I mean, Real Tolerance

by Andrew Roman

_____________

By all accounts Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day was a rousing success across the land. In fact, it looks like it was a record setting outing.

And it had nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

There were some minor protests, sure….but rallies comprised mostly of ignorants and spoiled-brats who have no clue what real discrimination or oppression is only make me chuckle  – that is, until they start defecating on police cars and sleeping in public parks adorned by urine-soaked Che Guevara t-shirts.

Prior to yesterday's sensational free-market referendum on free speech and religious liberty, I listened intently to public officials condemn Chick-Fil-A CEO Dan Cathy’s support of traditional marriage. 

I assure you, the dazzling irony of all this was not lost on me.

It is the mantra of those who suddenly become Constitutional warriors and brand themselves "offended" whenever a Christmas Tree is lit in a public setting, a cross appears on a city seal or the ten commandments are within view of a courthouse: It is a "violation of the separation of church and state." It doesn’t matter what the “it” is; as long as the “G” word is in the mix, it is a gross violation of everything this country really stands for: freedom from God and religion in a public setting.

Then exactly how do Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Philadelphia City Council Member James F. Kenny, and New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn (among others) justify their remarks as publicly elected officials against the beliefs of Mr. Cathy? Haven't they quite literally combined church and state by using the pulpit of their elected office to condemn a private citizen's religious convictions?

Councilman Kenney, for example, is actually sponsoring a bill that condemns the intolerance of Mr. Cathy, saying biblical beliefs of this sort (supporting the traditional definition of marriage) cannot be tolerated. Said Kenney: “My effort is to allow people to understand that in certain segments of corporate America there are folks who are using their dollars to promote hatred, bigotry and discrimination." (Note the obligatory dig at "corporate America). He also said that people who are opposed to same sex marriage need to understand that there are consequences to those beliefs.

Mr. Kenney is an elected official.

I’m confused.

Don’t these purveyors of universal tolerance and group hugs represent the governments of their respective cities? Aren’t they overstepping their boundaries as defined by their own twisted understanding of the first amendment? Aren’t church and state supposed to be separated at all times?

Seriously, if this constitutionally mandated “separation” applies to such things as barring the word “Christmas” in public schools, shouldn’t it also apply to a body of government and how it is allowed to conduct itself regarding a man’s personal opinion on the definition of marriage?

I emphasize that this is Mr. Cathy's personal opinion…

So, what happened to the separationists on this one?

It must be that “living, breathing constitution” thing we keep hearing about.

Are one's personal beliefs now to be as relevant – or perhaps more relevant – than one's actions in the public arena?

These enlightened lefty types seemingly want the Chick-Fil-A chain punished…not because of the way it conducts its business or treats its customers, but because of the religious beliefs of its big boss.

Let’s be clear … Mr. Cathy did not speak negatively about gays. In fact, his franchise (employing over 50,000 people) has an actual standing policy of welcoming and treating all customers equally and with respect in all of their establishments, regardless of the race, creed or sexual orientation.

Horrible, I know.

There is no – repeat no - policy against gays at Chick-Fil-A …or anyone for that matter. By all accounts, Chick-Fil-A conducts its business admirably, and their customer service is excellent. Everyone – from cross-wearing Sunday-schoolers to pentagram adorning goth chicks - is welcome in all of their stores.

That is Chick-Fil-A policy.

On the other hand, Mr. Cathy’s personal religious beliefs are not franchise policy….and he certainly should be entitled to them without having to worry about the heavy hand of government bullying him or affecting the future prosperity of his company with threats.

If Mr. Cathy, for instance, said that married gay people were not allowed in any of his stores or that homosexuals were required to pay higher prices if they wanted to patronize his menu, then yes….his religious beliefs could be reasonably construed to be belligerent, if not hateful. If he posted signs in his establishments quoting biblical verses condemning homosexuality, then yes….one could reasonably conclude that Chick-Fil-A was institutionally anti-gay.

But nothing of the sort has happened.

Not even close.

His store is as accessible to everyone as, say, JCPenney - a store which has used a same-sex couple in a Father's Day ad. (I'm still trying to calculate how many Republican politicians have vowed never to allow a JCPenney in their jurisdiction again).

Elected officials have no moral right or constitutional authority to make things more difficult for Chick-Fil-A to set up shop in their town based on the personal religious convictions of its owner. Politicians cannot, on one hand, blast the mingling of church and state while, on the other, use their position to pass resolutions condemning law-abiding privately owned companies whose owners express their religious beliefs.

Where does it stop?

Will all businesses in Boston now be surveyed so that their owners' positions on same-sex marriage can be ascertained?

What country is this?

This kind of intimidation from the powerful left defines modern liberalism.

