Well, there goes another slice of cherished memorabilia down the drain:
The actor best known for playing the TV character Gomer Pyle in the 1960s has married his male partner of 38 years.Hawaii News Now (http://bit.ly/14tFM3U) reports Jim Nabors and his partner, Stan Cadwallader, traveled from their Honolulu home to Seattle to be married Jan. 15.Gay marriage became legal in Washington state last month.The 82-year-old Nabors says you’ve got to solidify something when you’ve been together as long as they have.They couple met in 1975 when Cadwallader was a Honolulu firefighter. Cadwallader is 64.
This is one of many areas where I differ from the GOP – I could care less if you are inclined to love a person of your own sex. I do oppose this lifestyle being promoted and pushed on religious people who see it as a sin by a government trying to replace God’s law. I am all for civil unions but I am against gay “marriage” because “marriage” is a religious concept, not a governmental one.
My money was on Don Knotts – but that hound dog was married three times…even dressed as Ralph Furley, he evidently was quite the skirt chaser.
The Rio Norte Line 
Actually, I know several gay guys in CA who would be Republicans if only the party would let them. I understand completely that many sincerely religious people cannot accept gays marrying, but by ostracising them we guarantee that they will be Democrats. I suggest we reserve marriage for heterosexuals, but introduce pairage for same sex couples. Pairage would be like a civil union and would not have to be sanctioned by any religion/church, but it would give legitimacy to gay unions.
I agree with Yeti that the gay lifestyle should not be promoted, but it should not be attacked either. I’d like to see more of a live and let live attitude from Republicans, I’ve known several gays in my life who wished they had been born straight, but just never felt an attraction to the opposite sex. I even knew one gay man who claimed never to have had sex because his Catholic faith did not allow gay sex. At the end of our lives I believe we will stand before God and be judged for our actions, but not the actions of others. By accepting that some of us are born gay and trying to show them compassion I think we move closer to God.
There is a new group (called GOProud) of Republican gays and their newsletters call on Obama to cut spending, reduce the debt, etc. There are many issues that readers of this blog and GOProud would agree on. If the GOP wants to win the White House again we must build coalitions among groups that share our politicsl views. Is it really necessary they share every one of our religious beliefs as well?
Trapped the GOP here has Gay and Lesbian members … ????
I’m surprised that in Progressive Calif…the Bay Area no less has a…..Problem.
Many Gays I know here don’t believe rank and file Republicans would welcome them to the Republican Party. I’ve been told by gays that I’m not a “real Republican” because, like Kells, I have several gay friends. That’s why I was glad to see GOProud start up, before them the Lincoln Repubs were the only group I knew of recruiting gays out of the Dem Party.
Well, you confirm my experiences as it sounds as if the problem at this point lies with the gays….who… “don’t believe rank and file Republicans would welcome them..” or who’ve told YOU…” I’ve been told by gays that I’m not a “real Republican” “……..
Most of us have several Gay Friends today BTW.
my two cents, for what it is worth: http://daksbays.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/marriage-or-civil-union/
Yes, yes; marriage is a rite. Civil unions are a right………Gosh, I love Jim Nabors’ voice! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-T4g4kltGQ
I’m in agreement with you, big fuzzy guy. I could care less what people do on their own time, with their own dime as long as they leave other people alone to feel and act as their consciences dictate.
But the In Your Face, you must celebrate Us or you are Evil has got to stop, and is where gays are getting a lot of pushback from conservatives.
This is all a part of the Take-down of the Culture . Been planned and executed for well over 100 years.
F. Engels…”The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State” 1884…… Marxist plan to discredit and subvert society from with in by breaking down Family bonds, and doing away with any Private Property.
(1) Jim Nabors et al … are part of the First…..(2) “You didn’t Build That” are part of the Second……as is the talk about the evils of Capitalism and Profit.
Antonio Gramsci … is another one to tell people to research….HE is the one who modeled 19th Century Marxism to the 20th Century….. Alinski…..Herbert Marcuse ( and his student Angela Davis etc), …on up to Ayers and Cloward and Piven have basically followed and fine-tuned his subversion of Society’s institutions from within…..which has blossomed into multiple Professors in virtually all Universities.
Basically…..this(Nabors) is NOT merely about personal choice….it is about discrediting Social Institutions…….Nabors is a “useful Dupe”…….Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett, Joel Rogers et al are ..”Fellow Travelers”……THEIR handlers are those behind the Foundation’s Big Money Centers ( Ford Foundation, Tides Foundation and etc)….. and the Boards of Directors of the Big Money Center Banks.
I tell you,Don, I have a lot of gay conservative friends and a lot of gay liberal friends.I truly believe that their agenda is not so much of subverting or breaking down society; I think it is just that they want fairness in the laws.
I have a friend who passed away from AIDS. His partner of several years was not permitted into the hospital room. I’m sorry, but I just find that to be bullcrap!
