 |
| State Rep. Cindy Gamrat, center, with State Rep. Gary Glenn, left, and former Congressman Kerry Bentivolio, right |
By Brandon Hall
(Email him at WestMiPolitics@Gmail.com)
Todd Courser came to the defense of fellow State Rep. Cindy Gamrat in a heated Facebook debate this week over gay marriage.
The fight started after Michigan Republican Party Ethnic Vice Chair Darwin Jiles chastised Gamrat's "un Christian" stance on gay marriage.
The back-and-forth is a great reminder that the GOP's position on the issue is far from monolithic, and a battle is beginning to rage between those committed to government banning gay marriage, and those wanting to get the government out of the marriage business altogether.
Jiles originally posted:
"Public Announcement:
It breaks my heart to discover none of our RNC Chairwoman candidates support the Republican Platform concerning Traditional Marriage. It clearly states Republicans are to SUPPORT Traditional Marriage. I am praying Cindy Gamrat will reconsider her unchristian stance on taking Government (Exempt from legally acknowledging GODS LAW concerning marriage) out of marriage. My heart dropped when I heard this. Did I join the right political party? I KNOW Judeo-Christian principles are correct! #Bible
Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin condemns any people - Proverbs 14:34"
He then edited his comments to change "un-Christian" into "libertarian." (President Reagan said libertarianism is the foundation of conservatism...)
Jiles blocked at least three people from Facebook after the post simply for disagreeing with him, and has come under heavy fire for doing that to many others in recent weeks.
 |
| MIGOP Ethnic Vice Chair Darwin Jiles |
Party activist Joan Fabiano backed Jiles, writing:
"What is refreshing about this thread is that apparently most people have removed Cindy from the pedestal they were convinced to put her on and now see she that she puts her pants on one leg at a time just like the rest of us. Fallible human beings make mistakes. And that percentage doubles for professional politicians!
However, one has to wonder what Cindy is willingly to compromise
for position. I hope nothing for her sake and all those who put their trust in Cindy and helped get Cindy elected. However, time will continue to tell.
Please consider this Cindy
Mark 8:36-37King James Version (KJV) For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?"
Gamrat defended herself, writing:
"I believe and have always believed in traditional marriage between one man and one women. I believe and support the entire Republican platform as I always have. But I also believe in limited government and that government should not be involved in my marriage or family."
Well known Agema supporter Isabelle Terry then claimed "actually... the bigger traditional marriage... the smaller the government. Less welfare, less foster kids, less poverty, ...etc. So there shouldn't be any fees with marriage licensing... as traditional marriage SAVES society money."
| State Rep. Todd Courser (Photo by Darlene Dowling Thompson) |
Fellow freshman Rep. Todd Courser went OFF, blasting Gamrat's critics, defending his fellow Rep, telling her attackers they deserved the "establishment hacks" who represent them.
"I am sure all of you pontificators know the history of when government got into the marriage business and why? Sad to say but with the way some of you treat your proven died in the wool blood splattered conservative champions you deserve the leftist establishment hacks you have representing you; a ridiculous thread here. Cindy has been a stalwart conservative champion both before her time in the house and now in the house; there are a lot of talking heads on this thread who are quick to open their mouths and attack her, but who are really slow to get into the ring and do the heavy lifting against the enemy. She is without a doubt one of the most conservative well placed advocates for liberty we have had in a long long time; she fights every damn day to push back on the establishment machine and contain the power and scope of government; her family have sacrificed greatly for the cause of liberty; not sure how many of you can make the same claim.
Talk is cheap and Facebook blabber is cheaper; she has been clearly a strong unequivocal traditional marriage advocate (one of the other candidates has not been so committed in her "commitment.") Cindy has been nothing short of a warrior for the cause of liberty and deserves the support and admiration of all who claim to be advocates for a more Conservative party and country. Those of you who rip on her, and those warriors like her, deserve the pathetic establishment hacks you get to represent you; you deserve them; she has run the race in a way that very few if any on this thread can claim; she is a rock solid fiscal and social conservative champion who is one of the finest leaders in the conservative movement ANYWHERE. She and her family deserves our praise, our prayers, our protection and our unending support. It is a ridiculous and laughable notion to say one cannot be both a traditional marriage advocate and also believe government has no role in the marriage business.