Indeed, anyone can choose to patronize or boycott any establishment they choose. That is free market economics. But from what orifice do publicly elected officials pull out these “thought police” cards? Does it really matter what Mr. Cathy believes? What does his support of traditional marriage have to do with the way his company hires workers (many of which I presume are gay) or treats its customers? Cathy isn’t an elected official, is he? His personal convictions have no effect on whether or not same-sex marriage becomes legal in any given state. He hasn’t violated any discrimination law with respect to his business orhow it interacts with the public.

Remember, liberals believe all speech, expression and actions are fully protected by the first amendment … unless, of course, its coming from a Christian.

All of this begs more clarification. 

Why exactly are big-hearted, open-minded liberal mayors accepting of mosques run my Imams who denounce homosexuality then?  Or welcoming of blatant racist, anti-gay, anti-Semites (Louis Farrakhan, for example)?

Oh wait, Farrakahn is black … and not conservative.

Silly me.

Again I ask…which color of the all-encompassing rainbow flag of tolerance and unity represents Mr. Cathy?

And can liberals define the word “separation” for clarity’s sake?

It is worth noting that many of the people across the country who patronized Chick-Fil-A yesterday on what Dan Cathy himself is calling a record day said that they were actually in support of same-sex marriage...but equally in support of free speech.

Now, that is what I call genuine tolerance.

---

Obama's "Evolution" on Gay Marriage

- cartoon by Bok

One of the charges that Obama wants desperately to avoid this November is that of being a "Flip flopper". To that end, a story was concocted that Obama somehow "evolved" on his position on gay marriage.

Now, whether or not you believe in evolution, since evolution is typically portrayed as a linear progression from the simple to the complex, you must admit that this must have been one strange and unusual evolutionary process to flip flop, er, change back and forth between his positions.

In 1996, when he ran for the Illinois senate, as liberal Democrat, he believed it was in his best political interests to support gay marriage. Which he did. Eight years later, when he was running for national office, he determined it might not be in his best political interests to support gay marriage, so he came out against it - a view which he still publicly held in 2008 when he ran for president. Finally, in yet another election year, he came out with a supposedly more "enlightened view, where he would now recognize gay marriage, (providing enough gays support him, contribute to his campaign, etc). In other words, it has once again been perceived as beneficial to his campaign (and fund raising) for him to "evolve" into his current beliefs.

A couple of questions: One, if his "evolution" is genuine, perhaps Mr. Obama would tell us what were the pivotal moments in his beliefs, what events and circumstances, caused him to flip flop, er, retreat from his position on gay marriage between 1996 and 2004? (Other than political expediency, I mean!) Some crisis of conscience? Some observed aberration from what he believed? Surely there must have been some tragic event, some seismic cataclysm on his way of thinking that would cause him to change his mind. What was it?

If his change was principled at all, and not merely sticking his finger in the wind to see what positions would garner him the most votes, perhaps the man who has written two autobiographies to date, and never seems to tire talking about himself, could explain the thought processes and soul searching involved in making that retrograde portion of his "evolutionary" journey? Or was the man who voted "present", like Teddy Kennedy at Chappaquiddick, merely trying to "preserve his political viability"?

Two, how can one say he has "evolved", when the end result sees him in the same place as as where he started, at the beginning of his "evolutionary" process? How is that "evolution" and not the "F-F" word? And if the acceptance of gay marriage is the most enlightened position, how can you describe it as "evolutionary" to regress as he must have between 1996 and 2004? (Unless it was simply the most crass of political opportunism, telling prospective voters whatever he thought they wanted to hear, and adapting or hiding his beliefs to bamboozle the greatest number of people to vote for him?)

Funny, too, how all the major changes of Obama's "evolution" can be traced to different election years and different bases of voters, isn't it? That's right! You're looking for the "H" word now!

Some of Obama's more rabid supporters will try to paint Romney as a "flip flopper" between now and November. Without even getting into all the campaign promise made and broken by Obama, Mr. Romney has a long way to go before he fills Obama's sandals!




Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

What's Another Name for Evolution?

"Flip flops"
1996 - candidate Barack Obama supported gay marriage
2008 - “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman." - debate at Saddleback church
2012 - "I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

The Whims Of Those Warming The Bench

by guest blogger Andrew Roman
_________________________

Judge Jeffery White, Bush appointee

The man's name is Jeffery White. He is a native New Yorker who, since 2002, sits as a District Court Judge in San Francisco. He was appointed by that heathen - that steward of all this is implacable and soulless - George W. Bush.

Perhaps our left-leaning brethren ought to reconsider their animus for our forty-third President. Judge White is proving to be quite a friend to them.

