Skip to comments.MIA On Gay Marriage
Posted on 05/08/2009 4:28:43 AM PDT by steve-b
Believe it or not, often I can see the other side of an argument. I know that tough gun control laws save lives and make our communities safer, for example, but I also see clarity in the Second Amendment. I support affirmative action, but I realize that providing opportunity to some worthy individuals can mean denying opportunity to others. Thinking about some issues involves discerning among subtly graded shades of gray.
On some issues, though, I really don't see anything but black and white. Among them is the "question" of granting full equal rights to gay and lesbian Americans, which really isn't a question at all. It's a long-overdue imperative, one that the nation is finally beginning to acknowledge....
Favoring "civil unions" that accord all the rights and benefits of marriage -- but that withhold the word marriage, and with it, I guess, society's approval -- amounts to another dodge. I'm concerned here with the way the law sees the relationship, not the way any particular church or religious leader sees it; that's for worshipers, clergy and the Almighty to work out. Marriage is not just a sacrament but also a contract, and the contractual aspect is a matter of statute, not scripture.
Obama took the "civil unions" route during last year's campaign and has stuck with it. While I see the political calculation -- that was basically the position of all the major Democratic candidates -- I never understood the logic. If semantics are the only difference between a civil union and a marriage, why go to the trouble of drawing a distinction? If there are genuine differences that the law should recognize, what are they?...
It ain't what you don't know that hurts, it's what you know that just ain't so.
Gay marriage is not a fundamental civil right.
I am not a Christian, and I have no problem with gay people. One of my best friends is gay.
But since when has marriage between people of the same sex been considered a "fundamental civil right"?
Answer: Since gay people decided it would be a shortcut to "acceptance"--just get the law to SAY it's so, and wheee! Everyone will accept gay people as equals.
It's a lazy, embarrassingly dishonest attempt twisting reality to fit a model that has never, ever existed in any society.
This is the definitive word on gays and gay marriage/civil unions.....
Rom 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,
Rom 1:25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
Rom 1:27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
How can you 'know' something that isn't true? But even if it were true, you're right - we still have a clear right to bear arms which precedes and trumps any gov't law or action.
Gay people have exactly the same rights as I do. They can marry anyone they want, so long as the other person is of the opposite sex.
My pickup truck is blue. But I say it’s red, and I want a law forcing everybody else to call it red.
“Gay Marriage” is the same thing. They can call their relationships anything they want, but that won’t make it a marriage. Don’t try to force me to call your relationship something it ain’t.
The gay bishop is not only a self-centered malignant narcissist intent on destroying his church, he's an idiot too.
I know that tough gun control laws save lives and make our communities safer, for example,
One cannot know what is not so. One who does not know the difference between knowledge and belief is not to be trusted in his opinions.
Gay people have exactly the same right as hetero people to marry a person of the opposite sex and to spend the subsequent years trying to figure out how something so very different from oneself could still be, nominally at least, human.
He’s also in competition for the title of ‘Creepiest Cleric’ in the news. The race appears to be between “Roddy’ Robinson and Rev. Katherine ‘Rags’ Ragsdale who spent some 40 minutes praising open and free access to ALL abortions as a ‘blessing’. She has been selected as the next head of the Episcopal Divinity School in, of all places, Cambridge, mASS (surprise, surprise). Check it out here:
Sorry Eugene, dressing up anal sex with flowery civil rights language does not work anymore.
See the gay “marriage” annual convention above.
This is their favorite canard and obviously Gene 'Grouper' Robinson has swallowed it hook line sinker and boat.
THEY HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS. The constant cries of discrimination and second-class citizen status are red herrings. Loving v Virginia involved a MAN and a WOMAN.
We don't call a hand a foot. We don't call a foot a hand. Language is the outgrowth of man's attempts to interact with and describe his environment. Marriage is marriage because it provides the potential for procreation and - not to be dramatic - literally the survival of the species.
The battle is on two fronts: the usual gaggle of leftists who believe that a court's decision can change minds and hearts and a subsegment of the left that believes a court decision will somehow magically translate into societal acceptance.
Even 'less do it cos we're nice peepul' writers like Gene Robinson acknowledge that societal acceptance is the goal, not equal legal standing, insurance, etc.
Last but not least is the constant trumpeting of the longevity of gay relationships. 'I've been with my partner for 18 years etc.' IRRELEVANT. Emotions do not a Constitutional argument make although plenty of people are attempting to engineer one.
If two adults of whatever sex want to live together there's nothing stopping them from doing so. No law restricts who can and cannot be named as a beneficiary in a Will. And Power of Attorney may freely be granted and revoked between consenting adults.
The legal foundations of marriage are based upon society's interest in the protection of any children which may issue from that marriage, for by definition they represent the future of that society. The state has no say in the religious dimensions of marriage (and in the U.S. that prohibition is explicit in the 1st Amendment) other than to note that such foundations exist and are part of every faith and creed.
