[Mrs. Don-o]

Well, "liberty" has a bunch of definitions, many of them incompatible with one another.

Just for instance, both the abortion enthusiasts and the sodomite pseudo-marriage promoters claim they are on the side of "liberty."

A great many of the most common uses of "liberty" are against Judeo-Christian morality, or at least extraneous to it.

There are of course solidly Christian usages for that word, but many would be hard-put to define it in an intelligibly Christian way.

[jimt]

Just for instance, both the abortion enthusiasts and the sodomite pseudo-marriage promoters claim they are on the side of "liberty."

You are exactly right.

However, I deny that their "liberty" includes the ability to infringe on the rights of others. The aborted baby's rights are clearly infringed on - its life is taken.

In the case of homosexual "marriage", they want to take something clearly defined, and clearly understood, and pretend it applies to relationships where it NEVER has. If men can marry men, I can marry my car, or ten men, or twenty women, or...

They don't want "liberty", they want tyranny. With them in charge.

[Nextrush]

There are some who try to force “God” on people and there are others who force “anti-God” on people.

They are both wrong but I see the “anti-God” crowd threatening freedom in this country with every new court ruling.

I believe in freedom for those who the “anti-God” forces are targeting and stand for their freedom under the Constitution.

[Sopater]

both the abortion enthusiasts and the sodomite pseudo-marriage promoters claim they are on the side of "liberty."

No abortionist can exercise their "liberty" without egregiously violating the liberty of the person in the womb, so they have no valid argument.

As for the other example, they already have the liberty to live like godless hedonistic heathens without the gov't granting some kind of financially incentivized approval of their lifestyle. Therefore, they're just blowing smoke.