How legalizing gay marriage undermines society's morals

The Christian Science Monitor ^ | December 09, 2003 | Alan Charles Raul

[Kay Soze]

"The more destructive impact of the decision for society is the court's insidious denial of morality itself as a rational basis for legislation.'

[Holden Magroin]

Democrats and liberal activist judges are the only ones mandating a "moral code" on the rest of the population.

[little jeremiah]

I think these quotes are appropriate here:

(For expressing that morality and government do indeed have a connection.)

"It is impossible that a nation of infidels or idolaters should be a nation of free men. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom." --Patrick Henry



"No man is a good citizen unless he so acts as to show that he
actually uses the Ten Commandments, and translates the Golden
Rule into his life conduct." --Theodore Roosevelt



"If men will not be governed by the Ten Commandments, they shall be governed by the ten thousand commandments." --G. K. Chesterton

[gcruse]

morality itself as a rational basis for legislation.

That got us Prohibition, the War on Drugs,  blue laws,
and people who vote a country dry, then move.

I'll take the Constitutional guarantees of equal protection every time
over some needle-nosed moralizer's plan for how everyone else should
be living their lives.

[jwalsh07]

I'll take the Constitutional guarantees of equal protection every time over some needle-nosed moralizer's plan for how everyone else should be living their lives.

Or to be brief, you support oligarchies using the federales to enforce your moral code on every nook and cranny of America.

[Jorge]

There is simply no such thing as "gay marriage".

Marriage is between a man and woman by definition.
I wouldn't say that legalizing gay marriage undermines society's moral, as much as it reflects the moral blindness and depravity of that society.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[gcruse]

Or to be brief, you support oligarchies using the federales to enforce your moral code on every nook and cranny of America.

Hmm.  Let's see.  I denounced laws based on someone's notion of morality.
I  believe in basing laws on preventing people from using force or fraud on other people rather than a codification of someone's religious myths.  And you see that as endorsing an authoritarian morality on every one?  That last batch of Kool-Aid must have been a doozy.

[WOSG]

Morality is the *only* basis of legislation.

morality asked for abolition of slaves, the ending of child labor, etc. moral codes are what animates the hypocrites on the mass supreme court.

Your own expressions are an expression of a moral code...
'equal protection' - what is the basis of that? why a *moral* belief that that is what is due an individual.

now, I dont mind you imposing your morality on me and the rest of us, but you're a hypocrite when you dont admit your imposing your morality and falsely claim its just the other people doing it. yup, as phoney as a 3 dollar Bill.

I kindly ask that if you oppose imposing morality on others, you obey your own code and quit doing it yourself.

[WOSG]

" I denounced laws based on someone's notion of morality."

AND

"I believe in basing laws on preventing people from using force or fraud on other people"

ARE 100% DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED COMMENTS.

You denounce laws based on someone else's notions of morality, and support laws based on your notion of morality.

How narrow-minded!


" ...rather than a codification of someone's religious myths. "
ah, anti-religious sentiment is the motive force. And what is so bad about "thou shalt not bear false witness" anyway??

[gcruse]

Your own expressions are an expression of a moral code...
'equal protection' - what is the basis of that? why a *moral* belief that that is what is due an individual.

Equal protection means every citizen gets the benefit of being an American.
Not just heterosexuals.  Discrimination based on sexuality is immoral.  That's
where your 'morality' leads.  I'll take the Constitution, you can have your
commandments.

[WOSG]

"Discrimination based on sexuality is immoral. "

How do you know this is true? On what basis is this moral statement made?

I thought you were against imposing morality.

Why are you contradicting yourself and imposing it on others?

Btw, according to your comment it is immoral to discriminate against a priest for wanting to fondle 15 year old boy.
So such a priest shouldnt be fired, right?

[gcruse]

Equal protection under the law. Someone with your proclaimed intellect shouldn't be foundering around like this. I said I'd take the Constitution's equal protection applying to all citizens as being 'moral.' Denying the benefits of legalized unions between adults based on their violation of religious dogma (commandment morality) violates constitutional 'morality.'

[gogipper]

Equal protection is only a process. It doesn't address very much about morality in all its dimensions.

[gcruse]

Equal protection is only a process. It doesn't address very much about morality in all its dimensions.

I can agree with that.  Whether the law is moral or not, we must be accorded equal treatment under it.  That what civil unions accomplish, without sending up the
lightning rod of religious marriage.

[weegee]

Another thing this is doing is getting a lot of people outraged that government is involved in marriages at all.

This serves as another attack on traditional families. All "family units" are equal. Living with biological mother and father, living with biological mother and wandering biological father (M.I.A.), living with biological mother who hates biological father and now shacks up with lesbian co-mother, living with biological mother who never sees "homosexual" biological father who provided sperm sample for turkey basting and lesbian co-mother, living with biological mother and half-brothers and half-sisters from assorted temporary biological fathers some of whom are M.I.A....

And some wonder why Jerry Springer draws such a large audience.

[jwalsh07]

Cruse, equal protection demands that all are treated equally. Anybody can get married as long as you marry a member of the opposite sex. A homosexual man can marry a homosexual woman, that is not proscribed.

What you want is special rights for a group of people. Which is fine but it is not based in equal protection or the Constitution. Of course once you extend "marriage" to same sex homosexuals there is no rational basis for keeping any two or more people from entering into "marriage" be it platonically or sexually under your Constitutional interpretation.

You simply support Lawrence v Texas and Goodridge because it accords with your ideology, there is no basis in the US Constitution or the Mass Constitution for either opinion of those courts. But that won't stop you from using the Constitution as toilet paper as long as your moral code is serviced. You're position is the one taken by those who support an overly strong central government ruled by the elite few in robes.

The truth? You can't take the truth! The truth is Cruse, you're the statist. :-}

[Kay Soze]

ping

[NutCrackerBoy]

I think we agree the Constitution requires us to apply the protection of the law equally. Equal protection is a process, not a moral code.

Does the Constitution require us to reject laws on the basis of their codifying religious beliefs? Of course not.

Does equal protection under the law require us to be blind to the fact that heterosexual coupling produces children? Of course not.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Cruse, equal protection demands that all are treated equally. Anybody can get married as long as you marry a member of the opposite sex."

You're still harping that beat-up old nonsensical bit of straw around?

People are supposed to marry the person they love, not the person you approve of.