This “guy” being a bishop pretty much explains why church attendance in New Hampshire is among the lowest in the nation.(only 24% attend church regularly).
Well, that's the nub of the issue.
SOCIETY DOESN'T APPROVE.
And, furthermore, as far as compelled approval goes, 51% just doesn't cut it. For the full force of the government to compel adherence to some moral and symbolic gesture, a huge supermajority should be required - like 2/3 of the Congress, and 3/4 of the states.
Anything less destroys social cohesion and engenders tyranny.
Weve all seen in vivid detail what homosexuals brought to the Catholic church.Now they want to bring that same magic to marriage.
When I was in graduate school, I saw a letter to the editor of the college rag that pretty much summed up what the whole push is for gay “marriage.”
A girl was complaining that because she’s a lesbian, her family doesn’t accept her. If only it were possible for her to “marry” her partner, she opined, then her family would realize that her love for her partner is perfectly normal, and they would accept her.
Of course, if she would have applied some logic, she would have realized that even if she got a legal document saying she’s “married” to her girlfriend, her family would still be reacting to the fact that she’s mentally ill... no document can change that.
With such a stunning display of anti-intellect, one wonders how she could get by in college.
Take the contractual aspect away and leave the sacrament alone.
That would eliminate the "issue".
Let courts decide property rights based on individual cases.
But marriage is an institution that is defined and exists outside of the State. I accept that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. That means that gays cannot “marry” each other anymore than I can marry my pet cat.
If one reviews the claims made by homosexual groups (like www.hrc.org) as to why they should be allowed to “marry”, most of them are centered around issues rooted in the tax code. This is the unintended consequence of giving government the job of defining who is married and who is not. This is just one more reason to remove that function from government.
While I strongly suspect that the real reason that gays are clamoring to “marry” has more to do with their inability to gain approval for their behavior from the rest of us, the issue of gay “marriage” may help us to have more clarity on the proper role of government.
When gay “marriage” proponents successfully challenge a law in court, they are able to ratchet up their claims of “equality” for behavior that directly conflicts with the historic institution of marriage. This leads directly, for example, to where we are today in Kalifornia’s public schools teaching that homosexuality is just an alternative “life style”. Parents are thus almost powerless to prevent their children from being continually indoctrinated.
And thus we come full circle: social conservatives have long used government to intrude into areas of personal morality. Now that social liberals (er, “progressives”) have seized that power, we see that the sword of government's power cuts both ways. I think the case can now be made that we must take that power away from government lest even posts like this one should one day become a criminal act of a “hate crime”
Believe it or not, often I can see the other side of an argument.
Uh, I sense that you are a mindless liberal. I don't buy it.
I know that tough gun control laws save lives and make our communities safer,
The only "people" made safer by tough gun control laws are the criminals, who will never obey any kind of law, and who will be better able to exploit an unarmed, law-abiding citizenry.
Thinking about some issues involves discerning among subtly graded shades of gray.
Liberals habitually live in a world of gray, choosing to ignore the fact that in many, actually most, instances black and white value judgments do exist. This is how they're able to contort the Constitution into construed grotesque forms.
... granting full equal rights to gay and lesbian Americans, which ... [is] a long-overdue imperative, one that the nation is finally beginning to acknowledge....
The same smoke and mirrors that the gaystapo consistently bombards the unthinking masses with, that this is a "civil rights" issue. Repeat a lie until enough folks believe it, and everything else falls into place.
I'm concerned here with the way the law sees the relationship, not the way any particular church or religious leader sees it;
You're a bald-faced liar. The whole target of the homosexual agenda is to reshape society's thinking in order to exact acceptance from every corner of society, whether by persuasion or by FORCE. No one should be naive enough to believe that Christianity (not religion, the homo-activists love religion) will be untouched and not compelled to recognize and celebrate this utterly despicable perversion.
What about the rights of the children to be raised by a mother AND a father?
The State recognizing “gay” marriage puts an end to the best circumstances for raising children and dooms them to a life without one or the other influencing their lives.
“I know that tough gun control laws save lives and make our communities safer, for example, but I also see clarity in the Second Amendment.”
I’d like to thank the author for putting this bullshit statement at the beginning of the article. As soon as I read it I knew whatever followed wouldn’t be worth reading so I skipped it and saved some time that would have undoubtedly been wasted
So in your perfect world, no one is married?
No inheritance other than by wills? no parental rights? No protections against testimony in court by ANYONE? Every child born a bastard?
Excellent point. The case in England in which a child is being stripped from her closest relatives from her mother, the grandparents, to be placed with a same-sex couple is completely outrageous and beyond what any civilized society would do. But this is the future for us if homo-"marriage" is made the law.
