24 Feb

Civil Unions And The “Conservative” Enablers Of The Progressive Agenda [Reader Post]

                                       

civil unions

Recently I received the invitation below from a group known as “Liberty on the Rocks”.

Are you a libertarian looking to meet others in the Denver area? Want to learn more about libertarian ideals? This isn’t about party politics, it’s about what’s right and how to fight for it. LOTR is not looking for how you vote, but what you believe. Is it in peace? Liberty? Or tyranny, violence and oppression? If you value the former ideals than LOTR happy hour is the network for you!

We’ll be joined for a 20-minute discussion (followed by q & a) by Joe Megesey and Mario Nicolas from Coloradans for Freedom, a group of young conservative activists pushing for freedom in marriage at the state level.

They’ll kick things off around 7:30 to discuss what they are all about and why. As conservatives, they think this is the best way to promote a free lifestyle as the GOP platform suggests, and they are the ones leading the charge as young, vibrant activists.

Happy hour kicks off at 6pm (specials run through 6:30 so get there early!). We have a fun activity planned around 6:30 for anyone interested – sort of a “speed dating” concept but w/o the dating. More of a “speed getting to know other libertarians”.

I hope to see you this Wednesday night!

While the group is itself correctly billed as libertarian, billing “young, vibrant activists” who advocate a “free lifestyle” as conservatives is just silly and, frankly, incorrect. The traditional family is the bedrock of civilization, and true conservatives understand that. Once you abandon the most fundamental of institutions for a societal fad, then you only accelerate the downward spiral into societal, moral, and cultural collapse. Once you have surrendered the culture wars and start to embrace the mainstreaming of homosexuality, abortion on demand, and amnesty for illegal aliens I contend than you no longer can be accurately described as a conservative.

Why so-called conservatives think we should adopt the policies of the Left, and their twisted and perverse societal values, is simply beyond me. The mainstreaming of homosexuality is one of the pillars of the progressive/liberal ideology and conservatives should not be a part of it, nor be enablers of their anti-traditional family agenda. By doing so one only plays into their hands. Civil unions is little more than gay marriage “lite” and in effect just a way of playing semantics to attain their ultimate goals.

It is just another weapon in the arsenal of those seeking to undermine the traditional family structure and is an important part of the progressive agenda. All the talk of healthcare, mutual property, taxes and other legal aspects is a mere smokescreen for the agenda of societal acceptance and the mainstreaming of their lifestyle. Any two people, with the assistance of an attorney, regardless of sexual relationship, status, or title can address those concerns without trying to adopt the cloak of marriage or civil unions.

One young lady told me that while we may disagree, she hoped that our differences in opinion wouldn’t “turn into us forcing our values on others.” The simple truth is that if anyone is “forcing their values on others” it is the homosexual lobby, their liberal allies, and such so-called conservative who are forcing what is basically a sexual and emotional dysfunction onto the rest of us.

I’ve been a conservative activist, blogger, writer, author, and columnist most of my life and this type of acceptance and enabling of parts of the liberal agenda by so-called conservatives needs to be strenuously and vigorously opposed whenever possible. It may be acceptable in certain libertarian circles but should never be tolerated in conservative ones. The concept of the two parent, heterosexual family unit and any children they have forming the base of Western civilization and society is a fundamental part of conservative thought and ideology. Everything is built upon that. It is the cornerstone upon which all is constructed.

It seems to me that this movement to adopt liberal views as our own originates with the poor performance that the GOP has experienced on the presidential level for the last two presidential elections. The theory seems to go that if the Right surrenders on all moral and cultural fronts, then we may have a chance at electoral victory somewhere along the line. Never mind that the last two presidential candidates were themselves ‘progressives’ in many ways and certainly did not personify or articulate conservative principles properly, accurately, or convincingly. How does the warped idea that adopting the moral stances of our ideological enemies so that we can then defeat them at the ballot box make any sense at all?