I suppose I feel as if we should not be the moral police. Trapped and Sally put it quite succinctly.
I covered that Kells …. Useful Dupes …. those that perpetuate the Agenda without being aware they are doing so …. I didn’t invent the Term ….. I believe Lenin did ( and I don’t mean John ).
I have SEVERAL friends ( including one I knew from 2 years old ) die from aids …. but I don’t suppose that matters because I am not “Down with the Politically Correct attitude current guided by the The Press, Liberal Politicians and Entertainment industry” So be it… I am also Intimately “Familior” with the Health Care industry … on a Daily Basis since 1984…..And I have never heard of a case of this happening including SF or here in Texas…..so I find THAT to be BullCrap !
Fairness in the Law wrt financial issues and other legal issues is NOT the same thing as Trying to define what has been Traditionally the Family unit. And that definition has its origin, at least partly, in Biology ….
The interesting thing is that the DEMAND by the “Gay” community that society bow to their beliefs is not seen for what it is…..Both what I highlighted above….and especially their OWN kind of “Moralizing” toward those who DON’T agree with their Demand that we now adhere to THEIR definition of marriage. And if we don’t agree we are Demonized with the implication of us being “Less Evolved” than those who do support the Gay Agenda. It is the minority dictating Morality to the Majority .
Simply put… it is a Type of Liberal HateSpeech …. And I stand so served.
Most of my gay friends would be happy with civil unions. I get it. I get where you’re coming from too. I wonder, though, if it is the gays that are behind it……
You may find it surprising but I knew ( not in the Bibical sense ) Both Harry Hay and John and considered H Milk a friend.
We need to ELIMINATE the IRS and therefore all therefore all the tax benefits of “marriage”, and then allow the gov’t to call ALL pairings (male/female, male/male or female/female) civil unions. Members of civil unions should be allowed to dedicate their “partners” as recipients of anything spouses are allowed to get under today’s rules. Then any church or religion could call any civil unions that they approve of marriages, and not recognize any that they don’t want to approve.
There is a ” Marriage Penalty”…..NOT a tax benefit.
It’s been an issue for quite a while.
And Anyone can deem or dedicate Anyone else rights to Property and Financial assets already….Everyone has the SAME RIGHTS under the Constitution………….And we don’t need to allow or grant the Gov’t any more power than it described in the Constitution….that has been our Problem.
But….I agree 100% Plus about abolishing the IRS….esp since the Constitution allows for Apportioned Taxes, NOT progressive Taxes…..and a Progressive Income tax is one of Classic Marxist’s 10 “Pillars”.
I don’t think same sex partners are allowed to get survivor benefits from social security and such. I don’t have a problem with the laws being changed to allow that.
I totally agree that the govt doesn’t need any “more” power, but if we remove a shit load of their power (IRS) and add something as small as this I feel it is a step in the right direction.
I feel that survivor Benefits from Soc Sec should be the perogative of the Original account holder….so yes I gree with you.
The IRS should be abolished thuogh … and a Minimal and Reasonacle Flat Tax instituted….or A Nat’l Sales Tax…with a CAP only changable by 75% vote in the Senate and House and UNTOUCHABLE by the Executive OR Judiciary !
sounds good to me.
Yeppers. The GOP needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Do not get me wrong; I do not adhere to gay marriage for religious reasons. That said, I feel that we cannot be the judge on these social matters. B. will now come in and bitch me out…..
@ Dan, I did not make up the story of my friend. However; I do have a made-up purple dinosaur friend.
If Ur refering to me and not Dapper-Dan-the-DiverMan…..I also wasn’t “making-up”…H Milk was one of my neighbors.
If you’re homosexual, so be it, go in peace. I don’t care one way or the other, but please – no more television announcements, no more “news” releases, no more public declarations of your homosexual love life. No one cares except your friends and your family.
High 5 Florida …well well said !……’Go in Peace’….but avoid bubble-gum and/or Blue ice cream,
( from personal experience .. ;- (( . )
Just a short thought. At the beginning of our nation, Marriages were carried out in the Church not the Courthouse. As we moved west our government stepped in and started performing civil unions until the couples could finalize the union with a union sanctioned by the circuit preacher. At that time the definition of a marriage was instituted in laws a between a man and woman. When I was growing up a union performed by the justice of the peace or other civil authority was still called a civil union even tough the County License was called a ‘Marriage License’. Now the government wants to change that definition of ‘Marriage’ to a union of two people regardless of sex. And this definition will be enforced on the Religious Community regardless of what the progressives say; unless they are specifically exempted. You just have to look at the Contraception issue with the health care law to see this will happen.
Creating a legal term similar to Civil Union is necessary to solve this argument. Marriage is a religious rite not a civil right.
The next argument is going to be polygamy, It is getting closer as the Muslim population grows.