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?...
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 won’t 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.
LOL!
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.