I hate to take issue with the otherwise fine people of “Liberty Rocks”, but I was left with little choice in this particular case. Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever you want, however you want, with whoever you want coupled with the demand for the blessing of societal acceptance. To quote Lord Acton “Liberty is not the freedom to do what you wish, but the freedom to do what you ought.” For what is liberty without wisdom and virtue?

Modern libertarians by definition basically follow no moral code or path as an ideology so they kind of get a pass from me in that regard and they are often useful allies in the fight against the Left. They may be misguided and shortsighted but they are rarely true hypocrites. But the so-called “Coloradoans for Freedom” is worthy of all the condescension I can heap upon them. Call yourself whatever you want, but don’t try to pass yourselves off as a conservative if you are a mere water-carrier for the gay lobby.

Conservative principles and bedrock institutions like marriage should be viewed as timeless and not subject to the mere whim of polls, public opinion, and cultural fads.

Crossposted from The Constitution Club

This entry was posted in Abortion, Conservatism, Gay Marriage, political correctness, Politics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Sunday, February 24th, 2013 at 6:00 am
| 351 views

21 Responses to Civil Unions And The “Conservative” Enablers Of The Progressive Agenda [Reader Post]

  1. bwax says: 1

    Homosexuality, according to the Bible is an abomination. There is absolutely nothing so vile as one man inserting his penis in another man’s rectum! We must remain vigilant and call homosexuality for what it is, and stop watering down this vile practice by calling it GAY or natural!

    ReplyReply
  2. Nan G says: 2

    We just had our last year’s taxes done.
    The elderly lady who has done them for a while now informed us how gay couples’ taxes have to be filed…..as one huge lie, signed by two who SWEAR it is true.
    A homosexual couple (in California) file by taking their information, adding it together, dividing it by two then swearing on all the forms that those numbers are the truth.
    In other words, lying is baked in the pie of gay marriage taxes.
    The destruction of standards in this country is well along the road.
    The 9th Circuit Court actually calls trampling the US flag ”free expression,” while calling putting a US flag on a proper pole a violation of free speech!
    At this point I wonder if it is too late to even talk about morals or standards.
    Colorado gays and Libertarians are being ”courted” by Conservatives who call themselves ”Republicans.”
    People can SAY they are in whatever party but be there for only one or two reasons.
    Sounds like that’s the case here.

    ReplyReply
  3. JustAl says: 3

    I no longer call myself a “conservative” since I don’t want to be grouped with bigoted mythologist like the author. I much prefer the title “Porcupine Libertarian”. How many threads are started here by Libertarians attacking social conservatives? Zero. It’s your right to live in kind of delusion you want, but you have no right to legislate it.

    This attitude and the continual nomination of leftists by the GOP has now permanently changed my lifelong voting pattern, never again will I vote for a so-con, never!

    It’s none of the damned government’s business who consenting adults marry. Get over it and start concentrating on the real assault on the Constitution and leave the mythology in the churches where it belongs.

    Here is a REAL issue, photos from the Day of Resistance in Dallas:
    http://s951.beta.photobucket.com/user/JustAlBlogger/library/Dallas%20223

    ReplyReply
  4. Kevin says: 4

    JustAl is terribly insulting but he’s right that the principled libertarian perspective is that the government should not be involved in marriage. It is not “for” gay marriage insofar as that would compel recognition and acceptance. The problem is that the libertarian ideal is not an option, so libertarians split on the next best option.

    ReplyReply
  5. Russell says: 5

    You’re quite correct. The right stands opposed to personal freedom. And not just on the issue of gay marriage. Which is why libertarians are foolish to align themselves with it.

    ReplyReply
  6. Truth-teller says: 6

    @bwax:

    Bwax: “Homosexuality, according to the Bible is an abomination. There is absolutely nothing so vile”

    Thank you for your defense of rape and child molestation. It must be said that the Bible is silent on the latter, and in the former case, the victim is supposed to be married to her rapist. Now that is Christian “morality”.

    ReplyReply
  7. johngalt says: 7

    @JustAl:

    You are correct, this is a states’ issue, or a local governments’ issue, not a federal government issue. Neither the left, with it’s clamoring for federal government involvement to make ‘gay marriage’ legal, nor the social-con’s opposing stance, of legislating morality on gays, has any business being brought up in Congress.