*** DING DING DING *** No more calls; we have a winner!
They can call their relationships anything they want, but that wont make it a marriage.
Exactly. Well put.
All the points you raise: wills, parentage, court testimony, can be protected by law. Indeed these are excellent examples.
We could just as easily make a similar case when two aged widows share a household for economic reasons and one becomes incapacitated. We have existing legal frameworks so that the other widow could make medical decisions and handle end of life issues. It does not require “marriage” to do this.
The only reason that wills, inheritance and estates are of any interest to the government is for purposes of taxation! Property rights are easily transferred in existing structures apart from taxation.
A good way to ponder this is to ask what would be different if a family were to be marooned on the proverbial tropical island. The child born to a married couple is “legitimate” even in the absence of any State. This child inherits the estate of the parents by right that exists apart from any State. Indeed, the State gains when it intrudes on these unalienable rights.
Now, the issue of court testimony is entrenched in our Constitution, but now we have a lot of households being formed by people who are not married. In some states, a male-female couple who are sharing a common household are considered married by “common law” (law that precedes the State) if they have shared that arrangement for a number of years specified in the statute. We can just as easily extend that privilege to anyone else we please.
This is just stupid. "Same-sex marriage" is a parallel institution as well. "Same-sex marriage" can never be a real marriage as marriage requires a man and a woman.
"Same-sex marriage" is functionally different from traditional marriage.
At the heart of this fight is the desire of the deviants to pretend that they are exactly like normal people. They want to force societal and governmental acceptance of their perversion.
Yet government can't change reality. "Same-sex marriage" can only be a cheap counterfeit. It can NEVER be the functional equivalent of traditional marriage, because men and women are different, and you need one of each to get a real marriage.
The homosexualists are setting up their own parallel institution anyway.
There will never be a society in which both Christians and homosexuals are “free” and in which they both live openly and respect one another's existence. Such a society is as absurd as imagining a nation in which Muslims and Jews live together in peace and harmony. It won't happen. It can't happen.
Either homosexuals will be closeted, or the full engine of the state will be harnessed to promote homosexuality and to suppress anyone who disapproves of homosexuality. The former requires some government. The latter requires a ton of government. The former is healthy, the latter isn't.
The libertarian dream of a world of individual autonomy units who don't care what the other guy thinks or does is as much of a fantasy as the Marxist utopia. It just has never existed in the real world, and it cannot exist because ideas and behaviors have consequences.
When come back, bring history books.
Since your argument is based on a false premise, it fails automatically.
You are describing social-engineering totalitarians, not any form of "conservative". A genuine "social conservative" influences by leadership and example, and eschews government as he eschews other forms of evil. A counterfeit "social conservative" whines for his welfare check in the form of guvmint doing his work for him, and eagerly offers his wrists and ankles for fettering (since he is too lazy to get up and work, he does not notice any loss in having them chained).
You’re doing a great job promoting sodomy as usual, Steve.
And don't go to any pretense of complaining. You asked for the State to shape culture for you; you are getting it.
Are you sure you’re not the guy who wrote V for Vendetta?
Quite a few Christian sects have no problem doing just that. Two errors of historical fact in one sentence -- how very efficient of you.
Er, what’s the problem? Suppressing Asian Cinema requires “some government”, but not all that much.
SISTERS OF THE GION (Japan 1936): Legendary director Kenji Mizoguchi had a fascination with prostitutes...Sexcrime, anti-gun propaganda, cradle-robbing old pervs, more sexcrime, and I barely got a quarter of the way through the list before giving up in revulsion. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?
STRAY DOG (Japan 1949): Film noir style police movie about a stolen gun used in a crime spree....
EARLY SUMMER (Japan 1951): A very traditional Japanese family seeks to marry their daughter (the always sweet Setsuko Hara) to an older man....
THE LIFE OF OHARU (Japan 1952): Kinuyo Tanaka stars as an aging prostitute....
The falseness of an opinion, said Nietzsche, is not for us any objection to it.... The question is, how far an opinion is life-furthering, life-preserving ... When such pragmatism begins, Nihilism passes into the Vitalist stage, which may be defined as the elimination of truth as the criterion of human action, and the substitution of a new standard: the life-giving, the vital; it is the final divorce of life from truth. [Nihilism, p. 50].
In the Vitalist stage of society, people deliver themselves over to an unending search for sensation and excitement, for the exotic and the experimental, for ever-greater freedom and satisfaction of desires, for the riches of diversity, for the transforming energy that is produced by a society in constant change and motion—and with all these things being seen as, even explicitly promoted as, a substitute for any inherent truth and goodness in existence.
As Vitalism reaches its peak, the final stage of Nihilism starts to appear. This is the Nihilism of Destruction, a rage against creation and against civilization that will not be appeased until it has reduced them to absolute nothingness.
