Gay Marriage as a Civil Right—Are Wrongs Right?

Answers ^ | 26 Feb 13 | Albert Mohler

[xzins]

Furthermore, we recognize that marriage, like human rights, exists prior to the law. Christians understand that marriage was instituted by the Creator, who designed marriage and the family as the foundational social unit of human society. Marriage unites a man and a woman in a holy covenant that should last as long as they both live.

From the very beginning, marriage was designed as the union of one man and one woman. Every human society has recognized this meaning of marriage, and all successful civil societies have honored, protected, and defended heterosexual marriage as the union that should govern human sexuality, reproduction, intimacy, and rearing of children.

Since a child has a need for a mother and a father, a child has a right to a mother and a father. Sadly, only tragedy or sin will make it otherwise.

The right to a father and mother is a child's second amendment right of self-defense.

[OKRA2012]

Ted Olson will tailor his argument before the SCOTUS almost entirely around the Equal Protection Clause and right to Justice Kennedy.

[DManA]

If a logical absurdity can be a civil right then civil rights are absurd.

That is probably the whole point of all this.

[PapaNew]

Thirty years ago, those that were spiritually alert were warning that the homosexual agenda ("gay agenda" as it is now called) would never stop at de-criminalizing sodomy. The goal is not only to FORCE acceptance but at some point kill off normal marriage.

"As it was in the days of Lot...the same day Lot went out of Sodom...even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed." Luke 17:28-30. Jesus is coming soon.

[japheth88]

Gayness is a disease, either mental or genetic. People with diseases can’t marry each other or else they will pass it on!

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that the Constitution does not allow for the criminalization of homosexual acts, since such laws would deny a specific class of persons their basic civil rights."

I can't imagine why any intelligent human being, let alone a Supreme Court justice, would write such a mindless statement. "Deny a specific class of persons their basic civil rights"? Does ANYBODY have a "basic civil right" to commit sodomy?

No law has ever recognized such a dead-end act as a "basic civil right" for ANYBODY: homosexual or heterosexual. If the law equally forbids everybody and anybody to anally penetrate somebody, or to ejaculate sperm into somebody's mouth, as a means of entertainment or as a way of expressing undying love, whatever -- one can argue that this law is necessary or unnecessary, one can argue that it is wise or unwise, but how can anyone say it involves a basic civil right? And how can anyone say it "discriminates" when it applies to everyone equally?

If you can work such legal legerdemain by saying homosexuals are a "class" deprived of their "defining activity," why can't one say kleptomaniacs are a class? Or child pornography enthusiasts are a class? Or pedophiles are a class? Or antisemites? Or cannibals? Or Oxycontin addicts? Or female-genital mutilators?

I could figure that out in 10 seconds. Why can't a Supreme Court Justice?

[donna]

Dennis Prager quote:

In all my research on this subject, nothing moved me more than the Talmudic law that Jews were forbidden to sell slaves or sheep to non-Jews, lest the non-Jews engage in homosexuality and bestiality. That was the world in which rabbis wrote the Talmud, and in which, earlier, the Bible was written.

Asked what is the single greatest revelation I have derived from all my researches, I always respond, “That there had to have been divine revelation to produce the Torah.” The Torah was simply too different from the rest of the world, too against man’s nature, to have been solely man-made.

[OKRA2012]

“If the law equally forbids everybody and anybody to anally penetrate somebody, or to ejaculate sperm into somebody’s mouth, as a means of entertainment or as a way of expressing undying love, whatever...”

The Texas law prior to Lawrence prohibited such acts by homosexual couples but permitted the very same acts by heterosexual couples.

And the Court found that to be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

[Fast Moving Angel]

Tagline ...

[Travis McGee]

[Lurking Libertarian]

If the law equally forbids everybody and anybody to anally penetrate somebody, or to ejaculate sperm into somebody's mouth, as a means of entertainment or as a way of expressing undying love, whatever -- one can argue that this law is necessary or unnecessary, one can argue that it is wise or unwise, but how can anyone say it involves a basic civil right? And how can anyone say it "discriminates" when it applies to everyone equally?

Because the law struck down in Lawrence v. Texas did not ban heterosexual sodomy. It banned oral and anal sex only between same-sex couples. Therefore, it did discriminate against gays.

[Ransomed]

The whole point of this is to punish those who won’t buy into ‘gay marriage’ with the power of the state. Pope Leo XIII warned about about this 130 years ago, in the context of civil divorce and remarriage. That wasn’t framed as some sort of ‘civil right’, so there wasn’t any punishment for those faiths that don’t buy into it. Yet. But ‘gay marriage’ is considered a ‘civil right’ by many, as the state has conditioned them to think marriage is defined by the state: the state says it can exist, so it must be possible. Makes you wonder what the state will consider as marriage in another 130 years.

Freegards

[SuziQ]

Discrimination on the basis of an unchangeable characteristic such as skin color would be wrong. But Christians cannot accept the argument that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic.

It has nothing to do with Christianity; homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic, period.

[xzins]

And that’s why Christians can’t accept that argument.

[kaehurowing]

If you buy into gay marriage, you also have to buy into legalizing polygamy and incest. The arguments for legalization are identical.

[Ransomed]

Even if acting on or having homosexual inclinations was unavoidable, Christians still wouldn’t accept ‘gay marriage’. It wouldn’t make ‘gay marriage’ any more possible, at least as I understand the Christian teaching.

Freegards

[hosepipe]

Gay politics is GROINAL....
Groinal citizens..

[xzins]

It banned oral and anal sex only between same-sex couples

That's simply not correct.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thanks for that information, OKRA2012. I had never heard that, and had assumed the law would be against 'sodomy' or 'unnatural sexual intercourse' or 'crimes against nature', and looked it up here (Link) --- yes, it turns out you are right, it was a discriminatory statute. And for that reason, it should have been overturned or, better, applied to all persons equally.

It is not, of course, in any case -- gays or straights --- appropriate for there to be anything like bedroom LE surveillance. And indeed almost nobody cares to know or evaluate what anybody does in their bedroom, assuming it doesn't involve coercion, aggression, or fraud.

What the statute would make possible, though, would be an aggrieved party bringing charges, especially with proof going beyond say-so, e.g. gonorrhea of the throat or anus, abrasion, syphilitic lesions in the anogenital area, gay bowel syndrome, bruising, physical trauma, HIV, without the other party being able to more easily exculpate himself on the grounds that it was consensual.

It would also make it possible for schools public and private, agencies public and private, to advocate against this objectively harmful behavior --- recognized as such all the way back to Aristotle, who mentioned that it tended to make males unfit for marriage --- without being accused of discrimination against a "protected class" of people who are assumed to derive their identity from these specific acts.

It would make it possible for us to educate in an accurate and science-based way against epidemic-promoting sexual patterns, like promiscuity (gay or straight), without running afoul of people who say promiscuity is also part of their innate sexual expression and therefore a basic human right.

It would make it possible for us to get fraudulent instruction in "safer" anal and oral intercourse the hell out of the schools.

It would also make it blessedly easier to prevent the gutting of the definition of marriage, and its replacement with with a false definition which is in itself a form of fraud.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You are exactly right, Lurking Libertarian. I had not known that before. Please consider my reply HERE, at #19.

Thank you. And Ransomed, this goes along with what you were saying.