Dealergate: Stats demonstrate that Chrysler Dealers likely shuttered on a partisan basis

Dealergate: Stats demonstrate that Chrysler Dealers likely shuttered on a partisan basis

Shared via AddThis

Interesting. Wonder if there is any truth to this.

Controversial topic: gay marriage

There are some topics I try to stay away from simply for the sake of avoiding argument.  One such topic has been gay marriage.  I’m very much a “live and let live” kind of person, much to the chagrin of my Southern Baptist mother and Church of Christ father.  While I am quite the fiscal conservative, elsewise I consider myself to be a moderate libertarian.  Do what you want, as long as it doesn’t affect me.  But I’m getting off topic.

I’ve always struggled with the words to express how I feel about gay marriage and how it relates to government and religious preferences.  Massachusetts blogger Bruce has managed to find the words.  In response to this comment on a recent blog entry of his:

As for gay marriage, Bruce, I will never ever understand your support of it. If we actually had the conservative government we want and need, it would never even see the light of day. The reason? It’s wrong, pure and simple. Some thing are what they are, regardless of what your personal opinion is. Additionally, what you are missing is that this is only a spearhead for a counterculture movement that has NO intention of stoping at only making marriage for gays and lesbians legal. How you (collectively) can’t see that, is beyond my comprehension, given what I know of your ideals, Bruce, and others on this site.

Bruce responded with this:

My position has always been that IF the government insists on being in the business of marrying people, than they should make such a contract available to any two people who want to pony up the license fees and enter into such a contract with the State.

In my mind, that of a limited government conservative, the less the government interferes in our lives the better.

I’ll always side with the rights of the individual over the power of the government. When we let the government define, regulate, and ENFORCE our personal morals and morally-driven behavioral choices, we’re f***ed.

Also, I’ll never understand the argument about preserving the “sanctity” of civil marriage. There’s no “sanctity” to it.

If a man and a woman want to get married by the government, they do not need to (a) declare, under oath, their love to one another, (b) promise to cohabitate, (c) pledge to reproduce and raise a family, or (d) swear fidelity to one another.

The only thing “sacred” and non-negotiable is the license fee.

If this same couple wants to enter into the covenant of Holy Matrimony through the place of worship of their choosing, it’s simply NONE of the government’s business.

The bill passed by the NH senate essentially tells the State they can’t do sh*t to affect how any church or religion chooses to handle this issue.

Would you have the government placing restrictions and limitations on religious institutions and their ceremonial rites and observances?

This.  This is my take on gay marriage.  My socially conservative family and friends might not like it, but it is what it is (I hate that phrase).  Those are the words I have always searched for when this topic arose.  Thanks, Bruce.