Last night at the CPAC banquet Sen. DeMint strongly spoke out in defense of marriage:
"...We cannot hope to limit government if we do not stand up for our core civil society institutions, beginning with marriage. Marriage is the foundation of America’s cultural stability and economic prosperity and the courts have no business overruling the people’s democratic decisions in the states. People can love whom they want and live the way they choose, but no one is entitled to redefine a foundational institution of civil society that has existed for centuries.
In two weeks, the Supreme Court will hear arguments against the right of states to protect marriage and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Judicial activism is to blame for the Court even considering these cases. The Supreme Court should uphold these laws. It must recognize that the American people should make these decisions, not unelected judges.
We are told that the social issues divide Americans and that we should stop talking about them. We cannot.
Economic and social conservatism go hand-in-hand. They’re natural allies. Strong families, churches and voluntary institutions build strong character and economic independence. And government must always remember we are endowed by our creator with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is true for you and me, and it is true for the unborn. When government understands its limited role, it can be smaller, people can be freer and our economy can create prosperity for everyone. And when government grows larger with programs like Obamacare that consume so much of our lives, it tramples on both economic freedom and religious liberty. This has united conservatives of all stripes to fight to end Obamacare so we can all be free to live our own lives."
You can read the rest of the speech and watch the video here.

"...We cannot hope to limit government if we do not stand up for our core civil society institutions, beginning with marriage. Marriage is the foundation of America’s cultural stability and economic prosperity and the courts have no business overruling the people’s democratic decisions in the states. People can love whom they want and live the way they choose, but no one is entitled to redefine a foundational institution of civil society that has existed for centuries.









14 Comments
I prefer Bob Portman's approach to conservatism:
"We conservatives believe in personal liberty and minimal government interference in people’s lives. We also consider the family unit to be the fundamental building block of society. We should encourage people to make long-term commitments to each other and build families, so as to foster strong, stable communities and promote personal responsibility."
"We should encourage people to make long-term commitments to each other and build families"
Yet, by your very nature, you are incapable of building families within the construct of your depravity. At best the only thing you can manage is the creation of willing victims who affirm the appropriateness of the crimes perpetrated against them.
The Emperor has no clothes.
Amen, Jim. Conservative values are essential to small government.
I would add that small government only involves itself in relationships that are pertinent to pressing state interests (e.g. conjugal unions). Small government exists when the state doesn't dabble into metaphysical/religious areas, such as getting in the business of rewarding two people for being "in love."
Correction: "social conservative values..."
Marriage should be limited to only couples capable of procreating, and actually doing it. That's what marriage is all about. If you can't or don't produce a kid, you don't need marriage.
Right?
Exceptions do not invalidate the rule, Robert.
Son of Adam. The thing it sin,t a rule. There is no legal requirement to have children. It is not a rule. It might be a rule of thumb but luckily that has no place in law.
There is no legal requirement to be in love, either. But that doesn't stop you from using that as a reason to be married.
Dr. Ben Carson got it right
"create division among the people, encourage a culture of ridicule for basic morality and the principles that made and sustained the country, undermine the financial stability of the nation, and weaken and destroy the military. It appears coincidentally that those are the very things that are happening right now."
Well I would hope we can all agree that children are best raised by a married couple, instead of being raised outside of wedlock.
— out of wedlock
: with the natural parents not legally married to each other
No same sex couple can both be the natural parents of a child.
@Robert
"Well I would hope we can all agree that children are best raised by a married couple, instead of being raised outside of wedlock."
I can agree that two people raising the child is better than one. But a Married mother and father(Married couple) is the best environment for a child.
Marc Paul said: "There is no legal requirement to have children. It is not a rule. It might be a rule of thumb but luckily that has no place in law."
No gay requirement for those who'd SSM. No such requirement is proposed by those who demand that gay is the basis upon which to revise eligibility. No exceptions? No requirement whatsoever.
Meanwhile there is the sexual basis for the marital presumption (i.e. a legal default) of paternity. This is key to consent to enter the type of relationship for which marital status is enacted in our laws.
What is the sexual basis for the gay requirement -- or rather the non-requirement -- for those who'd SSM? Nada, and so, according to the your thinking Marc Paul, there is no same-sex sexual basis upon which to revise the marriage law on eligibility.
You stand in open contradiction of yourself.
It is important to keep repeating that strong, biologically related families are the best defense against an overambitious state.
It is no secret that the left has been attacking the only marital relationship that makes biological and social sense. As families break down (divorce, out of wedlock childbearing, genderless marriage and the other "marriages" that will follow it will require an ever more powerful state to intervene "on behalf of the children."
Adoption is ok too, yet today adoption includes the products of purchased sperm and/or eggs implanted in a surrogate and delivered to two men who "adopt" said child. Advanced reproductive technology facilitates these bizarre arrangements and will lead ultimately to the elimination of the surrogate and the use of test tubes. Could be happening already.