Posted on 05/29/2008 1:15:54 PM PDT by kellynla
ping
Ya know, we Catholics have some of the sorriest elected government officials...
I’m a Libertarian, and I think gay marriage should be legal. Just as rich people making more money is not a threat to the poor and the middle class, gay marriage is not a threat to heterosexual marriage.
“We conclude that sexual orientation should be viewed as a suspect classification for purposes of the California Constitution’s equal protection clause and that statutes that treat persons differently because of their sexual orientation should be subjected to strict scrutiny under this constitutional provision.”
With this lawyerly sounding language, the California court let the cat out of the bag. Same-sex marriage is not just about letting Adam and Steve get some juicy new government benefits, it’s about inserting into our law the principle that “gay is the new black,” that sexual orientation is just like race and then using the law as a club to repress, marginalize and stigmatize Americans who disagree.
So as a libertarian how do you feel about the govt criminalizing or discriminating against lawyers, physicians, teachers, clergy, social workers, etc. who are deemed "racist" for not supporting gay marriage and other gay "rights"?
I agree. No gay dudes married next door have any impact on my relationship with my wife.
Unless they have a keg fridge with a pony of craft brew. Then I might be sneaking out of the house.
Based on the same reasoning they just used to legalize “gay marriage”, the Gollyfawnya (Ahnold!) Supreme Court is about to follow up by making it unconstitutional for any doctor to refuse to, for instance, artificially inseminate a lesbian on religious grounds. It’s a very short step from that to declaring “anti-gay hate speech”, such as is found in the Bible, unconstitutional as well. And arresting ministers for preaching it from the pulpit.
So much for the First Amendment, gang.
I know you are Libertarian, so my response might not resonate, but let me state a few counter arguments.
1) Homosexuality is a sin, and it is deviant behaviour.
If you love someone, you don't mock nor ridicule the person, but you do warn them when they are walking in a lifestyle that is abhorrent. If someone was a drunkard, or drug addict, or pedophile, or philanderer, or engaged in bestiality, etc., you don't tell that person, 'well done -- you aren't bothering anyone...'. You don't say that if you love them. Hatred is to tell them to carry on, and pretend that there is no Judgment or accounting for the unrepentant sinner.
2) As a result of this sin, which stems from the denial of God (as Kellyna made reference to Romans 1): "...26-27 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet";
and part of this 'recompense of their error which was meet' is the incubation and spreading of lethal diseases - not only amongst themselves, but to the community at large.
3) God sanctified marriage. It is a sacred institution, which the LORD God Himself setup when He gave away the first bride (Eve) to Adam (Genesis 2:22). We belittle this institution, and God's Law for marriage: "24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" when we say that marriage can take place between any two things.
So if you believe in God, this is an easy call.
If you believe in history - and consider the health of those nations that rested on God's Word, versus those nations that followed after their own way, this is an easy call.
If you care about the containment/elimination of deadly diseases, this is an easy call.
If you love someone trapped in the sin of homosexuality, this is an easy call (the worst thing you can do for that person is to tell them lies - that what they are doing is OK).
Arnie is an “Obama Christian” - - strictly for political expediency.
None of which is any business of the state.
I’m against those spendng mandates. And I’m against the government forcing anyone to recognize gay marriage.
I prefer to keep religion and government seperate.
Impossible. Religion is the basis for government, it is the common agreement on how we are to be governed. It is that agreement that makes civilization possible.
A house divided will not stand.
According to an article I read, this may not withstand legal scrutiny. If the proposition is classified as a revision of the state constitution, rather than an amendment, it cannot be done by ballot initiative. There may be conflicts between this and the California constitution as it has been interpreted by the state Supreme Court. Any such conflicts would have to be addressed and resolved before it could become law.
Actually, gay marriage might reduce the transmission of HIV/AIDS and other deadly diseases, by encouraging gays to form monogamous relationships.
There's another excellent reason to support gay marriage (or at least, civil unions, where there is no automatic right to adopt children): If two gay people live together, they will take care of each other, much reducing the chance that one or the other partner will become dependent on the state.
The amendment only needs a simple majority to pass. The latest polls show the amendment passing 53% to 34% - 19 points. This is one instance where the blacks and the hispanics are with the conservatives, gay marriage is the cause-du-jour of white urban liberals.
Good luck in selling that point of view.
I have a friend who’s a (CA) lawyer and she agrees with your reasoning, she thinks that the courts will throw it out if it passes. The example she used was that you couldn’t pass an amendment that said Jews could only marry Catholics since it would conflict with other parts of the constitution, so you can’t necessarily put anything you want in the constitution, some rights can’t be taken away even by a majority vote (freedom of expression, etc). I’m sure she’s right that it’ll end up in court if it passes.
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.