Seven years ago, for example, the Bush appointee ruled that it was perfectly suitable for groups to sue the federal government because of its financial backing of overseas projects that contributed to global warming  - the first judge ever to give the go-ahead to greenies to sue the feds over smokestacks and exhaling. (The groups included “Friends of the Earth” and “Greenpeace”).

On Wednesday of last week, Judge White, in a forty-three page ruling, said the Defense Of Marriage Act, passed in 1996 under President Bill Clinton - the law that says the federal government will only recognize marriage as the union between one man and one woman - is flat out unconstitutional.

Period.

Maybe a "thank you" card to Mr. Bush is in order.

Just as Judge Joseph Tauro did in Massachusetts almost two years ago, Judge White has taken it upon himself - and that's the key word here: himself - to decide that the issue is, in fact, a federal matter. Judge White has magically - miraculously - sifted through Lord knows how many stubborn penumbras to discover a constitutional basis on which to overrule the Defense Of Marriage Act.

Hallelujah. Such skill.

And just like that, the matter of same-sex marriage, thanks to the opinion of one man in a fiercely liberal district - and that, too, is a key word: opinion - has officially been remodeled (if it hadn’t been already) from an issue to be decided by the people to one that will now be tended to by judges.

Quite a strategy. A hell of a plan.

What truly stinks about this entire affair is the obscene and ever-growing arrogance of powerful people who believe they know what is right for the whole of society based on their own agendas, regardless of the law or the will of the people. (I know this is a charge regularly hoisted upon conservatives, but definitionally, those of us on the right seek less government involvement, not more. It is sweet irony how self-professed libertarians like Ron Paul are in favor of same-sex marriage when it would only increase the power and entanglement of government in our lives?).

Take what happened in New Jersey recently as an example.

Two Thursdays ago, the state assembly there passed a bill, by a vote of 42-33, to legalize same-sex marriage - a measure that was ultimately vetoed by Governor Chris Christie. Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver said the body was doing "what citizens sent us here to do: to deliberate, the use the legislative process to represent the interests of all New Jerseyans."

If a more dishonest statement exists, I've not unearthed it.

Whose "interests" exactly are being represented? As defined by whom?

State Senator Kip Bateman says the legality of same-sex marriage in New Jersey should be put on the ballot for the people to decide - a perfectly reasonable notion - but Senate President Steve Sweeney says he won't let that happen.

Read that again: He won't let that happen.

In other words, he won't permit the people of New Jersey to be heard on the matter, rendering Oliver's assertion that they have been sent to Trenton to represent the interests of the people a lie, by definition.

And how do they justify this? How can Dems so casually flip off the people they were sent to the state capitol to represent?

By incorrectly pushing same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue. Because they frame it as such, the citizenry should not – and cannot - be involved in deciding the matter.

Welcome to the modern liberal mind.

Convenient, yes?

Acknowledging the very real emotionality surrounding the issue, there is simply no sound argument for same-sex marriage as a matter of civil rights. Equating the redefinition of marriage with the struggles of American blacks during the 20^th Century may pass as deep intellectual fodder in campus dorm rooms and Chomsky discussion groups, but there isn't any meat on that bone. It's like saying natural gas and bananas are identical because they both come from the earth.

To begin with, blacks did not have the option of concealing their “blackness.” In many areas, disgusting injustices against blacks were abhorrently conspicuous and institutionalized. "Whites Only" signs really did exist in plain sight. Economic disparity, housing discrimination and the inability to access the same public facilities as whites was the norm. The word “oppression” accurately depicts the black experience during the era of Jim Crow.

Not so for gays. Not to that degree.

Genuine inequalities in employment opportunities, income and housing were, at best, marginal issues for homosexuals in America.

Gay liberation began as a movement intended to, in essence, “legalize” homosexual behavior as well as protect openly gay institutions from harassment and varying forms of state injustice – which did exist, but never to the levels incurred by blacks. It eventually evolved into an “equality” campaign, fashioned after the civil rights movement - one that ultimately forced the acceptance of homosexuality on heterosexual America while, ironically, demanding that the public at large stay out of their bedrooms and shut up about it. The golden nugget of the movement would eventually become the actual redefinition of the millennia-old institution of marriage.

Equality, indeed.

Ask yourself: Is today’s inability for gays to marry in most states even on the same planet as the injustices suffered by blacks during Jim Crow?

In his ruling Wednesday, Judge White wrote:

"The imposition of subjective moral beliefs of a majority upon a minority cannot provide a justification for the legislation. The obligation of the Court is 'to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code."

But isn't law based on a moral code? Laws against rape? Theft? Murder? If those aren't moral positions, then what are they?