    @Russell:

    It’s not all of the right that stands opposed to personal freedom, just like it’s not all of the left. The real enemy to personal freedom and liberty is the progressive, on his/her journey towards statism, that is the real problem, and both parties are full of these kinds of politicians. These politicians trade in favors for votes, disregard our Constitution and it’s limitations of their power.

    Unfortunately, true conservatives become mired in “beating the left”, and continue to vote in the corporate welfare shills on the right, while the more classic liberals on the left are naive to the direction the Democratic party has gone, continuing to vote in the socialist-leaning politicians who seek to bring everyone but themselves down to the same sad sorry state of life. The “moderate” is no better, choosing one side or the other based on their “feelings” on an issue, or handful of issues, and vote in someone who will seek to remove their personal freedom and liberty, for the “betterment of society”.

    Those conservatives on the fringe of the right, and the liberals who have stopped drinking the statist kool-aid of the left, are the hope for the future of our country. Unfortunately, I don’t think there are enough of them to make any kind of difference.

    ReplyReply
  8. Richard Wheeler says: 8

    J.G. Your final paragraph in #7 contains the truth that Americans can work together to find solutions for our shared responsibilities.
    Demonizing of W or BHO is unproductive . The “loyal opposition” must always make an effort to find solutions with the majority—–Reagan and O’Neill, Simpson and Kennedy.
    The nature of our great Democratic Republic suggests you can’t get everything you want in politics—get what you need,(Thanks Mick)

    TERM LIMITS including one 6 year POTUS.

    ReplyReply
  9. johngalt says: 9

    @Richard Wheeler:

    Rich, you had me until this part;

    to find solutions for our shared responsibilities.

    The problem with that statement is that people of different ideologies, different viewpoints, different circumstances in life, believe that solutions NEED to be found. That is a patently false assumption, and leads to the infringement and outright denial of freedoms and liberties by We, the People.

    The Federal government was founded upon an alliance between the States to provide for that which they, themselves could not provide for with any measured success or equality. That same federal government was limited, to it’s purpose, and it’s powers, by the founders and the States. To date, however, the federal government has involved itself in areas of concern that it should not be involved in, by some well-meaning, and some nefarious, people who stated, “There ought to be a law“. That leads to people debating and arguing about just exactly what “solutions” the federal government should offer, and eventually leads to the federal government housing more power and control over We, the People, and the States, that it was designed to.

    Why should the federal government have any power over water rights contained within a State’s boundaries? Why should the federal government be involved in commerce of any kind, other than the simple arbitration over taxation and levies between the states? Why should the federal government be involved with buying up and protecting land of any kind within a State’s boundaries? Why should the federal government be involved in any kind of “charity” to people, whether they be individuals or corporations, essentially taking from some and giving to others? And the questions could go on and on and on and on.

    The idea that “a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all away”, stems from the idea, and historical reference, to tyrannies developing and encompassing a previously free people. It has never been so applicable as it is today.

    What is wrong with the State’s being the major arbiters, within their boundaries, of what happens within those boundaries? I have no problem with CO, for example, “legalizing” marijuana, though I don’t believe that it is a good idea myself. I would never argue that because I think that it is a bad idea, though I live in IN, that the federal government should get involved with making it illegal in CO.

    It is not my concern if CA, for example, wants to make gay marriage illegal or not, no matter what I believe on the subject. I don’t live there, it doesn’t concern me. Except, of course, when the advocates for what happens within a state decide to make their version of Utopia a national idea.

    As for term limits, no problem with that. Congress was never intended to be inhabited by a professional cadre of politicians. Nor was it intended to be staffed by a relatively minor group of people who exempt themselves from the laws that the rest of We, the People, are supposed to follow.

