"I've always wanted a double wedding Ward."
Posted on 02/25/2004 7:36:44 PM PST by NYC Republican
The issue of gay marriage boils down to the question of whether homosexuality should be on an equal moral and legal footing with heterosexuality. The core of the gay rights agenda is to enshrine in law, as sanctioned by the state, the full and total equality of homosexuality in comparison to heterosexuality. Gay and lesbian activists want government policy from nursery schools to nursing homes to force homosexuality to be treated as totally equal to heterosexuality in everything.
The problem with this is the vast majority of Americans don't see homosexuality on par with heterosexuality. And guess what? That doesn't make them bigots or homophobes.
The truth is that even though most Americans are perfectly tolerant of gays and lesbians, that doesn't mean they want their third or fourth graders being taught that there is absolutely no difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. It's not surprising that many people are uncomfortable at seeing homosexuality actively promoted in schools, glorified by the media, and now sanctioned by the state.
In fact, most Americans want the government out of the business of casting moral judgments and would be fine with the government remaining agnostic on the issue of homosexuality. That means the state should not punish or discriminate against gays and lesbians, nor should the government cede special rights to them.
Like most Americans, most gays and lesbians are good and decent people. They are entitled to enjoy all the rights, freedoms and privileges granted to every individual in this county. But they aren't entitled to have the government proactively endorse their lifestyle as on an equal footing with heterosexuality - unless a majority of the public's elected representatives in Congress decide it's the correct thing to do. And that's the rub.
The truly intolerant in this debate are not the mean and evil "religious right," but rather the activist left that demands the rest of the country accept their view. Contrary to what some may say, the President didn't seek this out as an issue, activists judges in Massachusetts and leftist politicians in San Francisco thrust their minority views in the country's face.
Personally I'm conflicted about altering the Constitution and I wonder whether there are less draconian ways to maintain the sanctity of marriage. However, the activist courts and the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, maybe the FMA is the only way that will effectively work.
My gut tells me that the majority of Americans would like to see marriage remain between a man and a woman, but are open to having the states deal with the issue of civil unions on a state by state basis. This seems to me to be an amiable compromise that protects the ancient tradition of marriage while also allowing individual states to pass civil union laws that provide legal equality to homosexual couples.
In many ways this is exactly what President Bush has done by calling for a constitutional amendment protecting marriage.
America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities. We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.
Contrast this with the reaction by Andrew Sullivan, a leading proponent for gay marriage:
The president launched a war today against the civil rights of gay citizens and their families. And just as importantly, he launched a war to defile the most sacred document in the land....
This president wants our families denied civil protection and civil acknowledgment. He wants us stigmatized not just by a law, not just by his inability even to call us by name, not by his minions on the religious right. He wants us stigmatized in the very founding document of America. There can be no more profound attack on a minority in the United States - or on the promise of freedom that America represents....
This president has now made the Republican party an emblem of exclusion and division and intolerance...This struggle is hard but it is also easy. The president has made it easy. He's a simple man and he divides the world into friends and foes. He has now made a whole group of Americans - and their families and their friends - his enemy. We have no alternative but to defend ourselves and our families from this attack. And we will.
If you read the the President's statement and then spend a few minutes reading Andrew Sullivan's blog it becomes rather clear which side is the intolerant one.
"I've always wanted a double wedding Ward."
Many of the moral concepts about homosexuality are rooted in religious beliefs which are not legally within governmental purvue.
A very very very very very very small "group". There just are not that many queers. And why would there be? Take queer men for example. Yes, they are "men" but they are men that will put something covered with feces in their mouths. And there just aren't a lot of guys that think that's a good idea. I'll go out on a limb and say I'm darn sure that's a fact.
Next question please...
I had that impression, too. But I did notice that this article did not lean heavily on religious pronouncements or reproduction biology. It saves itself from being dismissed with, "Well, that's fine, but I don't think you should be imposing your beliefs on others," or "What about the couples that don't have kids, while some gay and lesbian families do have kids in them."
It makes the point of "here's what gay people are asking of YOU when they want you to go along with gay marriage." I think many of the points are potentially refutable, but so far, its the most intelligent and persuasive argument I've seen put forth against gay marriage. It's clear that it does recognize civil union as a way of dealing with the unfairness issue, and it seems that the President is on board with letting states try that, if they wish.
If gay marriage is not going to happen imminently, then a reasonable middle path that resembles a compromise that the mushy middle can accept will be the only alternative. If gay activist groups would accept this, then they will be more successful in getting the whole enchilada in a generation or so. If religious conservatives would acknowledge that gays are not going back in the closet, and that we will always have homosexual people in our society, and would allow them the right to make recognized agreements that allow them to manage their own households, then they stand a reasonable chance of making that arrangement stick for at least a couple of generations.
Great read, thanks. It's more than just equality and civil rights. It's a request for moral equality which needs to be denied. Where that will lead us, in the name of civil inclusivity, will be morally intolerable!
| What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda |
|
|
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) |
|
|
| The Stamp of Normality |
There is a lot of fighting of the "agenda" and extremists on this site without acknowledgement that this is an issue that effects individuals.
I don't know the answer to compromise or civil union. I oppose changing the constitution because people want to keep homosexuals in their place, whereever that is.
Most polls show that opposition to this is a religious issue. Regardless of what people think about homosexuality, the roots of opposition seem to always go back to the old testamant. My opinion is that is not a good basis for the government to declare homosexuals as immoral. In fact the government should not enter that arena. It is an issue of legal standing and access to government liscensing.
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.