Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Can government 'create' gay rights?
Renew America ^ | 12-12-13 | Fred Hutchison

Posted on 12/12/2013 6:50:05 PM PST by ReformationFan

Do our rights come from the government, or do they come from God or from natural law? The founders of the American Republic thought our rights came from God or from natural law. As such, our inalienable rights are the rights of all mankind and are universal, changeless, and applicable to all people, at all times and in all places. In terms of natural law, if man has a nature, then human rights must be in accord with that nature and must be necessary to the flourishing of that nature. If our rights are thus innate and fixed for all time, then the frequent legislation and adjudication of new rights is mischievous.

However, if man does not have an innate nature, but is a social-cultural construct, then man has a fluctuating nature which changes along with forces which mold him. In this case, the determination of human rights is relative, ad hoc, arbitrary, and political.

Enter stage left, the Progressive Movement, which goes back to1890, if not before. Progressive leaders claim that our rights are created by government. As such, human rights vary from time to time and from place to place. As ideological fads and political alliances come and go, legislators and judges will be inventing and abolishing rights all the time. They will be making them up as they go along.

The progressives were confident that magical "forces of history" would ensure that "change" would be beneficial and that the continual creation and abolition of rights by government would lead to a better world. However, if no such mystical cosmic force exists, and if man is not a social construct, then inventing rights which are alien to his nature and abolishing rights which are necessary for the flourishing of his nature is pernicious. When leaders of government misunderstand human nature and act according to that misunderstanding, they do great damage to man and to society.

Legislators, if you really believe that government creates rights, that man is a construct of contemporary society, and that gay sexuality is in accord with what a fluctuating human nature has come to be at this moment in time – you might consider voting to create gay rights. But before you do, ask yourselves if a new constitutionally-protected right can be established apart from an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

However, if you believe that man is not a social construct, but that man has a nature, you cannot logically believe that human rights come from government. Human rights are unchanging because they are based on the nature of man, which never changes. Government might discover and protect those rights, but cannot create those rights. That is what the founding fathers believed, and what the progressives have discarded.

Legislators, if you share the views of the founders regarding human rights, then you must ask yourself whether a sexual embrace between two men or a sexual embrace between two women is in accord with nature or against nature. My opinion is that it is against nature – for if this kind of sexuality is not against nature, then nothing is against nature.

Further, if you believe, as I do, that our rights come from God because He is the creator and designer of our nature, then you must ask yourself whether a homosexual or lesbian sexual embrace is in accord with or contrary to His design for us. It is impossible for me to believe that he designed anyone for this kind of sexuality.

Finally, legislator, if you fear God and wish to obey him, it is not hard for you to find out what his prophets and apostles wrote about this kind of sexuality.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: antinaturallaw; fredhutchison; homonaziagenda; homosexualagenda; hutchison; moralabsolutes; naturallaw; progressivism; rights
However, if you believe that man is not a social construct, but that man has a nature, you cannot logically believe that human rights come from government. "Human rights are unchanging because they are based on the nature of man, which never changes. Government might discover and protect those rights, but cannot create those rights. That is what the founding fathers believed, and what the progressives have discarded."

I love that quote.

1 posted on 12/12/2013 6:50:06 PM PST by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan
First things first.

I want my Second Amendment rights fully restored before I'll consider any discussion about any possible new "rights".

2 posted on 12/12/2013 6:59:59 PM PST by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

the government can create an environment that fosters respect for our God Given rights guaranteed and nothing more or less


3 posted on 12/12/2013 7:01:36 PM PST by MeshugeMikey ( Visit http://icantenroll.com/ In Glitch We Trust....;o})
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

When what they do does not parallel the principles of God, they are asking for trouble. They may have trouble enough obeying; but bucking God will reap the whirlwind.

That being said, the gospel approach to sex sin today is truly anemic. A favorite factoid of mine is that professed believers have no better statistics on the durability of their marriages today, than the general population does.

“Beloved, this should not be.”

