and loss of civil rights look like a conservative position. That of course is wrong, so there is no valid argument to find - no matter how long you look."

1)But Roger, who tried to Amend the U.S. Constitution at the Federal Level to pass a Defense of Marriage Act???

2) Who objects to 'equal protection' clauses at the State level but is perfectly ok with the Defense of Marriage Acts at the State level?

3) Who objects to States passing 'same sex' marriage laws?

You CANNOT claim to be conservative, OBJECT TO the Federal Govt taking over while petitioning the Congress to pass an Amendment on the United States Constitution and have DISREGARD for what happens at the STate level.

May I remind you Roger, that PRECEDENT case law is almost next to nothing ( at the State and Federal Level ) with regards to 'same sex' marriage rights and will have to be explored in order to show ANY of your positions ( or mine for that matter) to be Constitutional!

For example; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_...

2010-03-20T05:24:46.127-06:00

For example;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Take a concrete case. I believe above you mentione...

2010-03-20T05:20:22.523-06:00

Take a concrete case. I believe above you mentioned a law banning interracial marriage. I haven't checked, but I believe it's a reasonable guess that such a law would have been deemed unconstitutional - a violation of civil rights; if the legislature didn't change it first.

One way or another - no such law exists today. The solution was definitely not a federal government take-over of marriage and family law and elimination of civil rights. A particular instance of a civil right was recognized (even though its not explicitly stated in the Constitution). Civil rights - in concrete applied terms - were expanded through recognition - not reduced.

RE: Your examples. The examples you have given are...

2010-03-20T04:54:42.643-06:00

RE: Your examples. The examples you have given are strongly related to things other than a government desire to intrude in marriage and family. Nonetheless, even if you regard them as good examples of government intrusion in marriage and family:

1. No part of the commentary in the article claims or logically depends upon the idea that the US - including states - have at all times throughout the nation's history been completely non-intrusive. There certainly could be other examples of government intrusion that one could write about, not discussed in the article.

2. More and deeper government intrusion is not a politically conservative formula for solving problems of government intrusion.

It is point #2 that you are logically trying to argue - that more and deeper government intrusion is called for, because there has been government intrusion. Generally speaking, an American political conservative leans more toward minimizing government intrusion, not expanding it. Logically - it's obvious that if government intrusion is the problem - the politically conservative solution (and certainly the one that makes sense) would be to reduce or eliminate the intrusion.