Supporting Traditional Marriage and a New President

May 12, 2012 from VOA News…

Romney Praised for Supporting Traditional Marriage

Mitt Romney, the presumptive U.S. Republican presidential nominee, drew rousing support Saturday at a conservative Christian university as he defended traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

Romney, often viewed with skepticism by the most conservative ranks of the Republican party, stressed the importance of personal faith and commitment to families in a speech to the graduating class at Liberty University in the eastern U.S. state of Virginia.

But days after U.S. President Barack Obama declared his support for legalizing same-sex marriages, Romney won his biggest cheers from the crowd of more than 30,000 with brief comments supporting heterosexual marriage.

“Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman.”

Obama’s new support for same-gender marriage is controversial in the U.S., where six states and the District of Columbia have laws permitting men to marry each other and women to wed other women. But 31 states have banned it, including North Carolina in a referendum earlier this month. Nonetheless, surveys show that nationwide the acceptance of gay marriages is growing and that a slight majority favors it.

But the surveys also show there is a split politically, with Democrats, like Obama, lending widespread support for same-sex marriages, and Republicans mostly opposed. Younger voters also are more accepting, with older voters less so.

from MoreWhat.com:

What is the strongest case for electing Mitt Romney for President in 2012? The simplest answer: He is not Barack Obama. The controversy surrounding Mitt Romney’s conservative credentials requires a longer explanation. Given the field of Republican candidates in the 2008 presidential campaign my choice was enthusiastically Mitt Romney. While many favored Fred Thompson I chose Romney because Thompson’s ‘heart’ wasn’t in it. Others had too much baggage and even though Romney was not without fault our nation desperately needed an individual with his skill set and intangibles.

I did not support Romney in 2012 because of the way he caved to the GOP allowing McCain to be the nominee. That said and the fact that Bachmann and Santorum withdrew and the new Newt is not the old Newt I once again enthusiastically throw my support behind Mitt Romney. He still has the skill set we need. And if he had made the argument that Romneycare was a matter of giving Taxachusetts what they wanted I would be supporting him without reservations. Of course it didn’t help that argument when revelations were reported that ‘his people’ helped author Obamacare.

So now you have your arrows ready to impale me from afar. Not so fast. Provide me with a candidate who is not without fault. The problem is finding one who’s faults are manageable. Mitt Romney has an impressive resume’ of success that dwarfs any failures. Barack Obama cannot make the same claim.

In the report offered at the top of this post that fact is clear. On one of the most basic of traditional American values Mitt Romney stands strong while Barack Obama once again changes his position in light of what he sees as necessary to attract part of his leftist base.

Mitt Romney supports the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. Barack Obama has gone on record as opposing that value. With a sustained majority in the House of Representatives and a new conservative majority in the Senate a Mitt Romney presidency will return America to its former self. A land of prosperity where life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is available to any American willing to do the hard work to make it happen.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

  • Pingback: Blog @ MoreWhat.com » Supporting Traditional Marriage and a New President()

  • I was told by a 20-something recently that supporting gay marriage is the “modern” and enlightened way of looking at things. This implies that I am old-fashioned and unenlightened.

    I think this person will change once they give birth to kids of their own, and they have someone greater than themselves that they are sworn to protect. At least I pray that they do change in that way.

  • W. C. Taqiyya

    “Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman”. Oh, are you sure? While this simple statement certainly means something, that meaning is applied almost exclusively in the mind of the individual listener. You hear a platitude and make it yours. But, you forget that even a ‘marriage’ between one man and one woman is like a Christmas tree adorned with many ornaments. Some of those ornaments are ecclesiastic, some derive from pagan rituals and others have been added by judicial and legislative decree. I’m sure the Liberty University audience would have cheered if Romney called marriage a sacred, religious bond. As would many readers here. But if you ask a priest, minister or rabbi to marry you without a marriage ‘license’ from the State, you will be disappointed to discover that the religious part of marriage holds very little water in real life. So, unless you have Kennedy money and seek an annulment after several children and a dozen married years, the religious ornaments dangling from the marriage tree are just gathering dust. Put another way, they are merely ornamental. Even the pagan ritual of rice throwing has been superseded by a contemporary fear of lawsuits. It is with the judicial and legislative decrees that we find the most potent ornaments. And it is in these decrees that marriage has been steadily perverted from a respected basic social building block to a means for unjust enrichment. This is not a new phenomena, Dickens wrote about the infamous chancery courts. The only thing that has changed is the volume. Less than one ‘traditional’ marriage in two survives the temptation to profit. In some jurisdictions it is less than 10%. Lawyers love it and if you think the court rulings in favor of same sex marriage are a fluke, you are dreaming. I could list a few of the recent famous cases of women marrying wealthy men, popping out a child or two and then cashing in. Some men have even played that game, witness Christie Brinkley. But of course it’s not just rich people, it’s everybody. When society turned traditional marriage into an ATM machine, the building block broke. So, you guys can complain and weep about how the homosexuals and communists wanna destroy traditional marriage all you want. But children, it is dead and we killed it. Don’t be confused, the homosexuals are kinda like the human version of circling vultures, they are carrion eaters. Consider this, if marriage was still a relevant institution, gays would not be a factor. They would not be a factor because society would know that marriage means procreation, if it means anything. So, the only thing left for those confused narcissists is a legal construct from which some enterprising ‘stay at home caregiver’ partner can milk an annuity. Still think it’s important to pass a law defining marriage? OK, why don’t you pass another law saying marriage isn’t dead? Then, pass a law making it illegal for so many people to be so stupid. I feel better already. I wonder who is more quixotic, the gays in thinking they have a valued right to engage in an empty ritual or the traditionalists who fervently believe in a version of marriage that last existed on black and white TV? How do you define ‘traditional’ marriage again please? Sorry to wake you from your dreams people, but reality is calling.

