Five months ahead of the presidential election, the Democratic Party is already losing seats to Republicans, as a growing number of elected officials are changing parties over issues like the right to life, the definition of marriage, and the Obama administration’s mandate that religious institutions cover abortion-inducing drugs in their health care plans.
Wednesday afternoon, seven local office-holders from three Mississippi counties announced they had voted with their feet.
Each official had different reasons, but Leake County Sheriff Greg Waggoner “specifically said when [Obama] came out in favor of gay ‘marriage,’ that was the last straw,” Brett Kittredge, communications director of the Mississippi Republican Party, told LifeSiteNews.com.
“I’m a Christian, and my first allegiance is to Jesus Christ,” Sheriff Waggoner said. “God established marriage, and He established it between a man and a woman. Those are my beliefs. The Republican Party reflects my beliefs.”
... In April, Rick Murphrey, the mayor of Kings Mountain in North Carolina and a lifelong Democrat, changed party registration to the GOP based in part on the state’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex “marriage.” Governor Bev Perdue, a Democrat, opposed Amendment One. Murphrey said that “is one of the things” he and his wife “evaluated in our decision.”
“We believe in the marriage of one man and one woman,” Murphrey said. “That is something we believe in strongly.”
16 Comments
One does not "believe" that marriage is the union of a man and a woman; that's liberal-speak. That's like saying, "I believe that a man is a person who has a penis and a woman is a person who has a vagina" Really, is that what you "believe?" No, this is not a matter of opinion/belief, so we need not use words of opinion when discussing them.
So, can we please frame the faux issue about marriage without liberal semantics games? Marriage "is" the union of a man and a woman; has been that way since the beginning of civilization. It's impossible for two people of the same sex to form a marriage, because marriage is the union of opposite sexes. Same-sex "marriage" is a contradiction in terms. It's nonsensical.
Just as I don't see any reason to change the definition of man and woman, I don't see any reason to change the definition of marriage from the union of a man and a woman.
Fact is that virtually all of the children that are up for adoption were conceived by straight couples (married or not) and abandoned. These straight people DID NOT WANT these kids. Then when a gay couple who actually make a conscious decision that they are emotionally and financially capable of being parents comes along, they are the evil ones trying to ruin the children’s lives (and “traditional” marriage to boot)? The gay couple who goes through extensive vetting of their psychological, financial and criminal profiles to ensure that they are good candidates? The gay couple who lets social workers into their home to inspect it and interview family and friends? THEY are the bad ones?
Yes poster #2 they are the bad ones. They wish to sabatage the mother and father arrangement. They could have married opposite sex partners and shown unconditional love for these children by providing them with a mother and a father.
They chose to put the greedy sexual lusts ahead of children. Don't let them adopt and reward them for this selfish choice.
My only hope is that these socially conservative Democrats do not taint the GOP with their fiscally liberal policies.
the last thing we need is another center-left pary.
Zack:
I have good news and bad news for you.
Bad: I have been a socially conservative Democrat my whole life. Until today. Like those good Christian folks cited in this article, the Democrats' push for gay marriage is the last straw for me. As of today, I officially remove myself from being a registered Democrat.
Good: I will not be joining the GOP. I do not share their pro-corporate fiscal views and I cannot in good conscience join that party either. So I am independent.
The sad part is that there is not one single political party in the USA that represents people like me: fiscally populist (not liberal but not pro-corporate either) and culturally traditional/socially conservative. I am without a political party (even a small third-party). Very sad.
@Orthodox Jew
I don't mean that to be offensive...I'm just not fond of people who are conservative in one area but liberal in another.
I want a Conservative.
Zach,
Oops. Try Mitt Romney. He will be whatever you desire.
Independents are the largest segment of the population and, thanks to the blatant anti-Christian ideology of the Democrat part, is the fastest growing segment of the population. Same-gender marriage killed the Kerry campaign and it will be an added dimension to the collapse of the Obama campaign.
Yes, I am an independent. And I don't like Barack Obama or Mitt Romney!
Obama changes his mind (reverses, again) regarding civil marriage, and he quotes Jesus as saying: "Treat others the way you would want to be treated." (in an ABC network interview)
What translation is that taken from?
I looked at 31 translations, and didn't find one translation exactly matching Obama's quotation. In none of those translations is it about how 'you WANT to be treated'. It is always an exact reciprocity of action: You do - they do the same. Obama chose a translation with the word 'treat', rather than 'do'. The closest translation is the Contemporary English Version.
But, how is this verse taken from the Gospel book of Luke chapter 6:31 or Mathew 7:12, related to civil marriage?
Obama was certainly discussing civil marriage and not a secret ritual in some church, because the ABC network said Obama said marriage laws should be left to the individual States, but didn't specify if that meant at the Federal level, which Obama administrates.
How does doing unto others, etc., the Golden Rule in any Biblical form, relate to civil marriage? It doesn't.
Do we let others marry a person of the same sex, just like we would want them to allow us to marry a person of the same sex?
Do we let others marry a person of the opposite sex as we would like them to let us marry a person of the opposite sex? I mean, that's exactly what Obama suggested we should go by, according to Jesus' saying, in any translation.
