Posted on 07/12/2015 1:04:52 PM PDT by Kaslin
We’ve been told that people who want to maintain the man-woman definition of marriage are “on the wrong side of history.” Perhaps so. Maybe “history,” which is determined largely by how people behave, will continue to move toward making marriage genderless in the 90 percent of governments that still maintain the natural definition.
But remember, Moses was on the wrong side of the golden calf. And Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation was on the wrong side of Dred Scott—the 1857 Supreme Court decision that declared blacks were “so far inferior that they had no rights.” Thus, being on the wrong side of some popular moral assertion doesn’t necessarily mean that your position is wrong.
Now that five judges say that same sex marriage is a new “right,” I would like to ask a more foundational question. Where do rights come from? Specifically, where does the right to same sex marriage come from?
If you say that rights come from governments or constitutions, then how can they really be rights? Isn’t a right something you have regardless of what a government says? For example, if same sex marriage is really a right, then you actually possess that right even if you live under a government that doesn’t recognize same sex marriage. You may not be able to exercise it, but you have it nonetheless.
Moreover, if there is no overarching moral standard that transcends human governments, then how could we prosecute Nazi soldiers for violating the rights of others? The Nazis were just following their government.
The truth is rights don’t come from men or governments. Instead, “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,” as our Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence. In fact, that was the entire point of the Declaration—the government of King George was usurping the rights of colonists, so we declared our independence.
Doesn’t evolution provide us with a right to same sex marriage? Some make this claim but without thinking it through. If natural selection has a goal of survival, then how could same-sex marriage help with that? Such marriages are an agreement to stay in a sterile and medically unhealthy relationship—the exact antithesis of survival. In fact, if everyone lived faithfully in same sex marriage, the human race would end quite quickly.
Even if macroevolution is true, moral rights don’t result from biological processes. Rights are prescriptive and come from an authoritative person. Biological processes are descriptive and have no authority to tell you what to do. How does a mutating genetic code have the moral authority to tell you how you ought to behave or how you ought to treat others?
The truth is, just like history describes what does happen and not what ought to happen, biology describes what doessurvive, not what ought to survive. Why should humans survive as opposed to anything else? And which humans, we or the Nazis?
Even if one could make the case that evolution somehow makes survival a moral right, we are left with several thorny questions. Isn’t self-sacrifice to save others morally superior to your own survival? Should a person murder if it helps him survive? Should a person rape to propagate his DNA? Should a society exterminate the weak and undesirables to improve the gene pool and help the desirables survive? Hitler used evolutionary theory to justify just that. Homosexuals were many of his victims.
So if rights don’t come from governments or evolution, then where do they come from? To truly be rights, they can only come from an authoritative being whose nature is the very standard of perfect Goodness. That’s what we mean by God.
Without God there is no authoritative moral standard beyond humanity, which means that every action or behavior is merely a matter of human opinion. The murder of Jews, gypsies and homosexuals? It’s just your opinion against Hitler’s opinion. Child crucifixions? It’s just your opinion against that of ISIS. Freedom of speech? That’s just your opinion to that of a dictator. Gay bashing is bad? Again, just your opinion.
The same holds true with any supposed right, including the right to same sex marriage. While you can get five judges to assert it is a right, without God it is just an opinion (thus the Court’s judgment is aptly named).
But couldn’t God approve of same sex marriage?
The major religious books state just the opposite. So does the Natural Law derived from God’s nature. Thomas Jefferson called this “Nature’s Law” from which we get “self-evident truths” and the fact that people “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” Same sex marriage is not one of them. In fact, Jefferson and other politically incorrect Founding Founders called homosexual acts “crimes against nature” because such acts go against the natural design of the body and frustrate the goal of perpetuating humanity. This observation is not based on bigotry but on biology. (It’s ironic that our Founding Fathers were more apt to follow science than today’s secular left who ignore science when they insist that biological gender is changeable and sexual behavior is not. The exact opposite is true!)
