Ms. Levi… you still haven’t answered my question… on what, in your world, is law founded on?

In the 1776 Delaware state constitution, ALL office holders in state government had to swear the following oath:

I believe in God The Father, the Lord Jesus Christ His only Son, the Holy Spirit, and believe the Holy Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, to be divinely inspired.

This type of oath was not unusual in Colonial America. Heck, there are probably several thousand seminary students on this country today who could not agree with that statement.

I bring this up not to suggest such a litmus test would be advisable today, but to demonstrate that the framers of the Constitution intended no “separation of church and state,” but merely to prohibit the establishment of a state church.

Sure, some Framers were deists. But all realized that Christianity had a civilizing effect on a nation and a direct relationship to civil liberty. One can only have freedom and liberty if people voluntarily and spontaneously honor and obey laws in good conscience. Faith helps provide that intrinsic motivation. Without it, man tends to behave very badly, and no amount of law passing or expansion of law enforcement powers can keep up with a society that is made up of self-interested, amoral people who have no sense of honor or fear of eternal ramifications for their misdeeds.

If there is one incontrovertible fact of human history, it is the utter depravity of man–his capacity for bloodshed, enslavement, and pitiless cruelty towards his fellow man. Limiting that tendency via check and balances with the aid of a faith-based civic culture was the crowning achievement of the Founding Fathers.

Even those who didn’t share those religious values benefitted from living in a nation where most did. Deists, Jews, Catholics, and even atheists could enjoy the freedoms that a largely Protestant majority afforded them. Was there intolerance and bigotry? Sure. But compared to most other places on the planet they were slight, and you got to keep what you earned.

Ms. Levi, it seems that you have a very difficult time practicing the “tolerance” of other viewpoints that the Left so often claims to embrace. Tolerance, it seems, is to be offered only to those who don’t believe in a monotheistic worldview.

and… ms. smarty-pants… where does law have its roots?

Going back and selectively picking out quotes from the Revolutionary era to prove that the Framers were Bible-thumping evangelicals has been done before. It’s also been thoroughly debunked. This idea that Christianity is responsible for all of western civilization is a joke. The ‘natural laws’ you’re so excitedly claiming for God existed long before Christianity. They were co-opted by popes and kings to make obedient peasants think that things like popes and kings were necessary.

You’re full of it. Judges don’t force themselves into anything – they respond to complainants in courts. And upon whom would they be forcing themselves on the issue of gay marriage? Do you mean to tell me that Christians merely knowing that there are married gay people out there beyond the church walls is some sort of undue burden that all of society should be required to prevent? Please – you make it sound like they’re raping people.

They are not and never were intended to decide on the constitutionality of issues… interpretation is not a power they were given… they decide legal/illegal… it is the people, through congress and by means of the constitution (which is itself steeped in tradition and natural law — oops, there is it again) that decide law.

How are they supposed to decide legal/illegal if they were never given the power to interpret? Look up ‘the judicial branch’ on Wikipedia. This is like seventh-grade civics man – the legislative branch makes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judicial branch interprets the laws. Three, separate but co-equal branches. You are laughably off the mark with this gibberish.

Since there are, I believe, a few practicing Jews on here I hardly think that the above argument has been made very often.

In itself I don’t believe it infringes any anyone’s religious freedom or threatens traditional marriage even slightly. But there are people who will try and use it that way. Folks like those who disrupted a church service clearly think it’s ok. You think they won’t be willing to take it into the courts. How does one ask for respect for their lives/beliefs while being unwilling to give the same to others? You can’t defend separation of church and state if you then turn around try to break that separation for some perceived benefit for you. I fully believe that churches/religious institutions have no business trying to influence law, but the individuals can and should argue their case and vote based on their conscience. I have known plenty who will ask their pastors how to vote and it makes me sick, more so because God never said believers should give up their brains and become robots.

It’s hard to argue too much that we should respect religious space when many are quite willing to disrupt our gatherings and then cry “victim”. But shouldn’t we do what’s right and not be intrusive just because they are?

and… ms. smarty-pants… where does law have its roots?

I’d think it’d be obvious where legal precedent has its roots… in the law. What is your point, exactly? That this is a Christian nation created by Christians for Christians because you can pull the word ‘God’ out of a few of our founding documents?

