Gays, Females and Equals

Gays are not merely bodies desiring homosexual action. Women are not walking uteruses. Gays and women are dignified human beings with reason, spirit and individuality. The Constitution considers Americans with respect to our humanity and citizenship, not our sexuality. So when politicians and sexual minority activists lobby for gay and female “rights” that trump the First and Tenth Amendments, they inadvertently attack equality for all Americans.

The federal government does not need to be involved in sex or marriage—homosexual or heterosexual. Constitutionally, all Americans should have the freedom to get married in their own places of worship. It does not even make sense for the government to define marriage because so many Americans believe that marriage is a personal and/or religious benefit, not a “right.”

If a particular state decides to formally legalize gay marriage or to subsidize birth control, this is constitutional albeit unnecessary bureaucracy. And, such state laws must allow for religious and free speech exemptions to protect the First Amendment rights of others.

I hope women and gays come to understand that if they do not quickly discern the difference between political pandering and the Constitution, they will lose their freedom and so will everyone else. Gays are not victims just as I am not a victim because I’m a woman. The Constitution protects our human dignity and equality. We don’t need more federal laws; we need to elect politicians who will enforce the Constitution.

American women and gays are not “more equal” if the federal government recognizes the “right” to female birth control and gay marriage. In fact, the more the federal government gets involved in our sexual and marital lives, the less free and the less human we become. And, if we actively lobby for the federal government to give us something (i.e. a marriage certificate or birth control) at the expense of another person’s First Amendment rights, then we become aggressors (not victims) seeking superiority, not equality.

The Constitution is intentionally silent on the issues of birth control and marriage. The 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In other words, because the Constitution is silent on marriage and birth control, states alone have the constitutional power to regulate marriage and birth control.

Rather than lobbying for federal marriage laws or federal contraception rights, I think gays and women should ask Congress and the President to go back to the original meaning of the Constitution, which allows for the free speech of all minorities—including sexual minorities. The government cannot make people “moral.” The government can only protect individual liberty. Liberty allows for the competition of ideas whereby all individuals voice their beliefs in the public square so that the most rational and moral ideas can rise to the surface.

As “The Federalist No. 51,” founder James Madison writes: “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. … Whilst all authority in it [the federal republic of the United States] will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects.”

Basically, the founding fathers wanted the president and the federal government to protect (not control) free speech, religion and private property.

President Obama tells women like Georgetown law school student Sandra Fluke that the only way he can protect female rights is to confiscate the First Amendment rights of free speech and religious exercise from other Americans via his federal mandate for contraception coverage. Oddly, Obama thinks that he, as President, can tell a private American citizen like Rush Limbaugh that his words: “…don’t have any place in the public discourse.” Per the Constitution, the President should be the one to quit talking, not Limbaugh or practicing Catholics.

In a clear political move to help President Obama and the Democratic Party curry favor with gays and women, Democrat congresswomen like Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. Amy Klobuchar are prematurely pushing Congress to renew and expand the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to include “protections” for same-sex couples and illegal immigrants—even though CNN reports that VAWA does not come up for renewal until the end of the fiscal year.

Meanwhile, Rick Santorum wants to unconstitutionally regulate marriage at the federal level, police consensual sex in private homes and approves the use federal money for birth control.

And, last year, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo essentially told gays that the only way he could stand up for gay rights was to push through gay marriage legislation without a complete religious exemption clause to protect the First Amendment rights of others.

I think Obama, Feinstein, Boxer, Klobuchar, Santorum and Cuomo should re-read the First Amendment, The Federalist Papers and John Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government. The first piece of private property that every American owns—from the moment of conception—is his or her own body. Owning our body means we have the right to free speech and religious practices—as long as we do not use wrongful force against another.

I realize that when American women and gays read the newspaper, they see horrific headlines of inhumane treatment of women and gays. These are appalling situations that need remedy. However, reading about global tragedies can make women and gays more susceptible to buying into dangerous promises of domestic federal “protections” from American politicians.

Women in Pakistan face abusive spouses and in-laws that scorch them with acid, gasoline and fire. Women in Saudi Arabia face sentences of 10 lashes for daring to drive. Starving women and girls in Somalia face gang-rape and sexual abuse as they walk miles in search of food and refugee camps. Women in China are lucky if they are even born.

This month, London activist Ali Hili told The New York Times he estimates up to 750 gay Iraqis were killed in a six year time frame. “An Interior Ministry security officer said that in the past two weeks, officials had found the bodies of six young men whose skulls had been crushed. Reuters reported the toll to be 14 or more, citing hospital and security officials. Rights groups say that more than 40 young men have died.” Many of the men were simply wearing emo/Goth/punk/hipster apparel that Iraqi radicals view as embarrassing and threateningly counter-cultural.

Like gays, women are treated as sexual minorities around the globe. Only in America do women and gays have equality before the law. I think American gays and women need to realize that they are not victims as long as they defend the Constitution. The second they allow politicians to attack the Constitution in the name of equality is the second they willingly become victims. Warping the Constitution is not a win for gays or women; it is a lose-lose situation because gays and women need the Constitution too.

We are all human beings with dignity and reason. We are already equal before the Constitution. Politicians and activists who stomp on the First and Tenth Amendments to put the government in control of sex and marriage are driving an anti-equality movement that will surely backfire.

It does not even make sense for the government to define marriage because so many Americans believe that marriage is a personal and/or religious benefit, not a “right.”