Since real rights can only come from God, if you want to insist same-sex marriage is a right then you must assume that God is for same-sex marriage. But then you must also assume the implausible notion that God wants you to harm your own health and that of the human race by contributing to its extinction. How’s that for love? Don’t be fruitful. Don’t multiply. Don’t survive. Same sex marriage is not only on the wrong side of God and evolution; it’s on the wrong side of humanity.
So if not from governments, evolution or God, where does the “right” to same-sex marriage come from? Our imaginations. Perhaps well intended imaginations, but imaginations nonetheless.
Yeah or like Rush says “Did you know he was in Nam” or something like that. Referring to the 4 month he spend there and awarding himself a Silver Star for the self inflicted wounds. He is a total phony
But the Libertarian Party officially is pro gay marriage and every big L Libertarian I've heard has been pro gay marriage
The Judge the last time on saw him interview back with Beck on Fox stated he was a libertarian was pro gay marriage or at the very least pro civil union and Beck if i recall credited the judge and John Stossel as being some of his influences in Beck going more party Libertarian and pro gay marriage ...
at least that's my recollection some years.
But the Libertarian Party officially is pro gay marriage and every big L Libertarian I've heard has been pro gay marriage
The Judge the last time on saw him interview back with Beck on Fox stated he was a libertarian was pro gay marriage or at the very least pro civil union and Beck if i recall credited the judge and John Stossel as being some of his influences in Beck going more party Libertarian and pro gay marriage ...
at least that's my recollection some years back... I've tuned out Big L party Lbertarians for some time now... originaly libertarians understood they were ruled by natural law.... modern libertarians have been evolving to think there should be no law whatsoever over them.. they are really just anarchists ...Bill Maher claims he's a Libertarian
Sodom and Gommorah were on the wrong side of history, and the leftards think that God should be apologizing to them.
Bill Maher is as much a Libertarian, as he is to show up for a ‘b’rith’!
I don’t know how you define ‘modern’ Libertarians.
Neal Boortz retired from radio the day the Queer-In-Charge got his second immaculation.
I went to the Libertarian Party dot org webiste, and searched all of what is on there, and they do NOT state that they are ‘pro-gay’, so I have no idea where you pulled that flaming bunny from.
‘Civil Union’ meant that the individuals did NOT have the same so-called legal equality as marriage, i.e., wills, health benefits of (ick) spouses, and the like.
Dear kaslin,
the article has, in it’s title, the dated year of 2009!!!!!
I put the article right there in my answer.
Go back, read it again.
dear hitech,
re:
“
Libertarian comes in multiple flavors, and the official party named that tends to lean to libertinism even to the point of backing the idea of things like “gay marriage” that a moment’s thought to realpolitik would reveal is a platform of endless trouble (and it’s also an imposition on people who don’t want to see a time honored word violently redefined).
There is no salvation in any “ism.” There is only salvation (and I have learned this the hard way) in the Son of God.”
I went to the Libertarian Party dot org, and there was no statement supporting anything ‘gays’ in direct language, anywhere on that website.
I do not look to salvation of anything from walruses to Eskimoes to Mojave Indians from anyone or anything in politics, unless it is the salvation of the nation that is my home. The freaking fools that want to destroy it should be “*”, and from that I shall not be dissuaded. I am a Nativist.
I believe that this land has had a curse on it, ever since 1654, in the name of religious freedom.
Sorry, but the farthest I was able to go back to was 2011. So How am I able to read the article if I can’t find it?
Dear kaslin.
Look at my replies.
I placed the article as part and parcel of one of them.
I shall not provide a link, because one is not required ... should you read my replies on this subject!
“Yas buy dah books, pay the taxes, and dis is what yas git!”
You have got to be kidding on the Libertarian party and gay marriage... they don’t think we had gone far enough!...read the partys own words back in 2011!