Obama is discussing the matter of civil marriage as if the relationship of an opposite-sex couple were the same as the relationship of a same-sex couple, but it isn't. He mentions 4 attributes of friendship which he affirms that he 'thinks' they should be ABLE to marry: incredibly committed - monogamous - raising kids - those in the military fighting on HIS behalf who feel constrained because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage. Obama presents his personal opinion, yet acting as The President.
Somehow we went at best from allowing other people what we'd like for ourselves, twisted into a civil matter in which same-sex couples are ABLE (licensed) to marry.
Later, i will show Obama takes this saying of Jesus out of context. For now, look down the chapter.
Mathew 7:15,16: 'Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits.'
OrthodoxJew: Logically, therefore you will perhaps need to decide who you will NOT vote for, rather than who you will vote for; or, of course, not vote at all - which would be a terrible waste if Obama were to win. Vote nObama, like i will. I am pro-Gingrich.
He is also voting nObama.
Little Man:
I live in NY, so my vote will have no impact on who wins the presidency. Obama will carry NY regardless.
So the question is: is a Romney vote truly a protest against Obama? I think it is not. Romney was proudly pro-abortion for virtually his entire life and he helped the homosexual lobby in MA advance their agenda. Heck, he was the first governor in the USA to sign gay marriage into law!
Romney is Obama-lite who happens to be a lot richer and even more pampered and privileged. Romney stands for nothing, except easing the financial burdens of big corporations.
I am either staying home or voting for Rick Santorum if my county allows a write-in vote.
GZeus: The question is whether we can vote on adoption of children by same-sex unmarried couples.
Or is it something we don't have a right to vote on in each State? If we don't have a right to vote on it, can we pass a State constitutional amendment to then have the right to vote on it?
You can blame 'straight' people for bringing these children into the world. Do you understand why? Because same-sex couples are infertile. How convenient to blame the type of persons who are the only ones who can possibly bring children into the world (as a couple). By elimination, they are the problem. But you don't just blame the 'straights' who are irresponsible as to their children. You blame the entire 'straight' social class, a class you invented and no one knows who is part of it and who isn't.
Yes, orphans or abandoned children, and aborted fetuses in medical trash cans are indeed a result of irresponsible acts and man-woman fertility. That makes same-sex couples look completely innocent. Guess what,... it also makes same-sex friendships (couples) look completely innocent.
You are starting from a chaotic situation for an orphan, specially if too old to have chances of adoption, and then of course 'anyone', even a single parent will be welcomed to give them a home. The question is what type of couple or single person would have first choice?
Since who you call 'straight' couples are also who you call the culprits, are you saying therefore 'non-straight' couples should have first choice on who to adopt? Why?
What distinguishes a 'straight' aunt and a niece from a 'non-straight' couple, in terms of adoption priority? Nothing. So, your rationale and blame is nothing more than your personal preference and semantics. It is not objective. You define only two categories for adoption 'straight' and therefore 'non-straight'. That's not only simplistic. It is also self-serving.
Hi, OrthodoxJew: Thanks for your reply. I passed by this comment thread to check if my own writing makes sense to me the day after
I too would vote all alone for the candidate of my choice (i don't have to be on the 'winning team' - all votes count even just to show some people dissent, encouraging others to also stand alone). Lots of people have a foot-ball type mentality in politics. It's a game for them, playing with our future.
Yes, it's a matter of conscience to vote for a liar like Romney. I don't like it, but Obama is not only a liar. he actually believes his own lies and that's why he is much MORE dangerous. Sometimes we have to make a quantitative decision.
Regarding abortion, i know what you mean. But put objectively, we all would accept abortion in some limited cases. That's how the liberals who care only about themselves take the advantage. No one can really defend they are totally against abortion. The real question is how and by whom the decision to abort a fetus is made. Does it include the entire family of the mother?
Obama puts all the burden of guilt and blame on the mother of the fetus, and like Pilate 'washes his hands' on the issue (if i may quote from the New testament).
But... there's also hardly anyone who would be completely pro-abortion. All we need to ask is whether a fetus stuck half-way out the birth canal is 1/2 a citizen, half tumor
Or, is there any difference between a fetus 1 second before birth, and the creature it turns into one second after birth? Who would claim there's such a fundamental difference such that the death penalty can be imposed on 'it' 1 minute before birth, and carried out perfectly legal. What is the psychological effect on doctors involved in the process?
Instead, people operate judging by association, not the actual facts and logic. God save America, if that continues. It is really a matter of quality education, i think. Lots of people think they are educated, but they are not - they are brain-washed which is different. They have been trained to follow the 'leader', no questions asked.
Thanks for all your comments. I always read them, and readily skip those of a few user names.
OrthodoxJew (and other skeptical marriage supporters) please see these two articles that were once shared by the NOM Blog.
http://www.nomblog.com/16965/
http://www.nomblog.com/16280/
I'd also add that it was revealed that Romney's PAC donated $10,000 to NOM for Prop 8.
Romney is strongly pro-marriage, and always has been.
He may not have a perfect record, but he is a marriage supporter.
The differences between a Romney and Obama administration-- as far as marriage is concerned-- are profound.