The classic argument of ignorance. "I don't understand why we should have civil marriage, therefore we shouldn't have civil marriage.

Every lawyer used to know William Blackstone's Commentaries inside and out. It was a requirement of being admitted to the bar. Law schools have failed the nation.

The duty of parents to provide for the maintenance of their children is a principle of natural law; an obligation, says Puffendorf, laid on them not only by nature herself, but by their own proper act, in bringing them into the world: for they would be in the highest manner injurious to their issue if they only gave the children life, that they might afterwards see them perish. By begetting them therefore they have entered into a voluntary obligation, to endeavor, as far as in them lies, that the life which the;y have bestowed shall be supported and preserved. And thus the children will have a perfect right of receiving maintenance from their parents. And the president Montesquieu has very just observation upon this head; that the establishment of marriage in all civilized states is built on this natural obligation of the father to provide for his children; for that ascertains and makes known the person who is bound to fulfill this obligation.

Commentaries, Book 1, Chapter 16 emphasis in the original.

It does not even make sense for the government to define marriage because so many Americans believe that marriage is a personal and/or religious benefit, not a “right.”

The classic argument of ignorance. "I don't understand why we should have civil marriage, therefore we shouldn't have civil marriage.

Every lawyer used to know William Blackstone's Commentaries inside and out. It was a requirement of being admitted to the bar. Law schools have failed the nation.

Commentaries, Book 1, Chapter 16 emphasis in the original.

Basically, the founding fathers wanted the president and the federal government to protect (not control) free speech, religion and private property.

That is the reason for civil marriage. To make known who is responsible for the maintenance of children. Am I the only one tired of having my private property confiscated to provide maintenance for other people's children?

“Constitutionally, all Americans should have the freedom to get married in their own places of worship”

as long as they worship the govt and get married in City Hall

I think this comment is a masked allusion toward The Lavender Lobby next mandating that the churches comply with “constitutional rights” to a blessed sodomite relationship

People can go get married in their church, temple, on the beach, Las Vegas,elope, whatever. The governments stamp of approval doesn’t/shouldn’t make you more officially married. If there is a break-up, issues of child support, property, etc can be taken to a lawyer like you would anything else. Government recognition of your marriage, of all the things in this world, is just silly.

And the president Montesquieu has very just observation upon this head; that the establishment of marriage in all civilized states is built on this natural obligation of the father to provide for his children; for that ascertains and makes known the person who is bound to fulfill this obligation.

Which is why divorce should not be allowed legally.

I’ve always thought that each state should define marriage as long as some court can’t find a way to foist one definition of marriage on another state. I’d vote against gay “marriage” but if Massachusetts wants to have it, that’s fine with me. I agree as a general principle that there is too much government intervetion in marriage. The less government we have, the less chance for government to get its hands on the definition. For instance, if we had a flat tax, we wouldn’t need marriage defined for tax purposes.

Here we go again;

A) Let men marry men .

B) Let women marry women .

C) Allow anyone a taxpayer funded abortion or sterilization .

In just three generations there will be no more DUmacRATs

More and more I am of the opinion that discussions about homosexuality have a good analogy with people whose entire lives revolve around their bowel movements.

They just don’t have bowel movements, but they want to revel in it, show them to others, and *define* themselves and their relationship with others by their bowel movements.

They want parades so that all may see and admire the majesty of their bowel movements, displayed and decorated and celebrated as something that matters.

And they belong to a “community” of like-minded defecation obsessed, who live in a “us and them” world, shunning those who just “poop and flush” with great derision.

Now they demand that all children must be indoctrinated with respect and admiration for people who play with their feces, that they get preferential treatment and money from the government and business to help them further their obsession.

To lobby, they have organized with those obsessed with urine, those who enjoy having unnecessary surgeries performed on their bodies, and those who only want to play with their good bowel movements ignoring the mediocre ones.

However, they still shun those that collect children’s bowel movements, as those people “aren’t like us”, (though the American Psychological Association is starting to lobby for them as well.)

Interesting you bring up Massachusetts, and talk of “if they want to have gay marriage’. Massachusetts never voted for gay marriage.

In fact, citizen groups gathered signatures to put a marriage amendment on the ballot to be voted on, and the legislature adjourned in 2008 rather than vote on putting that on the ballot. In Mass, both signatures and the vote of the legislature are needed to put initiatives on the ballot for voters.

So, a major point is that Mass. never indicated that it wanted same-sex marriage. It was forced on them by a court.

And even as we speak, gay activists are working on getting same-sex marriage to the U.S. Supreme Court. Their dream is getting a “Roe vs. Wade” type ruling mandating 50 state same-sex marriage.

So, the point is, each state is NOT going to be allowed to deal with marriage on its own. Gay activists have decided to force this through the courts. And they won’t stop until the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.

So a woman who get's the shiite beat out of her by her husband cannot get divorced? If that is not what you mean please explain yourself further.

My post was in response to a post which quoted a legal argument of why some believe the State should be involved in marriage. So if we stay with that argumentation, the raising of kids, then divorce MUST be illegal, otherwise it undercuts the State involvement reason at its core.

I don't believe the State should have any say about marriage/divorce. I agree more with the article than those who argue against the article.

As for the man who beats his wife, he should be arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced, and then put away...regardless of whether she stays married to him or not. Her marriage/divorce decision is between herself and her God, if she has one.

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.