And if Judge White is to be taken at his word - that the moral beliefs of a majority cannot provide justification for legislation - does he mean to say that the moral beliefs of the minority should do so instead? And if not, then what is he talking about? How, then, are such decisions made in a representative republic? Through the opinion of one judge whose personal agenda is to normalize homosexuality?

Regardless of one's position on the matter, this flies beyond the issue of same-sex marriage. This is really about judicial tyranny, as talk show host and author Mark Levin characterizes it. On his radio show last Wednesday, Levin said:

"The courts have taken over the issue of same-sex marriage just like they took over the issue of abortion. Now what do you think is going to happen? Do you think the courts are taking over in order to return it to people in the states? No. They're taking over this issue in order to impose their will on you and me and everybody else.
...
When this single federal judge uses his authority this way to give what is, in essence, a political speech, with zero precedent and zero constitutional basis, he's doing from the bench something that is very very troubling, and it happens all the time, I'm afraid to say - using the power of the law to impose his personal beliefs."

Incidentally, the fact that Judge White was appointed by a Republican does not take the activist judge argument off the table for conservatives. This is not a “gotcha” moment. The “unconstitutionality” of the Defense of Marriage Act isn’t suddenly obvious because a Republican appointee said so.

Nice try, libs.

It doesn’t matter who appointed Judge White to the federal bench.

An activist judge is an activist judge, regardless of who brought him (or her) to the dance.

Same-sex marriage aside, this kind of power grab from the bench  – becoming all too common - ought to both scare and disgust us - all of us.


-

New York's Same Sex Marriage Law and Libertarians

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

_________________________

As the State of New York officially starts recognizing same-sex marriage - and as libertarians and liberals alike continued to sing the praises of the triumphs of liberty - I remain befuddled.

My general opposition to same-sex marriage aside, I cannot help but be puzzled at libertarian support for the redefinition of marriage as it came to pass here in New York.

A few weeks ago, the Mercatus Center - a libertarian think tank at George Mason University – ranked the state of New York dead last in its “Freedom in the 50 States” index. The authors of the report even used the phrase “by far” to show how deep into the cellar the once most-populous state in the nation has descended.

Its contentions were based principally on the Empire State’s sickening levels of taxation.

That higher taxes always mean increased levels of government spending cannot logically be disputed by anyone who claims to be on a first-name basis with their own brains. More government spending - and by natural extension, increased intrusion and control - definitionally means more government.

Period.

How can one deny it?

It's like denying the dampness of water, the uselessness of Keanu Reeves as an actor, or, if you're a liberal, the certainty that the planet is teetering on disaster because of man-induced climate change.

As talk-show host and author Dennis Prager often says, the bigger the government, the smaller the individual.

Indeed, bigger government means less liberty. Again, by definition. (I needn't explain this to conservatives or libertarians). It simply isn't possible for an ever-more intrusive, powerful governing body to spawn more freedom.

How would that work exactly? What model is there to base that fantasy on?

Among other qualifiers to New York’s dubious distinction is the fact that the state has "the strictest health-insurance community-rating regulations in the country.” New York is also an anti-smoking zealot’s Xanadu. The strictest tobacco laws anywhere exist in New York. (That tobacco use has not been found to be an outright act of violence here is still perplexing). Mix in such acts of nanny-statism as mandating what oils restaurants can cook with, barely constitutional anti-gun laws, painfully excessive home schooling regulations, usurping the will of the people on term limits, banning smoking in privately owned bars and public parks, ridiculously stringent motor vehicle laws, rampant "Eminent domain abuse," and the almost obsessive war on salt by the likes of Michael “New-York-City-Welcomes-All-Illegals-To-Come-And-Stay” Bloomberg, and you’ve got a recipe for an ever-growing soft tyranny, a phrase that talk show host Mark Levin has popularized (quite accurately).

Yes, there is a totalitarian tendency in modern liberalism.

To the left, government knows best how to spend your money, feed you, teach you, medicate you, make health decisions for you, and so on. It’s the leftist's impulse to exert more influence in the everyday lives of its citizenry, because, according to them, they know best. That totalitarian inclination instinctively feeds the human being’s native longing for power and control, and helps to exemplify his inherent inability to know when to curtail that power when given more of it.

The term slippery slope comes to mind.

In other words, people just don't know when to stop.

That's why we create laws.

When this report was released last month, co-author Jason Sorens, a University of Buffalo political-science professor, offered an opinion as to how the State of New York could begin the process of healing its freedom-stifling wounds.

Legalize same-sex marriage.

Said Sorens, “"The most liberal state in the country can surely find the political will to legalize same-sex partnerships of some kind," he said.

The passage of same-sex marriage here in New York continues to be touted as a win for not only supporters of redefining a millenia-old institution but of teeny-tiny-government libertarian types who equate allowing more people to get hitched with less government control.