Just because you’re (the rhetorical you) heterosexual and you’re staying with one wife, though, you still might be sexually sinning! Why? Because you might not be offering it to God! You may be doing it selfishly!


4 posted on 12/12/2013 7:02:50 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (The Lion of Judah will roar again if you give him a big hug and a cheer and mean it. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

“Can government ‘create’ gay rights?”

Let’s skip discussion, and just say no as government can’t “create” gay rights, only special rights the rest of us won’t have.

I doubt I want any of their rights, or lefts anyway.


5 posted on 12/12/2013 7:03:13 PM PST by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will. They ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Guess judges can by making bakers bake gay wedding cakes or go to jail.


6 posted on 12/12/2013 7:03:21 PM PST by Bronzy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan; savagesusie; Mrs. Don-o

ping


7 posted on 12/12/2013 7:03:26 PM PST by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bronzy

A government-given “right” to punish those who disagree with a certain perspective. I wouldn’t call that a natural right.


8 posted on 12/12/2013 7:05:32 PM PST by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rockinqsranch

“Can government ‘create’ gay rights?”

Dropping the “gay” word out of the question, can government ‘create’ any rights? I would say no, they can only recognize natural, negative rights. And I consider negative rights a positive thing and so-called “positive” rights a very negative thing.


9 posted on 12/12/2013 7:07:16 PM PST by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

I don’t either but the baker may serve jail time. Is that our future?


10 posted on 12/12/2013 7:09:28 PM PST by Bronzy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

An often missed biblical role of governors is to speak well of those who do right. In that sense, yes they can recognize positive rights without turning them into Caesar centered entitlements. It is kind of an honor roll system. We are way too sophisticated today to consider that... oh it is hopelessly naive... look, it is not hopelessly naive when the bible talks about it.


11 posted on 12/12/2013 7:09:31 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (The Lion of Judah will roar again if you give him a big hug and a cheer and mean it. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Bronzy

Well the bible itself says yes, if we are going to stop cowering in spiritual battles.


12 posted on 12/12/2013 7:10:01 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (The Lion of Judah will roar again if you give him a big hug and a cheer and mean it. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Bronzy

Yes. I’m very sad about it but I think it is.


13 posted on 12/12/2013 7:17:11 PM PST by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

The Civil War amendments proved they can. And they weren’t even ratified per the Constitution. It seems we have a government with no limitation.


14 posted on 12/12/2013 7:19:06 PM PST by Dalberg-Acton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

Government cannot create rights...
Government can only create privileges..

Few know the difference..


15 posted on 12/12/2013 9:11:33 PM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

Ironic that the same people who want the government out of the bedroom want the same government in their kitchens.....

I say kick the damn gov off everyones property.


16 posted on 12/12/2013 9:29:40 PM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

Ironic that the same people who want the government out of the bedroom want the same government in their kitchens.....

I say kick the damn gov off everyones property.


17 posted on 12/12/2013 9:29:41 PM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

I figure a secular atheist can only believe that rights are created by the government. The belief in inalienable rights implies the existence of a Creator.


18 posted on 12/12/2013 10:04:37 PM PST by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan
God article, good discussion.

Gay marriage advocates,though, are no longer calling it "Gay Marriage." They're calling it "Marriage Equality." That reflects their new line, that this is nothing more or less than "Equal Justice Under Law," the excellent principle carved on the lintel of the United States Supreme Court.

(Just like "Global Warming" turned into "Global Climate Change" and then into --- what is it? --- "Global Climate Disruption" or "Extreme Weather Caused by Cow Farts and Exhaling." They get to change and redefine all the terms, and you've got to accept and use their terms or be denied any voice in the discussion.)

The reason they can call this "Marriage Equality" is by simply assuming the key disputed point has already been settled in their favor, which is the definition of marriage.

And their definition of marriage, which they assume we all accept, is, "A loving commitment by two consenting adults, to share their lives together, as long as they both find it personally rewarding." With the codicil: "This deserves to be respected by society and recognized by the State."

