Posted on 11/23/2008 8:07:33 PM PST by goldstategop
Proposition 8 was an unsung victory for defenders of individual liberty. Wait, I know what many people will say to this. How can a measure that prevents gay couples from getting a marriage license be beneficial to the defense of individual liberty? It's because that vote represented a line drawn in the sand, even if a thin one, preventing the government from furthering its control over the institution.
As it currently stands, there is nothing short of the problem of finding a pastor, priest or rabbi who is willing to perform the marriage rite that is stopping most gay couples from getting married. They may not necessarily be legally married, but there is nothing stopping them from having a marriage in every other respect, including the public sanctification of their relationship and vows. This issue is really about other legal topics such as power of attorney and employer benefits than marriage itself, at least on the legal front.
The fact is, proponents of state licensing of gay marriages are generally in favor of using the power of the state to force society to accept homosexuality and gay marriage. They know that in a society based on a more concrete notion of freedom of association, that their views will have a hard time competing for dominance, and so they seek a short cut through the state.
In this day and age, it's refreshing to see some small, if temporary, victory in preventing the further politicization of an aspect of our culture. American politics are increasingly totalitarian in the literal sense that totalitarianism was explained by its proponents in the early 20th century: everything is political; every issue is up for debate before the legislature. One of the best defenses of individual liberty is oppose every attempt to politicize aspects of our culture.
Liberal opposition to Proposition 8 is understandable, but libertarian opposition is not, considering that the one real libertarian position on marriage is that it should be a private institution, unregulated by the state between consenting adults. In that sense, Proposition 8 was also a libertarian victory, as it slowed down the state regulation of marriage and might give libertarians ammunition to use with social conservatives to utterly abolish state licensing of marriage should the courts take this out of the voters' hands.
It's certainly educational to observe how many homosexual activists responded to the vote on Proposition 8. For them to compare their situation with that of black Americans is not just offensive, but ludicrous. Black Americans not only faced a whole host of very serious limitations on their legal rights, but often faced the imminent threat of violence should they even peacefully assert their rights. The biggest threat most of them will ever face is the possibility that somewhere, someone won't approve of them.
If most people aren't seeing this as a major civil rights battle, it's because it really isn't. Unlike being black or female, sexual orientation is something that can be controlled, hidden and denied. For millennia, priests practiced celibacy successfully in defiance of strong male heterosexual sex drives. Others have suppressed and denied impulses that their cultures have deemed immoral or depraved for equally as long. The defining difference between "women's rights" and "minority rights" versus "gay rights" is that short of plastic surgery and medical therapy, one cannot control, hide or deny their gender or race.
None of this is to say that homosexuals are inferior human beings who deserve less liberty. However, it's time for homosexuals to realize that their cause is not as worthy as that of women or blacks because what separates them from everyone else is most likely, at the biological level, merely a minor genetic defect. Likewise, defenders of individual liberty need to realize that even the bigots did everyone a favor here by temporarily delaying the state's advance on its control over even the definition of marriage.
It's possible that some of us have been wrong in judging many of the gay rights activists as being vicious totalitarian thugs in the aftermath of Proposition 8. So then, the challenge to them is to prove us wrong. They can start by offering up a counter proposition to dismantle state licensing of marriage in California and to allow each religious institution to define for itself what marriage is between consenting adult parties, as it always should have been. Surely, if this is really just about getting married, they can find willing parties among the Church of Scientology or the Unitarians at the very least.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
What ticked me off was that it was 4 CA judges who decided gay marriage should be legal. If the state feels that way, then let our legislators enact a law. They won’t do it. - same on the federal level, i.e. for abortion. They let a handful of judges make the decision, defying public sentiment, and slink out of putting their money where their mouth is.
It is highest form of convolution language to deny people the liberty to do something and then call it a victory for liberty. Paging Mr.Orwell.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
There are how many million ghomosexuals and you ascribe the same motive to them all? maybe some of them just want to marry and have you mind your own business.
I know we're having an ongoing anti-gay war here, but please don't describe restricting rights as a victory for liberty.
This will be the only clause in the state constitution or any that I know of in any state which restricts the rights of people.
I was responding to the self-contradictory headline of the thread.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Marriage is a clear example of the latter two.
Marriage was adopted for the purpose of having children, to simplify. Children need both father and mother to grow up to be well adjusted men and women.
The marriage vows have meaning beyond words. God made woman for man.
That marriage be considered by two homosexuals to each other is unthinkable.
The privilege to marry is not denied to a homosexual man to a heterosexual woman, though I think it would be a very sad situation for the woman.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Was that a rhetorical question? The discrimination is that you have the government now prohibiting two tax-payers from getting married.
Non-responsive
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
It has been done over and over again in communist countries. The plans are all laid out by the communist. clear as bell. Try reading some communist BS sometime, it might open your eyes.
The bottom line is this, their is no constitutional basis for same sex marriage, you can't "deny" a right that never existed.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
That's why everyone here whined so much when the conservative Cal Supreme court rendered the decision that did. They can't understand this basic concept of freedom because thay can't let those filthy homos have anything.
Wow. This guy gets it. Too bad Boob Barf couldn’t figure this out when he drank the libertarian kool-aid and issued press releases claiming a 4-3 gay marriage ruling from activist judges was a “victory” for “state’s rights”
Liberty, companionship and love, ARE traditional values.
You're in over your head here. Call your ping list or whatever.
Good night.
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.