    • Typical straw man argument. Set up an untrue construct, and decimate it. You say traditional marriage is a joke, dead already, and gay marriage is a natural corollary of that outcome.

      WRONG. But nice try….

      • W. C. Taqiyya

        My dear Opus, since I never said gay marriage is a natural anything as you falsely claim, who is really setting up a straw man argument? And if you see an endorsement of gay marriage in my comment, it is purely a figment of your imagination. As for jokes, I’m afraid the only joke is your appalling lack of reading comprehension. Please read my comment carefully so you may better understand that the destruction of the basic building block of society is not a laughing matter. While it is no joke, it is certainly true that traditional marriage is a dead duck. Do you ever explore the world around you Opus? Do you know how many children are born out of wedlock? Do you understand that single parent households are the norm and that those mothers (mostly) are both heroes and victims? Yes indeed, according to our society, the mass media, the schools and politicians, single mothers are awesome. And you still want to pretend that marriage isn’t dead? Must I also inform you that children of broken or never formed homes are much less likely to succeed in life? You know, failure as in substance abuse, criminal activity and yes, getting pregnant and having kids while single and incredibly ignorant. The children who survive the gauntlet of abortion and dumpster disposal, which is further proof of my argument, will very likely repeat the errors of their mothers. For them, single motherhood is not just normal, it is subsidized. Hooray! But marriage is a robust institution and the death of marriage is a straw man argument? Really? That’s OK Opus, sweet dreams baby.

        • W.C., your post presents a reasonable argument. When you are rebutted by something like “Typical straw man argument”, it’s usually an indication that the person responding is short on an educated response or substance and accordingly, resorts to what they have available to them, which is usually, as proven with Opus, no argument at all. The only logical objective seems to be to throw you off message. And in their desperate attempt to pretend they’ve commander the dialog, they generally end their distraction with something like, “nice try”.

    • W. C. Taqiyya said:

      ‘But, you forget that even a ‘marriage’ between one man and one woman is like a Christmas tree adorned with many ornaments. Some of those ornaments are ecclesiastic, some derive from pagan rituals and others have been added by judicial and legislative decree.’

      In terms of the founding of America I suggest you review the history of marriage ‘between one man and one woman’ among the founders and others in this country’s first two centuries. In what has been named by a so-called journalist, the ‘greatest generation’ of which my parents were members was the first group to experience a decline in marriage and an increase in divorce in America. The point is, while America was on top of the world marriage as well as other aspects of civil society were alive and well. The advent of the hippie generation (baby boomers) gave us ‘if it feels good do it’. Thus began the decline of American society the left still embraces. The key proof in that concept is abortion on demand.

      Some have stated that traditional marriage began as a government or ruling class arrangement to keep track of families and their descendents, property, etc. At the very least it evolved into a formal practice with positive effects on society. However, I seem to remember biblical references to this notion and practice. The point is marriage between one man and one woman has provided a stable environment for modern as well as former societies. It strengthens communities and all we hold as relevant. Your criticism of it and recent failures adds nothing to any serious attempt to cure what ails the human condition in this respect.

      Those who respect and admire the traditions that give strength and support to civil society do more for the human condition than those who do nothing but point to failure.

      W. C. Taqiyya said:

      ‘Consider this, if marriage was still a relevant institution, gays would not be a factor.’