You guys barely won that vote. And voting isn’t the only way to change things. The courts were designed specifically to address these sorts of injustices, and a bunch of fundamentalists screaming about activist judges isn’t going to dissuade smart people that know their rights from using the judicial system.

Any why should you care about treating a political adversary with dignity?

Civility. Or perhaps that’s another traditional value and heritage you struggle with.

This is great. A group that would deny gays’ rights that they deserve for absolutely no reason turns around and demands to be treated with civility. ‘Hey man, I’m just treating you like a second class citizen, no reason to be uncivil.’

Tradition, heritage, what the Bible says, you guys think those are some sort of trump card, but none of that matters in this country when we’re talking about laws, government, and equality.

and also…

Legal precedent and basic human decency

if you don’t allow that “tradition and heritage” are the result of a thousand years of people trying to grapple with a human nature that has a positive existence (and the result of your so allowing would be to shut down the idea of homosexual marriage), then your own “legal precedent and basic human decency” have the same non-existent status as the religious right’s “tradition, heritage and the Bible.”

Or, another way, perhaps in terms you’re more likely to understand…

Our famous “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” — those three little words which are the basis of America’s constant appeal to “legal precedent and human decency”… in fact, that piece of paper and the words on it are THE legal precedent for all American law — was intellectually grounded in the appeal to “nature and nature’s God” (yes, that’s right, the founders used the G-word). If laws today are not grounded in “nature and nature’s law,” then what are they grounded in? The will of the people? If so, then the judicial decrees about same-sex marriage are all not only unjust, they’re illegal.

In other words… your great cry: “legal precedent and human decency”; has its roots in what tangible reality? your choices are limited: science; will of the people; tradition and heritage; subjective experience. The second and the fourth end up in the overturning of the judicial decrees and the outlawing of same-sex marriage; the first is, in regards to homosexuality, becoming more and more ambivalent and so losing its place as an authority; and the third… well, the people who founded the nation that gave you the freedom to utter nonsensicals like “legal precedent and human decency” were smart enough to realize that “nature and nature’s God” are the best you’re going to get if you want a free society.

Good to hear that the gay community does not operate under a cooperative “Vulcan mind meld.” Neither does the black community, but both suffer from high-profile ultra-left self-appointed leaders who claim to speak for a monolithic political force.

Dig in, please. Pout all day, for all I care. Gay marriage is coming. We all know it, and there’s nothing you or anyone else can do about it. Why should I care about treating you with dignity?

Don’t be too sure. If a left-leaning state like California can’t convince its population to support it, gay marriage may not be the fait accompli you think it is. Of course, most liberals will try to use the courts to circumvent the democratic will of the people to advance the leftist causes they perennially fail at championing at the ballot box.

Any why should you care about treating a political adversary with dignity?

Civility. Or perhaps that’s another traditional value and heritage you struggle with.

What in the sh*t are you talking about?

It bugs me to no end when religious people try to use their beliefs as a political battering ram.

This is gonna open up a whole new can of worms… but oh well.

Liberals have no ground, Ms. Levi, to complain about people using “beliefs” as battering rams, primarily because the left is founded entirely… and here’s the good part… on an act of faith.

To wit, skepticism is the only truly rational non-religious ideal. Logically, it is impossible to prove a negative. The left, and not only the left but in fact no one, can disprove a religious tenet, of any faith. There are proofs for the existence of God that many find skeptical, but the only RATIONAL response to those proofs is the following: “I don’t find enough evidence to support such a case.”

The materialist, utilitarian, ideological positions that are the bedrock of the liberal mindset are, at best, theories for which there is neither logical nor empirical PROOF.

As such, they are held as positions of faith and are merely masqueraded as rational principles by which to run a society.

Is this not reasonable?

That is absolutely not reasonable. If you think that your ‘religious freedom and heritage’ is so fundamentally important that it means limiting the freedom of others, you don’t deserve any sympathy. Religion is not the law of this land. Legal precedent and basic human decency demand legalization of gay marriage. And regardless of all that, gay marriage doesn’t even do a single thing to infringe upon your religious freedoms – how does it? Since gay marriage has been legalized in a handful of states, has your life religious life changed in any way, shape, or form?