Hail freedom!  Get out of our lives, you big ol' Government, you!

But this thinking is misguided and hardly libertarian.

New York's sanctioning of same-sex marriage has actually served as an expansion of the government's reach - something that is supposed to be an anethma to a libertarian. With the redefinition of marriage, government is now more involved in our lives.

And yet another powerful lobby has successfully buried its hooks into the soft, fleshy matter of the statehouse.

Where exactly do New York's elected representatives summon the arrogance to believe they can redefine the basic institution of society? What makes them competent enough to do so? Simply because they're elected? Because they say so? Because they want to? Because they feel like it? Beacuse someone has to? Because their collective wisdom exceeds all of the history of humanity that preceded them? Because a given special interest group knows how to bang their cans more loudly?

New York's elected officials have taken a page from Mayor Mike Bloomberg's totalitarian-light playbook. Remember when Mayor Mike decided one day that New York City's term limit law didn't suit him? So he said, in effect, "To hell with what the people want, New York needs me." Likewise, Albany is saying that because a group of people say life is unfair, it has the faculty and qualification to change - literally change - a millenia-old societal institution that transcends every culture and civilization.

Think about that.

That's not a recession of government power - that's a full-fledged expansion of its power.

What will government decide it has the power to change next? What will they decide they need to be involved in after this?

That the question is even being asked flies in the face of libertarian principles.

Twenty-five years ago, the very thought of two people of the same sex marrying was considered one of those, "Don't be ridiculous" notions. Today, proponents of keeping the definiton of traditional marriage in tact are called ridiculous and antiquated. Same-sex marriage is suddenly  - magically - an issue of equality, freedom and civil rights.

And where does it end?

Today, the thought of someone marrying, say, their goldfish or a cup of Snack Pack butterscoth pudding is one of those "Don't be ridiculous" notions.

But will it be in twenty-five years?

If you could go back in time a quarter of a century and tell the citizens of New York City that smoking would be banned in bars and taverns, or that the government would keep free citizens from using perfectly legal cooking oils in privately owned restaurants, they'd look at you as if you had a pulsating basketball-sized goiter growing out of your neck.

The fact is, the loss of liberty is incremental and often barely noticeable.

This is the slippery slope.

When does it end?

And because of the passage of same-sex marriage in New York without a referendum, how could a government ever say "no" in the future when some new special interest group with resonating garbage cans comes a-clanging, making a huge noise about wanting to marry their ink jet printers? Or a jar of pitted olives? Or a sister? Or a dog? Or whatever the hell he or she wants to join in matrimony?

On what basis could the government say "no?"

Is this what New York libertarians had in mind?

This is nothing but government-constructed relativism. That is supposed to be the antithesis of libertarianism.

Proponents of keeping the definition of traditional marriage as it has always been draw the line at one man and one woman. Proponents of same-sex marriage draw the line at two individuals, regardless of sex.

By definition, both discriminate. 

Same-sex marriage advocates scoff at the suggestion that this opens the door to allowing such things as multiple spouses or sibling marriage, but on what grounds? Same-sex marriage has its limitations and discriminations, too, doesn't it? Why then is so called "gay marriage" discrimination acceptable and traditional marriage discrimination not?

Why are the inequalities and prejudices of permitting same-sex marriage okay?

And on what do same-sex marriage advocates base their matrimonial line in the sand? On how they feel? On what sounds good? How could they logically argue against a polygamists' movement? Or sibling love?

But what do I know? I've already been told on numerous occassions that I hate gays.

I can only hope my sister knows I don't hate her because of my opposition to sibling marriage.

-

New York's Gay Marriage Vote Glosses Over the Fact that Obama Punted the Issue

By the Left Coast Rebel

On Friday, New York legalized gay marriage. Frankly, my only question on this news is why did it take so long? One would figure that a state dominated by the metropolis New York City would have taken this stand years ago. Is upstate really that commanding of New York politics? Judging by how liberal-Democrat-dominated the state's politics are, I didn't think so.

As historic a moment in New York as it is, the issue has made everyone -- including the left -- forget that Obama can't even stand by the gay constituency:



Obama seeing the light on states' rights for the first time? Yah, that's called punting an issue and throwing a key constituency under the bus, this certainly won't help him in 2012, either.

Also read: At American Power, "Obama Heckled at LGBT Democrat Fundraiser in Manhattan!"

Via Memeorandum, cross posted to LCR.

Let's Be Clear - I Don't Hate Gays, Part Two

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

First, I sincerely apologize for not posting my follow up to last Thursday's blog entry "Let's Be Clear - I Don't Hate Gays, Okay?" as I promised I would. Life, as is often the case with me, got in the way of my best laid plans.