    ReplyReply
  10. Richard Wheeler says: 10

    J.G. Ideally power should be with the state.However, if Miss. legalizes slavery or Cal. legalizes dissemination of child pornography does not the govt.have the right nee the obligation to step in ?
    We are the United States, a nation of immigrants,a Strong Country THAT TAKES CARE OF IT’S OWN.
    The Marine Corps stresses no wounded are left on the battlefield. Some see that as a weakness and a vulnerability. The Corps sees it as a strength.I believe helping and uplifting our country’s less fortunate is a strength.

    BTW I believe The Corps is as proud and strong now as it was at Khe Sanh,ChosinReservoir or Iwo.
    You can be proud of your son’s desire to join. Ask PATVANN

    ReplyReply
  11. retire05 says: 11

    @Richard Wheeler:

    a nation of immigrants,

    Speak for yourself, Richard. I haven’t had an immigrant in my family for the last 200+ years. Or do you subscribe to the “one drop of blood” theory?

    ReplyReply
  12. Aye says: 12

    @retire05:

    I haven’t had an immigrant in my family for the last 200+ years.

    Wow. That’s…ummm…impressive?

    Tell us more about how your family kept immigrants out of it for 200+ years.

    The accomplishment of such a long record of purity is, I’m quite sure, something that you’re very proud of.

    ReplyReply
  13. retire05 says: 13

    @Aye:

    Tell us more about how your family kept immigrants out of it for 200+ years.

    Mother’s side immigrated from Ireland in 1774. Father’s side were Cherokee.

    If you are born here, you are NOT an “immigrant”. Well, that is, except to my father’s side.

    ReplyReply
  14. Greg says: 14

    Why should the federal government have any power over water rights contained within a State’s boundaries?

    Because rivers flow across state lines, cities in one state draw their drinking water from lakes that border on the factories located in another, etc. Who is supposed to mediate between opposing state interests, if not the federal government?

    Why should the federal government be involved in commerce of any kind, other than the simple arbitration over taxation and levies between the states?

    Because products created in one state cross borders into others, affecting the people and commerce of those other states.

    Why should the federal government be involved with buying up and protecting land of any kind within a State’s boundaries?

    Because neither individual states nor the special interests that arise within them should be allowed to own national treasures.

    Why should the federal government be involved in any kind of “charity” to people, whether they be individuals or corporations, essentially taking from some and giving to others?

    Because it’s the proper business of the federal government to address the General Welfare of the people it serves. The Taxing and Spending Clause specifically cites such concerns as one of the reasons for granting the power to impose taxes. The words were not put there for decoration, or simply because they sounded good.

    ReplyReply
  15. Aye says: 15

    @retire05:

    So, over the course of those 200+ years, there wasn’t a single person among your ancestors who arrived during the great waves of immigration and married into your family? There were no war brides? No foreign adoptions?

    ReplyReply
  16. retire05 says: 16

    @Aye:

    So, over the course of those 200+ years, there wasn’t a single person among your ancestors who arrived during the great waves of immigration and married into your family?

    In a word, “NO.”

    For reasons that frankly, are none of your business, I, and a couple of cousins, have tracked our family tree back to the mid 1600’s. There were no more “immigrants” after around 1780.

    There were no war brides?

    No.

    No foreign adoptions?

    No.

    ReplyReply
  17. Aqua says: 17

    @johngalt:

    You are correct, this is a states’ issue, or a local governments’ issue, not a federal government issue. Neither the left, with it’s clamoring for federal government involvement to make ‘gay marriage’ legal, nor the social-con’s opposing stance, of legislating morality on gays, has any business being brought up in Congress.

    Preach it brother!

    ReplyReply
  18. Aqua says: 18

    @Greg:

    Because it’s the proper business of the federal government to address the General Welfare of the people it serves. The Taxing and Spending Clause specifically cites such concerns as one of the reasons for granting the power to impose taxes. The words were not put there for decoration, or simply because they sounded good

    Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
    James Madison said the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8.
    For your records:

    To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

    To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

    The General Welfare of the United States is outlined above. It is not Welfare as progressives define it.