I am a little confused how you want expanding the power of government far beyond anything out Founder's envisioned while claiming to be small government conservatives? And yet some of you seem to be doing this while at the same moment espouse a return to the Founder's interpretation and limits on our government thru a strict reading of our Constitution? Now it's just my thoughts on this, so take it or don't but I don't think government got into the marriage business for the first 150 plus years of our nation's existence and marriage hasn't faired better since its involvement; the proper role of governmental involvement it is at the state level not the federal level; that being said it is an institution created by God and properly situated in the church. So feel free to pontificate on what is and is not the correct position for this, but to me the correct position is to return to our Founder's intent of the Constitution and get government out of having power over marriage and therefore get this secular governing body out of the position of being able to change the definition to suit it's newly expanding desire to shift our societal norms. The proper role of determining what is and is not a marriage belongs in the church drawn from God's word and not in the bureaucracies of government."
The government that governs least governs best, and those who live by the sword of government will surely die from it. The funny thing is, the pendulum of government is swinging towards mandating government sanctioned gay marriage...
Why wouldn't those who who oppose gay marriage want to "protect churches" from the "gay agenda" and get government out!? Pretty soon, if government stays involved and gay marriage is legalized nationwide via the Supreme Court, churches who refuse to perform gay marriages could lose tax breaks or face other devastating consequences.
Traditional marriage advocates who worship at the altar of government on the marriage issue should be careful what they wish for.
_________________________________________________________________________
Brandon Hall is a lifelong political nerd from Grand Haven, and is the Managing Editor of West Michigan Politics.
>>>Email him at WestMiPolitics@Gmail.com
Facebook
Brandon Hall is a lifelong political nerd from Grand Haven, and is the Managing Editor of West Michigan Politics.
>>>Email him at WestMiPolitics@Gmail.com
 |
| Photo By Darlene Dowling Thompson |
The government's only role in marriage should be as protector of rights, like property rights and other contractual rights. It should have no say as to with whom one may choose to enter a relationship. But for legal reasons I can see a need for a precise identification or name and we already have one-gay marriage. So let's use it with the understanding that 'gay' must be attached to the concept marriage. I really don't care if another name is used like civil union or romantic partnership. But different things need different names. I don't see anything wrong with 'gay marriage'.
ReplyDeleteThe government's only role in marriage should be as protector of rights, like property rights and other contractual rights. It should have no say as to with whom one may choose to enter a relationship. But for legal reasons I can see a need for a precise identification or name and we already have one-gay marriage. So let's use it with the understanding that 'gay' must be attached to the concept marriage. I really don't care if another name is used like civil union or romantic partnership. But different things need different names. I don't see anything wrong with 'gay marriage'.
ReplyDeleteMarriage is between a man, a woman and GOD. Not a man, a woman and the State of Michigan. The fact that government has replaced God as the head of marriage should offend Christians more than anything.
ReplyDeleteBut that's besides the point. Why is Jiles trying to drive a wedge with the people who supported him? Seems really immature and pointless.
h The laws of America condoning Licensed Marrage IS an Abomination. Marriage IS NOT between a Man and a Woman, it is between a child's parents. The Parental Act IS the Marital Act.
ReplyDeleteHello, I'm here to introduce someone to you all, his name is Dr.Ekpen Temple a spell caster that help me restored my broken relationship, I saw an article on the Internet someone talking about him how he help her in her relationship, today I'm a beneficial of that article, so that is why I'm also talking about how he has helped me so that someone out there that is facing the same challenge can also contact him for help. Here is DR EKPEN TEMPLE contact info: ekpentemple@gmail.com or on Whatsapp number +2347050270218.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, you have pointed out some fantastic points , I likewise think this s a very wonderful website.
ReplyDeleteWest Michigan graphic