It bugs me to no end when religious people try to use their beliefs as a political battering ram. As if you’re some special class that requires special considerations from the rest of us, all because you believe in something that no one can even remotely confirm is true. (I’m saying this as nicely as I can, by the way.) Tradition, heritage, what the Bible says, you guys think those are some sort of trump card, but none of that matters in this country when we’re talking about laws, government, and equality. People don’t own words in this country.

Yes, RuleOfLaw, it is reasonable. However, the gay left and intolerant, anti-religious bigots like Levi are not. As you know, your sincere effort to engage Levi in a respectful discussion was met with contemptible attacks on your intellect and your beliefs. As you may have figured out by now, Levi couldn’t care less about the issue of gay marriage–what’s he’s really interested in is tearing down traditional institutions because he hates religious people.

You might be interested in reading a column that Tammy Bruce wrote a few years ago that proposed the novel idea of seeking a solution to the same sex marriage debate that would accommodate the rights of gay people while honoring and preserving traditional institutions that are vital to our culture’s health and survival:

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/a-b/bruce/2004/bruce022504.htm

Unfortunately, since the article was written, it has become clear that the left has no interest in such a debate because their acute narcissism has rendered them incapable of acknowledging the legitimacy of opinions and beliefs that differ from their own. But for what it’s worth, I appreciated your efforts to rationally explain your views on the matter that so many committed evangelicals share (and that people like Levi are committed to silencing).

“And get it right; liberals have replaced worship of God with respect for law.”

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Liberals respecting the law…OMFG that’s rich! *wipes tears from eyes* Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

Lets see, Liberals wont enforce drug laws, wont enforce immigration law, are assaulting virtually every clause of the constitution…indeed! the only parts of the constitution that liberals actually DO enforce are the parts that dont exist, like the right to an abortion, and the right to gay marriage!

Liberals LOATHE the law.

When I use the phrase “practicing homosexuality”, I do not, as some do, mean to imply that the same sex sexual impulse is always a choice or a result of environment. It seems pretty obvious to me and should to just about anyone that some people are born with that desire as a predisposition. What one does with that, however, is a choice. We are not animals, utter slaves to our natural desires. We have rationality and can make informed choices.

Yes, to answer your question, I believe a straight person could be convinced to homosexuality, and vise versa. Either could be convinced to celibacy as well, if that were necessary or desirable. Innate sexual desire is an extremely strong impulse, but not an invincible one.

I am certainly not intending to post to a openly gay political blog with the intention to condemn the lifestyle choices many of you have made. But you all strike me as reasonable people who are fully willing to take full responsibility for your choices, the same way I take responsibility for my choices as a heterosexual male. You seem to want most of the same things I want, legally and politically. I suppose it is my hope that you can sympathize with the conservative Christian position on this issue, and that a feasible middle-of-the-road solution could be adopted that respects your civil rights while protecting our religious freedom and heritage.

Is this not reasonable?

What can I say? Believing that you can talk someone down from ‘the gay’ is as stupid as believing that you can talk someone down from being straight – though I’m willing to believe you bet that’s possible, too.

But if you prefer a fight rather than achieve all of your pragmatic goals, then fine. All the rights heterosexual couples have could easily be yours, without significant opposition, if you were to merely maintain enough basic dignity for your political opponents not to co-opt the “marriage” word they hold so dear.

How about both? I’ll take the fight and achieving all of my pragmatic goals, please. We are winning the fight, after all. It’s more and more entertaining to watch you guys stamp your feet about a word, and I can be patient. Also, this is another one of those great times to point out that the word you ‘hold so dear’ ends up in divorce half the time.

How much public outcry occurred during the passing of civil union legislation compared to “gay marriage” court battles of today? No comparison, really. Is the US more conservative now than then? Hardly, if the last election cycle was any sort of indicator. Jamming “civic endorsement” for a lifestyle choice down the throats of conservative Christians is absolutely counterproductive. Nothing will cause folks to dig in their heels or set your real-world pragmatic goals backwards faster than that.

Dig in, please. Pout all day, for all I care. Gay marriage is coming. We all know it, and there’s nothing you or anyone else can do about it. Why should I care about treating you with dignity? I’m not on the side that’s insisting that people be denied rights. I respect people that make sense and argue according to rules of rationality. By the way, you can start doing that time.

Also, I’m not gay.