    ReplyReply
  19. Jim Hlavac says: 19

    and here we go again with mindless mush on the gay thing — you people are funny. It seems that heteros are just panicked that heteros will no longer get married, shack up, have adultery, rape, divorce, abandon kids, been teen moms, and otherwise mess with marriage and the family and woman and kids — if only gays are denied a uniform legal regime to make what we already do legally by piece meal — and, so, gay couples set up LLC, and S-corps and other commercial legal relationships, and the government takes our taxes -as couples — and you heteros take the money to fund your morass — and you folks have hissy fits because apparently you think that heterosexuality is not only very weak and under some existential threat from gayness — but you think that what you proclaim is unnatural is such an enticing model that every hetero will join the gay side of things — you people are delusional. Meanwhile some of you are calling in the name of liberty to outlaw, arrest and incarcerate millions of gay folks so that you can have your bizarre idea of God come down and save this earth. Frankly, you all are irrational on gay stuff, and you all need a better God.

    ReplyReply
  20. johngalt says: 20

    @Jim Hlavac:

    Frankly, you all are irrational on gay stuff, and you all need a better God.

    I, as well as others here I’m sure, take issue with your generalization of “you all”. It’s almost as if you didn’t actually read any of the responses to the article.

    ReplyReply
  21. johngalt says: 21

    @Greg:

    Not surprising that you completely whiffed on my point, Greg. Your preconceptions about conservatism, along with your viewpoint that government is the solution to everything, have helped to blind you in any attempt of yours to understand the relationship between the federal government and the States that the founders set up.

    I said;

    Why should the federal government have any power over water rights contained within a State’s boundaries?

    You answered by involving waterways that travel beyond a state’s borders, which were not part of my question. Currently, the Federal government is involving itself in ALL waterways contained within the state’s that makeup the Union, including irrigation ditches, and in ways that extend beyond any acceptable concerns of people from neighboring states. Some of this is at the behest of environmental groups who attempt to task the Federal government with oversight where they really shouldn’t have any.

    I asked;

    Why should the federal government be involved in commerce of any kind, other than the simple arbitration over taxation and levies between the states?

    You answered that the federal government must have power beyond general taxation, in regards to the commerce clause. This is really the point, back in the earlier 1900’s, where the federal government grabbed power it was never meant to have, with the help of politicized courts and the progressive elites just starting to ascend to positions of political power.

    Article I, Section 8 delineates all powers acceded by the states to the federal government, Congress in particular. Yes Congress was given the power to ‘regulate commerce’, however, as the Federalist Papers show, as well as other arguments and writings at the time, the power was to be limited to arbitration on taxes and levies between the States on the subject of commerce, to maintain a level playing field between the States when it came to the process of transporting and selling goods and services across State lines.

    It was never intended to be a power to regulate a product, or service, from raw material to finished product, before it ever crossed State lines, yet, that is the power the Federal government grabbed for itself, and expanded upon.

    I asked;

    Why should the federal government be involved with buying up and protecting land of any kind within a State’s boundaries?

    You answered something about “national treasures”. No, they are not, Greg. When Congress voted on admittance to the Union, by a State, the State’s boundaries were known, and by the Constitution itself, all land contained within that State’s boundaries were owned by the State or individuals residing within that state. Hence, no natural occurence, such as a mountain, or a forest, or a river, or a lake, was ever owned by the Federal government, and because of that, they are not “national treasures”.

    The last question of mine you quoted was answered by Aqua, but I’ll add that the Federalist Papers argued this very point for inclusion of the clause in the Constitution. The argument was that the clause was not, and never intended to be, a stand alone clause giving arbitrary power to Congress and the Federal government, Greg. We have argued these points with you before, have given quotes of the relevant Papers, provided documentation from the highest sources, all in an effort to educate you on the Constitution and still you insist that your progressive ideas stand above it all.

    You may find it a grand idea to pervert the Constitution to mean whatever it is you want it to mean, all so that your “great ideas”, and those of the politicians you support, can find their way into law, but that doesn’t make you right. Or just. Tyranny by majority rule is still tyranny, no matter how well you try to dress it up.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>