Home › Blogs › Allen's blog ›

Pajamas Media: Independence Day and Gay Marriage

Submitted by Allen on Thu, 07/03/2008 - 18:19
in

What is wrong with the Libertarian Right?

They deliberately ignore 2,000 years of tradition, every religion in the world,  and the legal system of the United States that never endorsed the idea of Gay Marriage.

And equating Gay Marriage with Independence Day.

In terms of votes one Rabbi and one Christian Minister influences more votes than the Pajamas Media crowd. With allies like this who needs.....

www.ericcantorforvp.com

0
Your rating: None

Comments

I don't know which was creepier, the post or the comments

Submitted by GOP_Rebel on Thu, 07/03/2008 - 18:55.

Jamie VanEaton lost me right away with:

Normal people walk through Safeway with their lattes and sunglasses on their heads comparing feminine hygiene products and watch the Hallmark channel.

I was all...Huh?  Everything she wrote after that was just "blah blah blah Gay Marriage blah blah breeding and procreation blah blah blah shacking up". 

But I do have to comment on the sort of delicious irony here of the gay marriage proponents seeking to impose a sort of conservative homosexual morality by mandating committed,  monagamous, closed relationships instead of "shacking up" among gays.  I can't wait to see where this goes next.  Ah-yup. 

Then we had the comment by the Mayor of CreepyTown, some guy named David WL:

While I agree that a heterosexual couple that intentionally remains sterile is acting immorally, it is fundamentally different from a homosexual couple: the former is recognizing the means (heterosexual marriage) while refusing to allow that means to reach its proper and natural end (”natural” here is used in the sense of what is proper to man’s intrinsic end, not “biological”). The latter is violating both means and end.

Put another way: homosexual marriage is not marriage at all: it violates the goal (proper end) of what marriage is. Marriage is not about companionship, not about sexual pleasure, not about fulfillment, not about “happiness”. It is about the procreation and nurture of children.

I used to wonder why Democrats thought that conservatives were fascists until I read that pantload.  I'll be sure and let my husband know how immoral we were to have gotten married in our 40's without intending to procreate.  Damn our selfish selves, anyway. 

The whole discussion is rather amusing unless you're concerned about the next slip down the slippery slope being marriage between close relatives, group marriage, marriage among children, marriage between children and adults, marriage between a man and his pet rabbit, and so on - then it does get a little dicey not to place a moral judgment on the marriage issue once and for all.  Whatever happened to civil unions?  If it's good enough for Canada, why isn't it good enough for us?  Just askin'. 

Canada Is A Scary Place To Be

Submitted by Allen on Thu, 07/03/2008 - 19:43.

A minister who quoted the Bible prohibtion againt homosexuality in a column in his Church bulletin was brought before a Canadian Human Rights Commission and is now prohibited from speaking, reading, or writing about homosexual behavior.

Defining Marriage versus Defining State Interest in Marriage

Submitted by aberman on Thu, 07/03/2008 - 19:48.

I think that defining marriage, while possible, could probably fill shelves of philosophy books.  It's also unnecessary for the purpose of evaluating Gay Marriage.  The real question is: what is the State Interest in marriage and how is that affected by extending the definition and benefits of marriage to gay couples.   The benefit of looking at it in that way is that you then start to look at cultural norms created by communities and States, which an individual definition of marriage doesn't give you.  For example, by promoting marriage, the State promotes child-bearing.  This is true independently of whether or not a particular couple has children.

Personally, once I looked at it in that manner, I pretty quickly switched my position from pro gay marriage to very much against it and there I sit.

 

Prediction

Submitted by Allen on Thu, 07/03/2008 - 20:00.

If Gay Marriage becomes legal in the United States there will be a full fledged effort to force churches to perform gay marriages even if they oppose the doctrine. There will also be Canadian type measures to silence critics of homosexual marriages. This is not about marriage it is a direct assault on the moral foundation of this country.

Yup - I agree

Submitted by GOP_Rebel on Thu, 07/03/2008 - 20:15.

And on a somewhat, sorta, kinda related subject - more of religious identity than of morality,  I noticed that in Obama's plan to promote faith-based service groups, he's going to insist that those charitable organizations have to hire members who are not of their denomination or faith as employees in order to receive government funds. 

Is it illegal if he doesn't do that (I'm not at all sure)?  It just seems wrong to me.  Why must every single aspect of American life become flattened out and homogenized?  It seems like we've crossed a major line between assimilation and complete loss of identity other than what the State tells you your identity is. 

I see this as another potentially slippery slope...i.e. some day, if you want to purchase a home, then you won't be allowed to close escrow unless you provide shelter in your home for at least one homeless person.  Obviously this is overly dramatic - yeesh, I hope I haven't just inspired a new generation of Neo-Marxists toward a stunning new strategy.  But my point is, that if we don't push back on giving an inch then how are we going to push back when the Left decides to take the whole mile?