It strikes me that with the Massachusetts decision legalizing homosexual marriage, our society may be passing from the Vitalist stage of Nihilism to the full-blown Nihilism of Destruction.
Why stop with just the one perversion ? How about pedophiles, necrophiliacs, bestiophiles ? If I want to marry a kid, a corpse, my sister or my dog that's my right, isn't it ?
Despicable. Trying to say "gay marriage" equals real marriage is like trying to say zero equals one.
In your dreams. That's like imagining that you would spend a couple hours in the ring with Muhammad Ali in his prime.
I'll leave you with this. It's a repost of something Lawrence Auster wrote
It reads like the sort of twaddle cranked out by totalitarians' kept scribes in order to justify the liquidation of the latest Enemies Of The State.
In any case, you are quite correct in saying that there's no point in your continuing to argue, and not merely because you have the far weaker case. You have already retired from the field, by ceding to the State the power to shape culture. I have not made any such concession, and the result is that I find myself engaged with a self-disarmed opponent. Hardly challenging, or even entertaining.
BTW, you should watch some of these films. They’re very good, though I also include a few “guilty pleasures” that are merely fun. :-)
Indeed. Social “conservatives” who fed the beast of government so that it would do work that they ought to have done themselves now find the beast loose and snarling at their throats. I had hoped that my facetious comments on an imagined case of the poster’s particular ox (Asian Cinema) being gored would have made that clear.
A society of unlimited freedom does not exist and cannot exist. There has to be some accommodation of culture. This is where the libertarians always fail. They can't understand that people aren't individual autonomy units totally divorced from any societal influence. Thus, when leftists demand the "liberation" of homosexuals (as one example) they jump on the bandwagon, not realizing that liberated homosexuals will demand a government far bigger than the relatively mild laws and social restrictions placed on homosexuals historically.
When that happens, the only defense the libertarian has is to demand that government get out of the marriage business, or out of the education business, as if that would even be considered in a world in which homosexuals have political clout. You can't scale back government in a socially liberal society for any number of reasons.
First, the people empowered in such a society are homosexuals, feminists, Third World oriented racial minorities, and other groups which are non-competitive in our culture. In a true free market, based on competition, they'd fail. Second, the behavior of many of these groups creates a plethora of social problems which lead to more government (disease, illegitimacy, crime....).
This is why the left has spent so much time promoting social liberalism. Once they get that, all other areas of society will become liberal by default. Chuck Schumer isn't promoting the homosexual agenda because he believes in freedom, but because he doesn't.
I see us becoming more like Europe, which in turn is becoming more like the old USSR. Conservatives in Europe now refer to the EU as the EUSSR. Out of the ashes of the West's decline, something new will arise but without Christendom it won't be anything like our founding fathers created. It'll be an authoritarian Asian model, or a totalitarian Islamic model. The left imagines a secular totalitarian leftist EU and a similar regime here, but the very diversity the left has promoted in these regions will kill that as the parasites feed off the hosts.
I'm afraid that libertarians who imagine a "live and let live" world in which homosexuals respect and tolerate Christians, in which Muslims respect and tolerate Christians & Jews, in which racial minorities agree to compete on an equal basis without government preferences, in which the schools and other things are privatized to allow the above to flourish, is a wild fantasy that can never be. As just one example, homosexuals have more political clout in California and in the New England states than elsewhere in America. Those areas are also more secular. Does anyone imagine a legislature in any of those states abolishing public education? If anything, they'll be the first to outlaw home schooling.
Your post is very good, by the way. Well-written and well-argued. I hope we can agree to disagree, if indeed we do!
God sets the idea, as amplified by Jesus, that He recognizes marriage only between a male and female. Yet even He recognized the many wives of King Solomon, a situation that many find revolting. (lest we allow Mormon plural marriage today)
I observe the real Sabbath, the one in the Bible, not the one imposed by the Roman Church many centuries later on Christianity. Those who observed Sunday as a day of rest (gradually becoming the hour of rest), did not hesitate to use the armed agents of the State to force stores to be closed on Sunday for many generations. Would anyone here want to give me the same power of the State to force stores to close on my day of rest? I don't think so.
A good start on this topic is to consider what aspects of the present tax system allow government to define things that government should not be defining. Who my heirs are should be none of government's business, except they need to know so proper taxes can be levied. Who my wife is none of government's business either! We only have to know so we can properly exempt some income from taxation.
The Fair Tax leads us away from this mess and towards more liberty and privacy. (so a caution here in how the “prebate” is structured!)
This is a wonderful topic for as we wrestle with it, the concepts of liberty can once again be brought to the fore and back into the public’s conscious. (hey! the left is always talking about “consciousness raising”! Let's do some of our own.)