My original intention was to expand on the false premise regularly asserted by those on the left that to be against same-sex marriage is to hate homosexuals. I actually had something (almost) ready to go for Friday afternoon when I decided to take a slightly different route to the same ultimate destination.

Why?

Because since Thursday's post, several regular liberal readers of my old blog (redirected over here to Proof Positive) have e-mailed me at my old e-mail address to take issue with my assertions.

(For future reference, please post your responses here for everyone to see).

Subsequently, my inbox has been egged with comments of tolerance, civility and gentility -  a leftist specialty.

Clearly, I struck a chord with some.

From "rightwing scumbag" to "Nazi" to just plain "evil" – including one somewhat convoluted wish for my death – my e-mail inbox was as colorful as it has been in some time (A veritable rainbow of colors, you might say).

Some of the sweet nothings I scored included "leech," "hater" and "closet homo."

All infinitely clever. (Liberals are angry when they're beautiful).

One blogger, however, called Alan, was a tad more mannerly and politic.

As a means to an end, I will address him directly (but you’re all invited to “listen.”)

Hopefully, he will post any and all responses here at Proof Positive.

Alan wrote:

Many - perhaps most people - who oppose gay marriage actually do hate gays. And some of these people deny it, and rely upon a more palatably “respect for traditional marriage” argument to mask their prejudice.

Alan, I will respectfully disagree with you on this point. The vast majority of people who support retaining the traditional definition of marriage do not hate gays. What you are saying is simply not true. It is a myth propagated by those who wish to push the radical same-sex marriage agenda and falsely portray traditionalists as callous and unforgiving gay bashers. Indeed, I can hate the attempt to redefine the traditional meaning of marriage – and I do - but I do not hate those who are gay, nor do most of us on the traditional side of the aisle.

Sorry, but I simply won't - or don't - hate homosexuals.

Alan wrote:

The argument you have made about gay people being able to marry just like other people is neither logically nor constitutionally sound - it has been rejected by almost all courts and learned jurists in other contexts and in this one. Further, not only is it incorrect, it is just insensitive. It comes across as cruel and degrading, as does the implicit comparison of our relationships to bestiality and incest.

Alan, I defend the logic of my argument. The fact is, any man can marry any woman. It is in this point that the issue of "equality" truly lies – not in the desire to attain something that exists outside the millennia-old accepted parameters of the institution. That radical judges have, in recent years, pushed their own agendas, in direct contradiction to the will and consent of the people, does not necessarily make a decision constitutionally sound. Matters of public policy are always best left to the people, not bench legislators.

A blogger at Townhall.com who calls himself Ken The Playful Walrus articulates the point very well:

Under the principle of equal access/protection, California law prohibits discrimination against individuals on the basis of certain traits, such as race, sex, and sexual orientation, so that a driver’s license can’t be denied to someone with darker skin if that person meets the same criteria as a person with lighter skin. However, bride-groom marriage licenses are available to all individuals, regardless of race, sex, or sexual orientation.

Is sensitivity to be measured by how much one concedes to the requests and desires of given population groups? Is it not possible to be sensitive and sincerely empathetic to the desires of homosexuals on a personal level while wanting to maintain the traditional definition of marriage on a macro level? These are not mutually exclusive positions.

I can, for instance, empathize with the hurt and anger my daughter feels for not being allowed to go on a ski trip with the rest of her track team, but I can still stand by my position and forbid her to go for whatever reasons I may have had.

You also took offense to my inquiry about incest and beastiality, but you miss my larger point.

The question really is … from where do you derive your values in defining what constitutes a marriage? Why is incestial marriage off limits if same-sex marriage is to be allowed? Why is your line in the sand more correct than mine? What criterion do you use to define acceptability? From yourself? From a friend? To be consistent, you would have to agree that the institution of marriage is to be open to any combination of consenting parties (inasmuch as an animal could "consent"), otherwise the guidelines are simply "The Desires of Alan" at the moment. If you do support same-sex marriage, but do not accept sibling-marriage or marriage between men and sheep, for example, what makes your bigotry and biases valid, while mine are not?

I know where my values come from. What about yours?

Alan wrote:

It is a legitimate argument that marriage should be preserved because of the importance of gender roles in parenting. It’s just not a very good one. Why? It doesn’t reflect the reality of what marriage means in current society, it doesn’t reflect the reality of modern families and it doesn’t meaningfully weigh the benefits of granting the benefiial state of marriage to same-sex couples against the costs to society of making a change.

Can that be denied?

And if so, on what grounds?

That doesn’t mean that gays cannot be good parents. That isn’t the point.

But to deny it or diminish the immeasurable importance of having children raised by one father and one mother is to deny reality. At the risk of peddling bumpersticker fodder, boys need men to learn how to become men. Girls need women to learn how to become women. The sexes, oddly enough, complement each other. They were created that way - and having both in the role of shaping the lives of children is the imperative.

Alan wrote:

Gay marriage is an answer to the issue of how society should treat the meaningful loving romantic relationships of gay people. Civil Unions is another answer. Acting as if they don’t exist under the law - failing to protect the parties thereto and the children thereof - is a third answer. But I posit that anyone who believes the third answer is the right answer cannot legitimately deny animus toward gays. If marriage is not your answer, what is? Civil Unions? Something else? Perhaps you could address this issue directly.

If the people (of any given state) were to vote for the state endorsement of same-sex marriage, as distasteful and disappointing as it would be, I would abide by it and accept it. Religious arguments set aside, this issue is about the will of the people. It is up to those who wish the definition to be reconstructed to sell their arguments to the American people, not unlike the women of the suffrage movement did over a century ago.

Whether they could or not is an entirely different issue.

Ken The Playful Walrus makes these five points:

1. True rights do not obligate others without their consent.

2. State licenses are granted by the people of a state per their consent.

3. The people of California have only consented to issue marriage licenses to bride-groom couples, as reaffirmed in their voting Yes on Proposition 22 in 2000.

4. Therefore, voluntary associations without a bride or a groom do not have a right to a state-issued marriage license.(2)

5. Since there is no right to a state-issued marriage license, the California Supreme Court erred when ordering the people to issue marriage licenses even though no bride or no groom would be involved.

To want to defend the traditional definition of marriage is not hateful nor is it illogical. And it certainly isn't cruel. Locking up homosexuals for being gay, for example, would be cruel. Sending sex police barging into the homes of suspected gays to keep homosexual acts from taking place would be cruel. Having the state declare officially that homosexuality is to be publicly denounced and gays spat upon is cruel. Certainly, the way homosexuals are treated in countries like Iran and Afghanistan constitute genuine cruelty to a grotesque degree. The desire by people to keep marriage as it has always been – that is, the union of one man and one woman – is not cruel.

Alan, I know of no one who wishes to "act" like homosexuals don't exist under the law. I invite you to cite any legitimate examples of conservative leaders or proponents of traditional marriage (outside of an infinitesimal fringe of wackos) who say that homosexuals should not be allowed to have any rights at all. The overwhelming vast majority have no objection whatsoever to making sure gays are afforded the same legal protections that married couples are. In fact, civil union status, one could argue, should be afforded exclusively to homosexuals. I have no problem with that. Other legal arrangements – like, for instance, between siblings or long-time best friends – can also be arranged through the state. Legal arrangements of any kind should be allowable under the laws of each state. If they are not, then that is the fight to take up.

The bottom line is … government should be neutral on the issue of same-sex marriage. It should not condone it nor condemn it. It should remain silent on the issue. However, to promote traditional marriage is not only in the best interest of society, it is, quite literally, the very lifeline of society, and has been for all of human history.

I appreciate your e-mail very much. With every bit of respect I can muster, thank you for your comments, Alan. I sincerely appreciate them and wish you well.

Next time, post them here!

-

Let's Be Clear - I Don't Hate Gays, Okay?

More powerful than seven million, Judge Vaughn Walker

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

Anyone who was surprised that the will of the people of California was dismissed yesterday afternoon by an activist judge, please stand on your head.

Anyone who was shocked that an issue of public policy - a matter rightfully assigned to the people - was tossed out the window by a radical jurist, please grab your medication and return to the land of the thinking.

It should have astonished no one that Proposition 8 - the measure voted on by the people of California in 2008 to keep the millennia-old definition of marriage in tact - was declared unconstitutional by a leftist judge, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker.

(Walker did, however, issue a stay on the order while an appeal is pursued.)

See how easily the will of seven million Americans can be tossed aside like so much pocket lint?

Almost immediately after the ruling, I received an e-mail from a long-time liberal acquaintance - let's call him Emotion Man -  who wrote:

"Not a good day for America's haters, is it?"

Clever ...

... because all of us who wish to preserve the traditional definition of marriage must be homosexual haters.

There's a scene in the Godfather Part II, spoken by Michael Corleone in front of the Senate Committee, where he is reading from a prepared statement:

"I find it a great dishonor to me personally to have to deny that I am a criminal."

(Of course, he was a criminal, but that's beside the point).

This line keeps popping into my head every time I am accused of being a hater of homosexuals because of my position on same-sex marriage.

Emotion Man sent me an e-mail in response to a piece I posted back during the Anti-Proposition 8 rallies a couple of years ago.

He wrote:

"Whether you're getting your values from the Bible or not, there's no valid reason to be against gay marriage unless you hate or are afraid of gays."

I immediately saw myself sitting at that table with Michael Corleone, exasperated with the Senate Committee:

"I find it a great dishonor to me personally to have to deny that I am a gay hater."

(Of course, I am not, and that is the point).

I neither hate gays, nor do I fear them. Such thoughts don't even cross my mind.

I am, however, loath to use the term “gay marriage.” In context of the argument to redefine the traditional meaning of marriage, it is incorrect. It's a trap. The appropriate term is “same-sex” marriage. The fact that the former is often employed in place of the latter is no accident. It is as much a strategic move as it is one of ignorance. That's because same-sex marriage activists recognize how easily the traditional view can be made to sound like a position of hate and intolerance. Thus, the perfunctory conclusion one can draw about someone being against “gay marriage” is that he is against "gay people."

Dozens of likewise examples exist ...

-I have contempt for the policy of affirmative action, but because its purpose is to “level the playing field” for minorities, I must obviously be anti-minority.

-I am against most unions, but because their purpose is to make sure that fair working conditions exist for employees, I am clearly anti-employee.

Irrelevant is whether or not initiatives like affirmative action, or organizations like the labor unions, are actually doing any good or delivering on their original designed purposes.

It doesn't matter. On the Left, compassion is measured by intent, not results.

My liberal friend went on to say:

This is an issue of equal rights, and it can hardly be denied. Your thinking is not only outdated, it is dangerous. Because you and your right wing bretheren continue to deny us the right to marry, we will never be looked upon as equals.

Many proponents of same-sex marriage caterwaul about the inherent inequalities in being denied the opportunity to marry. But by definition, there is no issue of inequality in the debate, nor is there a denial of rights. Gay people can, in fact, marry. That they wish to marry people of the same sex is a separate issue and altogether inapposite to the so-called "equality of rights" argument.

No one can marry whomever they want unless it fits the very specific guideline of what marriage is - that is, the union of one man and one woman.

To illustrate the point, let's say, for example, we have a young lady named Laura who wishes to be married someday, and there are three young men courting her - one white, one black and one oriental.

And let's say, eventually, Laura falls in love with the black man and decides she wants to marry him.

If that black man is denied the opportunity by the state to marry the girl because of his skin color, then a clear-cut example of a denial of equal rights exists. (The fact that there were statutes on the books denying interracial marriage in some states at one time was an aberration. They exist no more. It should be noted that there is nothing biblically-based that prohibits interracial marriages. Additionally, there is nothing anywhere in any context in all of human history that supports or advocates marriage between members of the same sex). The equality issue, as it relates to marriage, is defined by the fact that any man - even a gay man - can marry any woman. It's not about which sex he will marry.

I repeat - no one can marry the same sex, just as no one can tie the knot with a squirrel or take the vows with a candy machine.

Remember, there are no vital distinctions between men of different races. There are, however, genuine and explicit differences that exist between the sexes - a reality that has been undermined in this society for the better part of four decades, from college campuses on through to pop culture. The predictable (and tragic) by-product has been the movement to redefine an institution that has been steadfast for thousands of years.

By propagating the idea that the marriage between two men (or two women) carries the same importance to civilization as the marriage between one man and one woman, the uniqueness of each sex is devalued, and the contrasts between them blurred.

I do not want those distinctions diluted. I celebrate and cherish the differences between men and women.

That doesn't mean that as individuals gay people are less important human beings than straight people. I would never say such a thing, nor do I believe it with even a scintilla of my being. We are all God's children.

That isn't the point.

My friend continued:

It will only be a matter of time before the old guard Bible-thumpers like yourself, hell-bent on institutional discrimination, are seen as the radical ones. Your position is indefensible.

There are a multitude of gays who do not agree with the push to redefine marriage - including the likes of Elton John, no Bible-thumper by any means. (He recently called for the abolition of religion, you may recall).

I also find the use of the word "radical" amusing, seeing as it is the millenia-old definition of marriage being challenged by a movement not even a generation old.

And just for the record ... as "radical" as this may sound, I am also opposed to humans marrying cats - and I assure you, I do not hate cats.

And if there were a movement sweeping the nation calling for the government to advocate sibling marriages, I would be just as vocal and just as adamantly opposed to it.

And if sheep could somehow speak, and a grassroots movement caught fire calling for humans to be able to lawfully wed them, I would vehemently debate them (at a barnyard of their choice) on the necessity of preserving traditional marriage.

I want only the best for all Americans. That includes homosexuals. That is as truthful a statement as I can make.

This is not an anti-gay position.

This is a pro-marriage position.

Come off it already.

(I'll have more thoughts tomorrow on this matter here on the great Proof Positive blog)