      I end with this comment. The quote above makes absolutely no sense. Number one, they are not ‘gay’ they are homosexual, bisexual or beyond all that. LGBT and whatever they added lately is nothing more than a political agenda. That the institution of marriage is still relevant explains their attempt to hijack it for their own benefit. Like all other liberal strategies they want something for nothing.

      What should be an obvious and understandable benefit of marriage between one man and one woman is procreation. The simple fact that one person of each sex is required for the continued existence of the human species should be a no brainer. It’s additional benefit of providing a stable environment for civil society is proof of its lasting merit. That we have not until recently addressed its importance is in no way an argument to the contrary.

      I don’t know about your experience but in my family only those since the sixties have engaged in the act known as divorce, your’s truly included. It is a trend that has long been in need of repair. To abandon the notion of traditional marriage is to accept failures of the past.

      W. C. Taqiyya, I believe I understand most of your points. It is simply that you have a more negative impression of what is and what will be.

      • W. C. Taqiyya

        Thank you for your reply Mr. Matthews. I substantially agree that the most serious degradation of marriage occurred as you suggest. As you say, marriage has been the building block of society forever. Procreation being the only way to continue the species and marriage being the only practical and most emotionally secure relationship in which to birth and nurture children. Just so.

        However, I do not criticize traditional marriage or it’s value in society. Nor am I suggesting it should be abandoned. My primary point is that marriage, in the sense that you and I agree it is and should be, is no more than the exception to the rule, here and now. Our society has abandoned marriage, not I. The reality, as illustrated above and proved by abortion on demand and no-fault divorce, is that marriage, as an effective institution, is mostly destroyed. It has been perverted into an ATM machine and a vehicle for the parasitic political expressions of special interest groups. Like the homosexual lobby and the bar association. I do not countenance the invalid platitudes of politicians who promise to save marriage when their ability to do so is nil. Nor do I subscribe to the idea that all is well because several couples down the street have not yet divorced. All is not well. Passing a law saying so will not make it well and that is my point. Sorry, I have no ready solution. But, it’s fairly clear many people still don’t even know how deep and extensive the problem is. For that, I hope to provoke some thoughts and maybe somebody smarter than me can suggest a fix.

        I believe a return to real personal responsibility and accountability may be the key to fixing many of our broken institutions. For too many for too long, legislative and judicial activity has greased the skids into unsustainable mortgages, school loans and credit debt. Currently, those bad decisions are being reinforced with interest fixes and forgiveness plans. This only reinforces irresponsible and unaccountable behavior. For married couples, it’s ‘no-fault’ divorce coupled with numerous financial incentives to split up. It’s not about your family, my family or Opus’s family, it’s a social malaise. Maybe we can get rid of no-fault divorce for starters. And, since bankruptcy and insolvency rules are still on the books and enable people to get a fresh start, maybe we should resurrect them. A bit more painful than the political band-aids we can’t pay for, but it would be fair and responsible. Thanks for commenting.

        • It is good to have a reasoned discussion. I salute your effort to do so. We may disagree on certain points but that is not the point. That we offer ideas to consider which may in fact lead to solutions to real problems is worthwhile. It is something that is largely ignored these days.

          Thanks for the commentary.

  • tinafreysd

    Many groups support this traditional view of marriage. Groups that advocate for maintaining this form of marriage include political groups, religious organizations and organized coalitions..

  • Pingback: Maggie’s Note Book | Grumpy Opinions()

  • This is of the most interesting discussions i have ever seen in a political race, remember 25 years ago inter racial marriages here frowned upon! I dont think the election will be won or lost on this point but I think we will hear a lot more about it….

  • Gisele

    A lot of people should be aware with this news and I think people should be familiar with this by that time.. Thanks for the news!

  • Crystal

    The Catholic Church has long promoted only traditional marriages. In 2008, after a California court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, Pope Benedict XVI..

    Read more: Groups That Support Traditional Marriage | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_7985270_groups-support-traditional-marriage.html#ixzz1uznUGFr2

  • GAY GAY GAY, no more to say, Obama is gay, hay hay!!!!!! We all knew that from the get go, BHO is Muslim, born in Kenya and is a Usurper. So what else is new? What a fake – his real BC has turned up – surprise surprise!
    What an outrage, Obama has no shame only wants to blame – ask him again he’ll tell you the same! NASTY TO THE BONE!

  • I hope you can update your blog and for sure, we will be happy to read it. Thanks that you shared.I love this link up; it’s always so much interesting,so thanks for hosting!

  • I think obama took advantage of the opportunity to make new followers and win another term

  • Duncan Matthews

    I may not be a big fan of Romney’s but I agree with him on this matter. Marriage is supposed to be between a male and a female. Call me old fashioned but that is just the way it is supposed to be.