This is dubious on the face of it, because members of a "free" society, i.e. all of us, will respect or not respect, as we judge a thing respectable or not. You can't really enforce respect. Only toleration. As MLKing said, "The law can't make you love me, but it can prevent you from lynching me." Right: and that's as far as it goes.

Plus, there is not reason at all to think that all our loves, liaisons, affections, amours, ruttings and romances are any business of the State. These things are what we can justly call "private." Our personal relations --- between two consenting adults, or three or four --- don't need State licensing or supervision.

The exception being: when the relation can bring into being a third person whose rights and dignity are to be protected.

And this child's interests are secured by the state recognizing (not defining, not inventing, not fashioning, but recognizing) the pre-existent institution of marriage, which is the only institution we have which joins a man and a woman, and any offspring which arise from their union.

Other than that --- the procreative factor --- the state has no interest our sex lives. Because without that procreative aspect, two consenting adults can simply manage their own affairs by custom, by culture, and by private contract.

Know what I mean?

19 posted on 12/13/2013 1:41:26 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Mater et Magistra.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Exactly.

‘This is dubious on the face of it, because members of a “free” society, i.e. all of us, will respect or not respect, as we judge a thing respectable or not. You can’t really enforce respect. Only toleration. As MLKing said, “The law can’t make you love me, but it can prevent you from lynching me.” Right: and that’s as far as it goes.’

In reference to that MLK quote, I noticed a long time ago that the homosexualists are hell-bent on “making everyone ‘love’ them” via persecution by the state if you do not. Otherwise, they would’ve been content with the tolerance they’ve experienced in the west for years. If homosexuality were really such a “great” thing, they wouldn’t need the approval of any other human. But their consciences are convicting them just as Herod Antipas and Herodias were convicted by the preaching of John the Baptist(Mark 6:14-29).

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%206:14-29&version=NKJV


20 posted on 12/13/2013 4:53:53 PM PST by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

Yes. But they’re not all that approval-demanding, irritating and punitive. Really, I think the fairly low-key ones outnumber the obnoxious ones, just like the general swath of people at, say, Free Republic.


21 posted on 12/13/2013 5:15:49 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Mater et Magistra.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan; All

State governments have the 10th Amendment-protected power to establish gay rights, such as gay marriage, as long as such rights don’t interfere with constitutionally enumerated rights, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment prohibiting the states from unreasonably abridging constitutonally protected rights.

On the other hand, the federal government can only protect those rights which the states have expressly protected by the Constitution. This is evidenced by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment in conjunction with Section 5 of that amendment.

Also note that the four voting rights amendments, the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments, expressly grant Congress the power to legislatively protect such rights.

Again, the states have 10th Amendment authority to establish rights as long as such rights don’t interefere with constitutonal rights. But Congress is limited to protecting only those rights which the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect imo.

Finally, just as corrupt federal lawmakers buy votes from low-information voters by promising such voters federal spending programs which are based on constitutionally nonexistant federal government powers, Obamacare an example, Congress likewise buys votes from such voters by promising them “civil rights” which Congress has no constitutional authority to establish. And Congress gets away with doing such things because many patriots themselves evidently don’t know the simple rules of the Constitution.


22 posted on 12/13/2013 5:20:42 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Sadly, the obnoxious ones are getting their way through the government to persecute those of us who dare to belief in liberty of conscience, a true and natural right.


23 posted on 12/13/2013 5:51:42 PM PST by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

Placemark


24 posted on 12/14/2013 2:20:11 PM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

Exactly true. Very dangerous, court-enforced tyranny.


25 posted on 12/14/2013 3:00:59 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Mater et Magistra.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Bronzy

“Is that our future?”


It may very well be. But theirs, is eternally bleak...lest they don’t REPENT.


26 posted on 12/14/2013 9:41:13 PM PST by ourworldawry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ourworldawry

Truth.


27 posted on 12/15/2013 6:59:30 AM PST by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson