If We’re Going To Respect Gay Rights, Can We Start Respecting All Rights?

michael-bloomberg

This tweet sent out by the office of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is ironic given Mayor Bloomberg’s hositilty to the right of the people to buy large sodas and own guns:


Mayor Bloomberg’s hypocrisy is by no means unusual. I’m sure that many of the same people who were elated by the victory scored for gay rights at the Supreme Court yesterday also believe it’s ok for the government to restrict soda sizes and gun ownership.

Mayor Bloomberg wants gays to be able to choose who to marry, even knowing that not all gays are going to make good choices in that regard. It’s their life, and their choice to make. We could argue that allowing gays to marry might be detrimental to society (I don’t see how gays are going to do anything to the “institution of marriage” that straights haven’t already), but even if we stipulate to that point, does that trump the right of the individual to choose?

The answer, for those who like freedom, is “no.”

But isn’t the same true of soda? You could argue that some people make bad choices with soda, and that the resulting obesity has a detrimental impact on society as a whole, but so what? The rights of the individual trump that.

The same goes with guns. In fact, the same goes with human activity in general. Do what you will, say I, as long as you’re not denying anyone else their rights.

Yet people like Bloomberg and so many others on the left and the right want to pick and choose which freedoms we have. They want the freedoms they like, but not the freedoms you like. And so much of politics is a war over what freedoms we’re going to allow one another to have.

Why not let ourselves have all the freedoms? How about we let one another make the lifestyle choices we want to make, whether it’s drinking large sodas or owning guns or marrying who we love?

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • sbark

    If past history would give us any indication they will limit theirideology to “who they love”..past history of liberalism is the best indicator of the future.

    As red state says states like Ndak have 2 yes to pass legislation protecting their religious institutions

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      I would support legislation to make it clear that all private organizations have the right of conscience when it comes to recognizing gay marriage.

      • HG

        Won’t happen. People are already facing legal action for acting on conscience in regards to marriage. The trend is toward a nonsensical, emotional, societal construct excusive of any moral and natural distinction. Like we’ve been saying for some time. It’s a slippery slope.

        • realitybasedbrc

          the slippery slope argument is a pure strawman. everyone would respect you more if you just came out and said that you’re a homophobe and fearful of change, so you don’t mind trampling the rights of others.

          until then, you’re embarrassing yourself.

          • HG

            Not looking for your respect Rbb. It’s undeniable the actions already brought against business owners who acted on conscience. You’re free to ignore the facts. You’ve gotten quite good at it.

          • realitybasedbrc

            you’re right. it’s perfectly reasonable to allow people to act on biblical conscience because when has that ever gone wrong?

            scientists were killed. atheists were killed. witch hunts took place, both literally and figuratively. blacks killed for looking at whites.

            you’re right. i should be more tolerant of your view.

            history won’t be kind to you. you should consider this.

            and when you finally present a ‘fact’, people will consider it. the only thing i’m ignoring at this point is you.

            have a bad weekend.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            HG only feels he is right because of how he interprets the bible, and distorts its message based on his poisoned view of politics and the world.

            Another right wing bigot is bent out shape…..I can live with that. He can pretend to be starting another country and further alienate himself from society It wont be long until his ideological cocoon becomes a real one.

          • Mark 2112

            speaking of alienating oneself…..a belt buckle collection? seriously? who spends $$ on that? laughable you even ‘think’ your input is needed much less tolerated.

          • Mark 2112

            typical knee jerk reaction from you….just because someone doesn’t agree with a lifestyle CHOICE, doesn’t mean or make that person a homophobe. seriously, that is starting to play out as bad as the race card…..

      • 7point62

        Your still blinded by ideology.
        This IS an ideological attack on
        Judeo/Christian culture and society.

        http://godfatherpolitics.com/11486/supreme-court-christianity-is-false-immoral-and-socially-destructive/

        Quote:

        I’ve seen a lot of praise for Antonin Scalia in his dissenting minority
        opinion against the majority that struck down one part of the defense of
        marriage act. But I don’t think, as insightful as Scalia was, that he really has
        drilled down to the essence of what the Kennedy-led majority has done.

        Scalia, if you haven’t heard,
        pointed out that the majority has condemned as evil anyone who would oppose same-sex “marriage.”

        He wrote that the majority,
        “accuses the Congress that enacted this law and
        the President who signed it of something much worse than,
        for example, having acted in excess of enumerated federal powers—or even having drawn distinctions that prove to be irrational.

        Those legal errors may be made in good faith,
        errors though they are.

        But the majority says that the supporters of this Act
        acted with malice …
        to disparage and to injure same-sex couples.
        It says that the motivation for DOMA was to ‘demean,’
        to ‘impose inequality,’
        to … brand gay people as ‘unworthy,’
        and to ‘humiliate’ their children.”

        Scalia presented evidence for his case.
        I think he supported what he said in good faith.

        So he starkly presented the anti-DOMA majority as
        having passed moral judgment on all who supported DOMA.

        “In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its
        holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement.

        To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to ‘disparage,’ ‘injure,’ ‘degrade,’ ‘demean,’ and ‘humiliate’ our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual…

        It is one thing for a society to elect change;

        it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.”

        All of this is good, but I think it leaves out the main point that the
        majority is striving to deal with.

        Throughout the history of the United States
        from its founding, and through much of the Western Tradition, not only was marriage intrinsically heterosexual, but homosexual acts were considered sinful.

  • zdavid53

    Bravo Rob. I guess I’ve become more and more of a libertarian all the time except when it comes to foreign policy.

    • HG

      More accurately, liberals and libertarians agree on social issues more often than not. The same social issues that aren’t suppose to matter to liberals and libertarians.

  • HG

    Rob,

    You’re so wrong on this one.

    The individuals right to choose is not even at issue here.

    Is your individual right to choose trumped since you are excluded from those institutions, organizations, or anything exclusively female? No. Your not a girl so you don’t have that choice.

    Are you upset you don’t have pap smear coverage in you health insurance? No. Your a male, you don’t have that choice.

    The union of two opposites is unique and worth respecting the differences that give significance and purpose to family and society through the marital union.

    Pretending that individual choice is trumped, when even if that individual wants to, that person can never experience this uniqueness in a same sex union, is to pretend the choice exists in the first place. It clearly does not.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      The individuals right to choose is not even at issue here.

      Except for your belief that a man should be prohibited from marrying another man.

      You’re playing semantics games. This is a losing battle. In fact, it’s a lost battle.

      • HG

        I’ll admit you appear to be a lost cause on this issue. I hoped, given your ability to think rationally, that you’d think through it more carefully.
        Like I’ve pointed out plainly in my previous comment, there is not choice for a man to experience all that makes for marriage if he chooses a same sex union. The choice doesn’t exist.

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          There nothing rational about your feelings about gays.

          • HG

            Yeah. Ad hominem. Meh.

      • HG

        Semantic games are played by the side of this debate that simply insist on calling same sex unions “marriage” regardless of the fact that they fail to qualify as marriage. That is a semantic game.

        Your use of “marriage” is equivocation. You use the same word–”marriage”–to describe two very different unions as if its meaning was always meant to include both. You continue to ignore the meaningful and important differences and instead focus on a few similarities that when examined closer are significantly different. In other words, your faulty comparison is constructed on a erroneous premise.

        Pointing to and explaining in detail the substance of marriage and how nature itself prevents same sex partners from laying hold of that substance in their own union is a solid, rational argument in defense of marriage.

        Your counter arguments are disappointing to say the least.

      • NoDakNative

        You are equivocating two separate relationships.

        Marriage, whose pourpose is to provide a stable environment for the creation and raising of children. These relationships are healthy.

        Same-sex relationships, which, to be blunt, are disease ridden and deadly. 50% of new AIDS cases are in homosexuals. Virtually every other STD you care to name is drastically higher in homosexuals than heterosexuals.

        To equivocate one healthy relationship type and one undeniably unhealthy relationship type as the same is as crazy as saying that someone injecting insulin into their body is doing the same thing as injecting heroin into their body.

        The only reason I would affirm homosexuality is if I hated homosexuals. Nobody deserves to live a life of disease and death as that lifestyle produces. If they want to live that lifestyle then I have no problem with that, but to get the state to promote it as normal and healthy when all the medical evidence says otherwise? No way.

  • HG

    Nobody is prohibiting homosexuals from choosing that lifestyle. There are so many false assumptions in your post it’s ridiculous.

    • realitybasedbrc

      much like your false assumption that homosexuality is a choice.

      boy, they’re really everywhere today, aren’t they?

      • Neiman

        Prove it! Even if you could prove a genetic causation, which you cannot; acting out sexually is always a choice – period. No one forces them to engage in that deviant sexual conduct, it is a free will choice.

        • realitybasedbrc

          tell you what, bible nutter, tell us all about when you chose to be straight, and we can start to have a rational discussion about this.

          in the meantime, hike up your skirts and go continue not responding to rbb, who kicks your ass by directly quoting your bullshit back to you.

          the only freewill choice in play here is your homophobia. which is rampant.

          • Neiman

            You are not very intelligent, are you? I think your IQ is in the double digits.

            I choose to act out sexually, which was the point of my comments. Orientation is arguable, but when we act on our desires it is a choice, one is not forced to sodomize another man or for that matter a heterosexual to sodomize a women or other variations. Sexual activity is always a choice.

            I do not have to prove the normal – heterosexuality, it is self evident, it is indisputable; it is on you shoulders as a gay or gay supporter to prove homosexuality is innate, which you cannot and even if by some near miracle such evidence was uncovered, it still does not relieve them of the responsibility to resist those destructive, deviant sexual desires, just as we would expect a child molester, rapist or other sexual deviant to resist those overwhelming sexual desires.

            Homophobia is wholly a liberal construct designed to silence opponents of the homosexual lifestyle, but a phobia is an irrational fear of something and you cannot prove that 99.99% of those opposing homosexuality do so out of fear, as to oppose something on logical, rational or even religious grounds does not represent an irrational fear of the thing opposed.

            I realize you must defend your great love, your alter ego rbb; but I am tired of his name calling, his ugly picture posting, his refusal to debate subjects in a civil, rational, logical manner and his constant, most damnable lies. He has never proven a single thing against me not one, not the smallest iota of anything. But, your blind love for him will not allow you to speak the truth.

          • realitybasedbrc

            bible nutter- we’ve hashed this out many times. talking to you is purely mental masturbation.

            YOU calling intelligence into question? laughable. tell us again how the unerrant word of god, your bible, only has a single version. or how, out of all the religions the world has now or will ever have, you’re sure that yours is the correct one. you can’t. and you won’t. because reality frightens you the way theocrats such as yourself frighten everyone else.

            so what if homosexuals act out their homosexual desires? how does that, in any way, affect you?

            i’ll go ahead and answer for you: it doesn’t. at all.

            there is nothing destructive or deviant about homosexual behaviors to homosexuals. you’re homophobic and beyond the grasp of reality.

            your opposition of homosexuals isn’t logical or rational. it’s religious and rooted in homophobia. in fact, your religion is also rooted in homophobia.

            rbb wipes the floor with you, using your own, hypocritical words. you choose not to engage him because he makes a mockery of your arguments. typically using your own words against you.

            you’re dismissed. have a bad weekend.

          • Neiman

            All childish rage by a person that suffers from Christophobia (an irrational fear of Christ) and Aleutheophobia (an irrational fear of Divine Truth). You prove nothing, you offer no facts, you make no rational arguments, just childish rage.

          • realitybasedbrc

            bible nutter, unlike homosexuals, who do exist to frighten you, apparently, it’s quite impossible for me to suffer from either of the fears you mention.

            because i don’t believe in your fantasy, your christ, in the very existence of divine truth (please- really?).

            long ago, i asked you a series of questions, which you refused to answer. they basically asked you to confront some of the glaring hypocrisy in your religion and in your stances on various topics. you refused to answer them. because they were inconvenient.

            tell you what, go back, find those, and answer them truthfully, if you find in your cowardly heart the capability to do so. then, i will continue to bitch-slap you with reality on a periodic basis.

            it must be nice to randomly repeat bullshit then claim them to be facts. you should work for fox or wnd.

          • Clairvoyant

            You have continually demonstrated an appetite for unintelligent and gullible thought. Just look at your reliance on the King James Bible (NKJV). Yup- the same King James that was a renowned pedophile. Can’t hate Christianity any more than following the blasphemous text of that so called “Bible”.

          • 7point62

            What is Ray ray’s Biblical version of choice?

            Never did get back to me on god back stabbing Israel in a lot of you modernist Christians and white separatist
            Jew haters point of view….
            You a Gordon Kohl kinda hater?
            Jews and blacks can’t be saved and all that stuff..

          • 7point62

            Now David was a carnal man.
            But he was after God’s own heart Ray ray..
            A sinful carnal man who knew God could, and would…

            Psalm 138:1-8
            New King James Version
            (NKJV)

            The Lord’s Goodness to the Faithful

            A Psalm of David.

            1 I will praise You with my whole heart;
            Before the gods I will sing praises to You.

            2 I will worship toward Your holy temple,
            And praise Your name
            For Your loving kindness and Your truth;
            For You have magnified Your word above all Your name.

            3 In the day when I cried out, You answered me,
            And made me bold with strength in my soul.

            4 All the kings of the earth shall praise You, O Lord,
            When they hear the words of Your mouth.
            5 Yes, they shall sing of the ways of the Lord,
            For great is the glory of the Lord.

            6 Though the Lord is on high,
            Yet He regards the lowly;
            But the proud He knows from afar.

            7 Though I walk in the midst of trouble,
            You will revive me;
            You will stretch out Your hand
            Against the wrath of my enemies,
            And Your right hand will save me.

            8 The Lord will perfect that which concerns me;
            Your mercy, O Lord, endures forever;
            Do not forsake the works of Your hands.

          • Clairvoyant

            Wonder how those boys that King James molested felt?

          • 7point62

            I wonder how those black kids that went to Jefferson Elementary felt? What with Jefferson owning slaves and all.
            Your point is pointless…

          • Clairvoyant

            No one at Jefferson Elementary, or deist Thomas Jefferson had anything to do with re-writing the Bible. King James did. But nice ducking of the question.

          • 7point62

            Again you don’t understand your own pointless point nor my answer to it.

            but I figured as much…

            Speaking of “ducking questions”

            What is the st. clair “official version” of the Bible?
            Do you support Gods promises to Israel or are you a Jew hater like the posse comitatus crowd and say God is a liar to His Chosen?

          • Clairvoyant

            Jew hating? I think you’ve earned the proverbial crown on that one, Dime Store Christ®. Your crown is in the mail.

          • 7point62

            So if your not, answer the “simple” question.
            Is Israel still the seat of earthly contact for Christ, or not?
            He came to his own and they knew Him not.
            As He came in submission so the gentile could as well receive the Promises of God to Israel..
            don’t clam up now hater…..
            What is your doctrines and theologies concerning Gods none ability to lie and “your” approved version of Scripture and/or Truth…..

          • Clairvoyant

            I don’t play your bizarre unique little game of Christian Jeopardy. Wake your Yellow Lab up from his nap and see if he’s game for it.

          • 7point62

            Yeah…
            That’s what I thought hater.
            A Barry-esque “present” vote……

          • Clairvoyant

            Hate? I don’t think so. I love dogs!

          • 7point62

            Testify st. clair…..
            your good at ridicule of others…
            now testify oh wise traditionalist.
            Who only votes “present”.

          • 7point62

            And maybe your mother a little to much as well, huh…
            Ray ray votes “present” your honor……..
            sustained…
            mother lover…answer the questions.

          • 7point62

            No you won’t defend your own baseless accusations or beliefs,
            just ridicule others for their points of view, huh.
            Ray ray votes “present” again your honor….

          • Mark 2112

            and you need to come off of your proverbial cross — sanctimonious at best…..

          • 7point62

            Duckin and dodgin and throwin the ridicule ball at any and all,
            rather than stand and tell us all what your own ideology/doctrine is all about….
            just like the satanic marxist critical theory Frankfurt School
            taught all ya all indoctrinated lemmings to do…

          • Mark 2112

            probably not as bad as the kids you give the green light to abort…

          • 7point62

            Like your last sexual encounter?

          • 7point62

            Ridicule.
            lucifer/marx/alinsky
            rule #5
            Make the KJV of the Bible the strawman
            and ridicule it as well as those who read it and understand it…
            Your a broken record Ray ray……
            “just sayin”…….

        • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

          “…acting out sexually is always a choice – period.” – Neiman

          When did you choose to be straight, Neiman?

          • Neiman

            Men have all sorts of deviant desires, but they are not forced to act out based on those desires, that makes it a free will choice. We demand the alcoholic with his demon lusts for alcohol not act out to satisfy that lust or suffer the consequences of their acts, same with child molesters, rapists, anyone with deviant destructive desires. When they act on those desires it is a choice.

            When did you choose to be a Christ hater?

          • Mark 2112

            didn’t have to choose to do what nature intended. but then again you spend your mommies $$ on belt buckles, so you’re opinion, as usual, means nothing.

          • 7point62

            Being “straight” is the design of the Creator..
            No choice in it for most of us…
            just the nature of things.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Where is the DNA evidence of the straight gene?

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            I honestly don’t think it matters if homosexuality is genetic or a choice, but don’t gays argue routinely that they were born into their orientation?

          • 7point62

            And how far would your natural selection theory get ya poi boi with Adam and Steve?

      • NoDakNative

        Why is it a false assumption? Former homosexuals are all over the place if you just took the time to look.

        There are entire support organizations for former homosexuals and their families.

        http://www.sbministries.org/members/sbm
        Stephen Bennett is himself a former homosexual.

        Then there is Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) The president of that organization, Greg Quinlan is also a former homosexual.

        Homosexuality being a choice is not what the gay lobby and media want to hear, so they deny that it even exists.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Hey, I’d rather the government not sanction marriages at all. But if we’re going to do it, you can’t tell me it’s not prohibitive when the government recognizes one marriage and not another.

      That’s not a false assumption. That’s reality.

      • HG

        Well, until you wake up to the reality that not all unions are a marriage, you’ll continue not to understand how gov’t can recognize marriage without that recognition being some imagined inequality.

      • PK

        Well you better be the first one defending church’s rights when the government makes them perform gay marriages. It’s going to happen eventually. How can’t you see the real agenda behind the government taking over marriage, then creating an injustice, then offering the solution of destroying traditional marriage? How about we get government out of our lives, instead of pushing for “equality” that only serves government power and intrusion? Even eliminating all the benefits for married heterosexual couples would solve this issue, because then gays would have no reason to marry. There would be no injustice. But that’s not what it’s really about and you’re not wise enough to see it. Heck, you can’t even see the self evident truths of a Creator that are all around us, so i shouldn’t be so hard on you for not understanding a social engineering agenda. Let’s reduce government power, not enable it.

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          Honestly, I think opposition to gay marriage from stick-in-the-mud conservatives has played right into the hands of some of the fringe elements of the movement who want to accomplish what you’re talking about.

          If we’d just let the gays marry a long time ago those elements wouldn’t have nearly the following they have now.

      • Drain52

        So, if the government doesn’t recognize marriage between mother and son, that’s bad? In her book “The Kiss,” Kathryn Harrison describes her consensual three year sexual affair with her father. What if they wanted to marry each other, “love” and “equality” and all else being adduced as reasons why? Okay with you?

        See, this is why libertarianism, for its many solid points, is fatally flawed. Everything, but everything, in libertarianism is contractual. That there could be non-contractual things such as relations, family, grotesque human behaviors, etc. never factor into its considerations. We can freely allow all sorts of bizarre behavior behind closed doors. No problem there. But to actually publicly sanction the grotesque is to give up whatever it means to be human.

      • 7point62

        That is the agenda huh Rob…
        the LGBT lady said it all huh.
        Get rid of marriage all together by forcing the gay agenda….

    • 7point62

      Only Islamic countries prohibits homosexuality.

      We “haters” have been actually so tolerant that this gay agenda
      has “moved progressively FORWARD”
      with only token resistance for decades….
      Now they want to destroy us as the ideologues
      see weakness and smell blood.

  • Rick Olson

    Regardless, with North Dakota’s protection of marriage amendment enshrined in the Constitution, even a lawsuit would be to no avail. North Dakota’s courts are constitutionally barred from declaring any part of the state constitution as being unconstitutional. Now with SCOTUS’s ruling on DOMA and California’s Proposition 8; could we see the gay rights movement in North Dakota challenge the de facto constitutional prohibition against gay marriage in the federal courts? They could, yes, but in order for there to be a lawsuit; there would have to be an injury of some kind. In other words, someone just can’t sue without having proper legal standing first. Bear in mind that both of North Dakota’s U.S. District Judges were both appointed by Republican presidents and come from long lines of North Dakota political families. The chances of either of North Dakota federal judges issuing a ruling to overturn the North Dakota protection of marriage amendment would be pretty slim.

    The gay rights activists would have every right to mount an initiated measure for a constitutional amendment to repeal the protection of marriage amendment. It can be a long and drawn out process; and personally, I think there is still a majority of North Dakotans who would vote against such a proposition.

  • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

    “We could argue that allowing gays to marry might be detrimental to society…”

    WOW! I weep for society…

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      You realize I support gay marriage, and don’t believe it’s detrimental to society, right?

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        That fact that you believe anyone could “argue that allowing gays to marry might be detrimental to society” says a lot about you and those you believe could do so, as does your desire only to approve of gay marriage for only political reasons.

      • sbark

        ……Our society, or Rep Republic form of Govt depends on a moral, principled group of citizens………..this attack on religion, ends up being a attack on the Constitution……….One can already see the removal of natural law………..with the Govt via SCOTUS being the final arbiter, the final call on right/wrong… as it was in Roe Wade, as it was here……..our Founders had the SCOTUS as a check to power—not a leftist ways and means to it.
        What is perceived as a good for a very minor 3% of the population is a chain saw to our society, as is abortion, as is generational welfare, as is most anything the left has its focus on….but that is exactly why their focus is on it…..they just need a bunch of enablers to push it for them………..don’t worry, your not a charter member, just the next generation.

      • 7point62

        Get the point yet?

        See how hanni’s ilk is not satisfied you support the “false cause”…
        It is you (conservative) and us (Christians)
        that the ideologues want destroyed..

        Don’t blink…

        When they are done with the Jews and Christians?
        Who will they come for next?

        Understand yet………….

      • Drain52

        You understand of course that necrophilia, if consented to by all parties involved, supposedly wouldn’t be “detrimental to society” either, right? But do you still think it should be openly practiced and sanctioned by government and society?

        It’s a copout to say that necrophilia is behavior too bizarre to figure into the discussion. It happens, and it’s of the same lunatic cloth as men taking men as wives. Doesn’t equality demand that necrophiliacs step out of the shadows and into the rights that are properly theirs?

    • Mark 2112

      i do too — ever since morons like you voted for Obama.

  • Bman

    Legally speaking, I support gay marriage. Why not? You can look at marriage in three ways:

    1) Is marriage a civil contract between two people in which they share community property and have certain rights regarding inheritance, taxation and other civil functions?

    Or…

    2) Is marriage an anthropological state of monogamy that evolved to create a family unit to ensure the best chance for the resulting offspring to survive and thrive?

    Or…

    3) Is marriage a religious institution? For example, is marriage a sacrament, a contract, a sacred institution and/or covenant, given by God and defined by the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul?

    I just want to remind you that the government can only define marriage as confined within definition Number 1, above. The Supreme Court, the president and the Congress have no authority over Numbers 2 and 3 at all. None. Zilch. Nothing they say or do has any impact on these two definitions. It is out of their purview and out of their control. Nothing the government says changes Numbers 2 and 3 in any way.

    Now, if you are deeply and emotionally tied up in the belief that Number 1 should be between a man and a woman only, you have reason to be upset by the SCOTUS ruling and laws allowing gay marriage in general.

    If, however, you are like me and all of your emotion regarding marriage is associated with the second and third definitions, you really have little to be upset about. Nothing that happened in government today or any day has any effect on those two definitions at all.

    To me, the thing is, it’s not called marriage; it’s called gay marriage. They can have gay marriage all day long.

    • PK

      My issue is the inevitability of the government going after churches who won’t perform gay marriage, at best by revoking charity tax exemptions and at worst criminally prosecuting them to get them to capitulate. That’s why the best solution is to get government out of marriage completely and to abolish the 16th Amendment.

  • banjo kid

    If they really wanted to stand up for any rights it should be for the rights of the unborn to live their lives until it is naturally terminated and not be closed out by some demented doctor or so-called doctor,.

  • Mark 2112

    so when do the rights of the unborn kick in?

  • Jeff

    This article wasn’t about whether gay marriage is right or wrong. It is about the hypocrisy of the people who support “freedom” only when it fits their agenda. From all the gay marriage comments on here it appears that many of you are just as bad a Bloomberg, only a different ideology. I hope some day I can live in an America where gays can marry, people can drink giant sodas, and smokers can smoke in a private business if the owner says it is ok.

    • Neiman

      Freedom can never be absolute; that is, it can never exist without any restraints at all on the people, lest you have anarchy and one person exercising their rights at the expense of the rights of another person. While with restricting smoking, sodas and trans-fat by executive order are extremes and border on tyranny, what about having to reach a certain age and pass tests before driving a car, or getting a hunting license or fishing license versus fishing in drinking water reservoirs or hunting species to extinction? There are simply many areas of life wherein “the people,” preferably on the state level, have the right and responsibility to set forth conditions for human behavior that potentially endanger others or as stated denies one person their rights by another person exercising theirs. So, reasonable people say that “the people” have the power to establish laws and regulations based on community morals and standards of conduct.

      Have no fear, you will soon, I would say within a decade or so, lawfully marry another man anywhere in America, although very few gays actually get married, they really just want to destroy marriage and silence the Christian Church, which Church opposes their grossly immoral, destructive lifestyle choice. Yet, it is undeniable that public pressure by liberals and devolving national morality is changing the atmosphere in America and gay marriage will soon be recognized nationally. However, just because it happens and we change our flag from the Stars and Stripes to a rainbow, as we have changed our military to a feminist/gay military, nothing on earth or in hell will ever make it right; and, as America embraces that deviant lifestyle choice as being normal and silence all Christian opposition, please know this as an absolute fact, in every great empire the last and most obvious symptom of their moral decline and their swift implosion as an empire, has been the acceptance of homosexuality as not being a wicked and unspeakable lifestyle.

      So, while this will all come to pass, it will be to our national peril and the destruction of hundreds of millions of souls that might have been saved and have eternal life.

      • rbb

        Are you the same Neiman who’s proclaimed America’s 1rst Amendment guarantees absolute freedom and the crying fire in a movie theater is protected by said amendment?

        • Onslaught1066

          What is wrong with crying fire in a movie theater?

          Are we just supposed to let them all burn up?

          I guess if it’s a particularly good movie, I can see letting them go in a blaze of entertainment bliss.

          What have you got against the movie viewing public anyway?

          Why do you want them to die in a fire?

          Must be a sad pathetic existence down in your mom’s basement to make you so callous to humans being burned to death.

          You know there were other democrats who liked to see humans burned to death, I wonder if you are an anachronism.

      • Jeff

        I think what we have is a fundamental disagreement about freedom. You feel like keeping gays from marrying is a way to protect society from itself (i.e. hunting licenses and driving restrictions on the young). I see it as a limiting of an individuals rights by the government.

        • Neiman

          There is no limit on gays marrying, they may marry any opposite gender person they want, just like heterosexuals. So it is a canard to suggest they do not have equal rights regarding marriage. Further, I would suggest that the hate crimes and other modern equal rights laws grant gays extraordinary rights not given to and to the detriment of heterosexuals.

          What you are suggesting and defending is anarchy, each man establishing their own rights and laws and forcing them on other citizens to the denial of their rights. Most often these rights are competing rights and you are suggesting that in such cases, libertine leftists and gays rights are superior to the rights of others. That is, if the majority define and insist marriage, like a driver’s license, have minimum qualifying standards, you are insisting the perceived rights of gays are superior to these qualifying standards and that is unconstitutional.

          As the cretin below suggests, I am a passionate defender of the Bill of Rights, as written; and, I demand that they be amended according to the Constitution, if the people now view them differently, but that they cannot be changed by judicial, legislative or executive acts. However, marriage is NOT a Civil Right, it is not mentioned in the Bill of Rights and is left to the people of the states, like driver’s licenses to regulate.

          • Jeff

            You are creating a straw man here. I didn’t suggest that gay marriage was protected by the bill of rights. Neither is smoking in public or soda drinking, but I would not like to see my ability to make these decisions for myself infringed on. I am speaking of my personal beliefs on these issues so I am not sure how you can say that I am forcing this on anyone. I agree that states should be able to make their own laws regarding any of these issues, but my hope is that they would see it from my perspective and not yours. It also seems you are not so much a defender of the bill of rights but a loudmouth who enjoys twisting it to fit your narrative.

          • Neiman

            Ah, yes, despite my giving you sound reasoning and Constitutional arguments, as you fear you are losing the debate, you descend to insults. You were insulting, but made no rational argument why I am wrong on the issue or wherein I twisted anything. That is the reasoning of a child, not an adult.

            If you smoke in a public place, you are infringing on the rights of non-smokers to be free from tobacco health hazards. You are exercising your falsely perceived rights at the expense of others. That does not mean I am against places of business declaring their business a smoking environment and it is then public take notice and enter at theirr own risk.

            I understand that you would like the world to see these issues from your view point and not mine; but, forgive me if I suggest the ends of your way are death for America in my opinion.

          • Jeff

            First off We agree about the smoking. I should have been more clear when I said “smoking in public”. A private business owner should allowed to have a smoking allowed establishment. Second, I should apologize for calling you a loudmouth. Sorry I hurt your feelings. Lastly, We aren’t even having the same debate. I have never brought up the constitution because it doesn’t pertain to this matter. It should be up to individual states to decide, as you rightly pointed out earlier.

Top