Replies

No one is being "regulated" by conservative policies on this matter.

Not on that matter. However, if conservative policies that I espouse are a form of "regulation" of others' behavior, I want to have the intellectual honesty to call it that.

Sodomy. I don't believe the Constitution guarantees a right to sodomy. I would be opposed to any per se anti-sodomy laws in my state. But I am not opposed to anti-incest laws. That is regulating someone's private behavior.

Gay marriage. That phrase is now universally used: "the FMA is a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage." What I really think is happening is that you had (proper) governmental support for an ancient institution, marriage, which has been uniformly a union of one man and one woman, and is a foundation of civilization. Noone was prosecuted for calling their homosexual unions "marriage". So you have the beginnings of an informal institution of gay unions. I have no problem with that. But it seems to me that the gay marriage advocates now want to use the awesome power of government to force everyone to treat this new thing as exactly the same as the old thing. An incredibly absurd idea.

That's the other leg of the lame argument to break. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which says we must tolerate sodomy. There is nothing which says a senator or congressman (or president) must explain why he does not favor marital unions of same-sex persons. We may be opposed to these either because of the obvious health hazards and hygiene perils or as informed by religious-based morality. It does not constitute an "establishment of religion" to exercise public disapproval of legalized sodomite unions registered by state licensing bureaus.

There are certain behaviors which are regulated or prohibited for various reasons. Prostitution and child pornography come to mind. I see no problem with legal prohibitions on such vices, dangerous and damaging activities. If a legislator decided, as informed by religious-based ethics, to vote to prohibit or regulate such things that is not an unconstitutional "establishment of religion" as some wacky liberal zanies like to suggest.

An "establishment of religion" is a very specific thing based on Anglo-American experience from the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. It is one particular denomination of Christianity being designated officially by law to be the state church, membership in which is either required for citizenship rights or to enjoy certain privileges like owning property, voting, and avoiding penal double taxes.

Merely to acknowledge the existence of God and of a moral law were not considered matters in dispute. We all still acknowledge that the murder of a human being is an unlawful and gravely immoral act. And this is a principle also of Christianity and Judaism. That does not make it permissable for non-Christians or non-Jews merely because they do not accept the Ten Commandments as divine. Liberals seem to talk as if ANYTHING which is prohibited by Christianity should be allowed. That's absurd.