Http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-say-marriage-equality-only-one-step-toward-ending-legal-discriminat";>Http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-say-marriage-equality-only-one-step-toward-ending-legal-discriminat
Press Release
For Immediate Release
Friday, June 10, 2011
Libertarians say marriage equality only one step toward ending legal discrimination
WASHINGTON - While supporting steps taken over the past several years to end the unequal treatment of gays in the area of marriage, Libertarians say a just society is one in which no law depends on one’s sexual identity.
“Permitting couples to marry when they are of the same gender is a step in the direction of equality before the law, but a truly free society would not have government in the business of defining relationships at all,” said LP Chair Mark Hinkle. “Frankly, the idea that someone’s legal rights should depend on whether they’ve entered a government-approved relationship ought to be repugnant to all of us.”
Hinkle continued, “The Libertarian Party opposed the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) while it was being passed overwhelmingly in 1996 by a Republican Congress and signed into law by Democrat Bill Clinton and has consistently called for its repeal in the intervening 15 years. Because of DOMA, even same-sex couples married in states that permit it face higher federal income taxes, gift and estate taxes, and immigration restrictions than opposite-sex couples, and can have their marriages effectively nullified by another state if they move to it.
“Marriage equality is not enough, however. I’ve heard some people express concern that allowing gay marriage would send us down a slippery slope. I hope it does. We should settle for nothing less than a society in which the legal code is wiped clean of references to a person’s sexual identity or depends on how many sexual partners they have. It is disgraceful that we grant government officials the power to even examine such things, let alone criminalize any peaceful conduct between consenting adults or punish them with unequal marriage, adoption, tax, or immigration laws.”
Just as Stonewall Democrats and Log Cabin Republicans have represented LGBTQ members of those parties, Outright Libertarians (OL) represents LGTBQ members of the LP, but with a big difference. “Our focus is on outreach to non-Libertarians,” notes former LP National Treasurer and current OL president James Oaksun. “Full equality before the law is already the consensus position among Libertarians, and has been so since the party was founded. And the party’s platform has always embraced full equality before the law. The strength of the LP’s commitment to full equality is a great advantage for the party in the LGBT community.”
The Libertarian Party platform includes the following:
“1.3 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.”
“3.5 Rights and Discrimination
We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual’s rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.”
For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.
For information about Outright Libertarians, visit their website.
The LP is America’s third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, civil liberties, and peace. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.
the money shot from 2011 press release
“Marriage equality is not enough, however. I’ve heard some people express concern that allowing gay marriage would send us down a slippery slope. I hope it does. We should settle for nothing less than a society in which the legal code is wiped clean of references to a person’s sexual identity or depends on how many sexual partners they have.
We should settle for nothing less than a society in which the legal code is wiped clean of references to a person’s sexual identity or depends on how many sexual partners they have.
They have abandon the original libertarian core concept of natural law (self evident truth/God given rights) restricting both governments and individuals alike...
And have adopted the anarchist concept of NO law should restrict them.. be it the states, nature, self evident truth or God's...
And they have adopted the lefts so called “positive rights”...that the state should provide them what nature or others deny them..
I don’t agree with polygamy, for the sake of the kids’ future medical history questions, or, where to draw the bloodlines.
ok, tophat, you quoted it ... but who said it?
I discounted the videos of the past failed candidates, because I did not vote for THAT candidate, either.
‘outright libertarians’ .....
the queers are trying to screw that up, too.
I am not in favor of homosexuality, and in various places, i’ve given my reason why.
I watch this while Beck evolve from 2008 in to a party line Libertarian by 2012 ... I finally turned him off last year
im not anti libertarian... i content the Libertarian party has lost itself... it once was natural law/self evident truth/God given rights protecting us from State denying us our natural freedom
It now become that State is to protect us from what natural law/ self evident truth/God given rights might deny us... that how you get a Libertarian to say the State must provide same sex marriage
Its changed from Natural law protecting us from an oppressive State....to the State must protect us from oppressive natural law.. and the State must provide what nature will not
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.
