Gay-marriage divide cuts across party, racial lines in U.S.

The Wichita Eagle, KS ^ | October 10, 2004 | Lori Arantani

[Kurt_D]

I (mostly) agree with you. But I have to admit, that I am more Libertarian than Conservative. Nevertheless, the legalization of gay marriages (and for that matter also polygamy) are NOT my priority in my agenda.

[GovernmentShrinker]

As far as consenting adults are concerned, it is neither my business nor the government's to "draw a moral line".

[FredZarguna]

And this proposed ban is actually a direct restriction on individual rights.

To which the only proper response is: check your premise. It is false. Restrictions on consensual incest, polygamy, polyandry, or even noncontroversial issues such as zoning represent direct restrictions on individual license. But rights aren't license. Those who claim gays have a "right" to "marry" people of their own gender are arguing in favor of a fundamental right which no civilization has recognized since the advent of marriage itself. Hardly a convincing point.

In fact, the argument for gay marriage is fundamentally an argument against civilization, and against the notion of rights that advanced civilizations properly recognize. The elevation of any particular deviancy to the status of normative behavior is an attempt to widen normative behavior so that it becomes meaningless. The elevation of licenses to rights (health care is a right, education is a right, progressive taxation is a right asserted by the poor against the rich, any form of consensual sexual behavior in privacy is a right, ad nauseum) cheapens the things that really are rights.

Our understanding of rights is now so fundamentally diluted that we have Supreme Court Justices holding that there is a "right" to homosexual sodomy, which appears nowhere in the Constitution, but no right to freedom of speech during a political campaign, even though it explicitly appears in one of the most hallowed places of that document.

[Kurt_D]

True. But here's my reasoning: Marriage is a legal contract. And a gay civil union would be a legal contract as well.

[DirtyHarryY2K]

As far as consenting adults are concerned, it is neither my business nor the government's to "draw a moral line".

I wish it was as simple as that. however, The radical militant homosexual activists are DEMANDING access to churches, schools, youth groups, etc. etc. etc. and their goal is to FORCE society to bow a knee and pander to perversion that the majority does not CONSENT to!

[GovernmentShrinker]

As long as private institutions control their own doors, who cares what opponents of any stripe want? And what the heck are so many children of traditional marriages doing in public schools?

[GovernmentShrinker]

If God blesses your heterosexual marriage, do you really believe that blessing will be weakened by a couple of gays guys down the road regarding themselves as married? Or a polygamous Muslim family? Is your God really neutralized that easily?

[mewzilla]

And this proposed ban is actually a direct restriction on individual rights.

How about laws banning polygamy, polyandry, incest, stautory rape and sexual child abuse? Don't those restrict individual rights, too? Do you have a problem with those?

[FredZarguna]

This country DOES have a libertarian foundation,

True. It also has genuine conservative foundations as well. They aren't the same.

and it was founded with explicit emphasis on religious liberty

Not really true. Contrary to many postings on FR, many of the founders were infidels. By the the same token, many were very religious. Religious liberty was so important it was largely taken for granted. Madison argued against any inclusion of a Bill of Rights (the only place where religious liberty was formally recognized as beyond the competence of Congress) but caved because of political pressure for ratification. The Country wasn't founded on it. And the question of gay "marriage" isn't a religious one.

It's scary when "conservatives" start thinking that the government is supposed to control our personal lives

Conservatives aren't libertarians, and if you're really interested in what the American founding says about it, you should know that the part of the Bill of Rights regarded as most important by Madison was the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The Tenth reserves the right to define marriage (or any power not specifically granted to the Federal Government) to the States. Not the people.

Finally, you seem to be thoroughly confused about the legitimate role of government, which most assuredly has been established in many ways to control personal behavior.

[Old Professer]

If a bunch of weirdos formed a cult based on the advocacy of public elimination with the slogan "Death to Bathroom Doors," and there were enough registered voters as members, Kerry would probably grab a crowbar and hit the trail.

[FredZarguna]

But here's my reasoning: Marriage is a legal contract. And a gay civil union would be a legal contract as well.

It is within the legitimate authority of government to determine what contracts can be made, and by whom. The exercise of that power belongs in the hands of majoritarian institutions, not courts.

[Old Professer]

Advocacy of Public Elimination stands for A.P.E.

[gidget7]

And as the results from Missouri and Louisiana show, the anti-gay marriage vote is so overwhelming that it could help Republicans overall by drawing more pro-Republican voters to the polls.

Gee Ya Think???? I totally disagree with anyone who says otherwise. My impression is more like a lot of people who live in certain demographical areas, are afraid to say they are pro Bush, and against gay marriage. In many corporations and businesses, you risk losing your job, and
are targeted with violence and harassment.

The courts, too, have become a target for criticism by gay-marriage opponents, who blame "activist judges" for overstepping their bounds by permitting same-sex unions.

AND RIGHTLY SO!! They have taken away our right to opt out of school teachings of gay sex techniques, literature, and kits, when it is totally against the self discipline and self restraint morals we are trying so hard to teach our kids. Again, to oppose leads to being targeted as a hate monger and a bigot, and harassment.

Some corporations require their employees to "assist" a gay coworker who wishes to "come out" at work. Excuse me, this is blatant sexual harassment. They should, as we have all been told to do years.........leave your personal lives at HOME. It has no place in a work environment. We also say, leave your descriptions of your immoral behavior at home as well, and while the courts are ruling, how about ruling in our best interest for a change, and the best interest of our countries children.

This rhetoric is scaring them, leading to school drop outs, leading to kids telling parents, "find me a charter or Cristian school or something, or I quit". Where they once were content to go with the flow, and had no problem with gay people, they are now "grossed out" and "revolted" by them. They are being taught about fisting, and inserting the fist and forearm, then given kits that include pandages for when sex gets rough. Our children feel they didn't need to know this much, and wish they still didn't, it's frightening. They are also fearful of gym class, where they are required to shower with gay students, and have had unwelcome advances made at them. Which it is important to note, are not cause for disciplinary action!!!! We know this is about more than just gay marriage, as if that weren't enough. I hope every parent, heck every voter who knows this will turn out and vote for President Bush. Pray for his re-election! God Bless our President!

[Old Professer]

B.S.

The family always trumps the individual or dynasties wouldn't be such a large part of history.

[Old Professer]

If you sleep on the ground, you can't complain about the rocks.