Gay Patriot Header Image

The gay left’s Orwellian notion of freedom

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 5:30 pm - August 12, 2011.
Filed under: Civil Discourse,Freedom,Gay Marriage

It is perhaps serendipitous that shortly after completing Joseph J. Ellis‘s American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson, I started Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch’s The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What’s Wrong with America.  Let me just say I recommend both books, the latter more than the former.  Each book considers the defining words of our nation’s founding document:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Our Creator has endowed us with the rights to life, liberty and their pursuit of happiness, that is, they come from the hand of God and not that of man.

Governments do not grant us freedom, but they can (and unfortunately do) limit its exercise.

Wherever I read of activists agitating for the freedom to marry (heck, there’s an organization with that very name), I wonder if they’re familiar with the meaning of the Declaration and of the very idea of freedom itself.

Today, the debate on gay marriage is not about granting individuals the freedom to marry an individual of their same sex, but about whether the state should recognize such unions.  When gay couples marry in states (or countries) which grant licenses for such unions and return to states which do not, they do not suffer the fate the Lovings did in the 1960s.  The authorities do not threaten them with arrest, request that they leave the jurisdiction or demand that they live apart.

They merely fail to grant them the privileges they extend to different-sex couples who have secured a marriage license.  Let us bear this in mind as we debate this most important issue.

Let us not turn to the government as the source of our liberty lest we become dependent on state action to take care of those things we can effect on our own — without their intervention, but be ever vigilant against its encroachments on our liberty.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Grizzly Glenn gets my point and build on it:

Perhaps somebody can explain to me how something that is considered a basic human right, requires a license from State. I don’t have a State issued license for life, liberty, or the pursuit happiness. I have a State issued driver’s license because I have met the requirements to receive one. I don’t have a medical license because I don’t meet the requirements. I am currently trying to get my professional engineering license, but I don’t yet meet the requirements of the State. I don’t have a basic human right to be issued any license without meeting the standards of the State. Ask any licensing agency and they will tell you that obtaining is a privilege and not a right.

People can argue over the standards required to obtain a marriage license, but I don’t see how it is considered a basic human right.

Share

44 Comments

  1. Orwellian notion of Freedom. . . so why is it folk like Ken Mehlman and other ‘conservative / folk on the right’ are upfront and advocating for SSM? And Dan, what little label would you put on Chris Barron’s marriage?

    SSM supporters come from the left, center and right.

    Comment by rusty — August 12, 2011 @ 6:21 pm - August 12, 2011

  2. On May 6, Mehlman traveled to Albany to attend a meeting with the leaders of New York’s GOP-controlled legislature, and make his pitch. “There’ s a strong Republican and conservative case to be made in favor of the right to marry,” Mehlman told the room.

    “If we are all endowed by a creator with unalienable rights including the pursuit of happiness, how can that not include marrying the person you love?”

    And like any good campaign strategist, he buttressed his argument with poll data: nearly 60 percent of New Yorkers said in recent polling that they support same-sex marriage. The GOP should not, he hinted, wind up on the wrong side of history.

    Comment by rusty — August 12, 2011 @ 6:28 pm - August 12, 2011

  3. Government did not endow humanity with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but the purpose of government is to secure these rights — that’s why governments are instituted among men.

    Marriage has long been recognized as a key component of our ability to pursue happiness, and the government’s role is to secure that right — and to do so equally for all its citizens unless there exists a strong and compelling reason not to.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — August 12, 2011 @ 6:35 pm - August 12, 2011

  4. Arguing by authority is lame. Who really gives a rat’s butt what Ken Mehlman thinks?

    Comment by V the K — August 12, 2011 @ 6:36 pm - August 12, 2011

  5. All the folk who are behind him, supporting him financially, to see SSM move forward. There V, you happy!

    Comment by rusty — August 12, 2011 @ 6:45 pm - August 12, 2011

  6. Did you read my post, rusty, I’m not saying I oppose state recognition of same-sex marriage, I’m merely making a point about the conversation.

    Yes, I know that SSM supporters come from all sides.

    The issue here is the idea of freedom.

    So, your comment is entirely irrelevant to the point I am making. Go read the post again. You will not find it in any commentary on the merits of state recognition of SSM, but merely on the idea of freedom.

    Given your past commentary, I expected better of you, rusty.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — August 12, 2011 @ 7:05 pm - August 12, 2011

  7. Hmmm, I guess I just have a crazy addiction to thinking for myself and not taking my cues from politicians.

    Comment by V the K — August 12, 2011 @ 7:50 pm - August 12, 2011

  8. “If we are all endowed by a creator with unalienable rights including the pursuit of happiness, how can that not include marrying the person you love?”

    I can answer that very simply. Pedophiles love children, polygamists love multiple people, incest practitioners love blood relatives, and bestialists love animals.

    Therefore, since love is to be the overriding consideration, trumping all other concerns, then laws preventing any of these people from marrying are unconstitutional and wrong.

    Mehlman is talking like a gay-sex liberal, and deserves to be ridiculed as one.

    Just like Rob Tisinai.

    Marriage has long been recognized as a key component of our ability to pursue happiness, and the government’s role is to secure that right — and to do so equally for all its citizens unless there exists a strong and compelling reason not to.

    Except that, if marriage can be denied, it is not an inalienable right.

    So your argument implodes, Rob; either you allow it for everyone, or you acknowledge that it’s not an inalienable right.

    The reason you won’t do the latter is because whining about “rights” sounds much better than your whining about how the government chooses to spend money on relationships that actually help, refresh, and grow society, versus those like yours that are only about narcissism and consumption.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 12, 2011 @ 8:25 pm - August 12, 2011

  9. “WANT IS WEALTH
    POVERTY IS PROSPERITY
    SQUALOR IS LUXURY”

    Comment by TGC — August 12, 2011 @ 10:06 pm - August 12, 2011

  10. Government did not endow humanity with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but the purpose of government is to secure these rights — that’s why governments are instituted among men.

    Right so far.

    Marriage has long been recognized as a key component of our ability to pursue happiness

    By whom? By the Constitution? I don’t think so.

    and the government’s role is to secure that right

    And there you go wrong. You simply assume what you believe you’re proving: that a State marriage license is a fundamental right. It isn’t. Fundamental rights (the ones not created by government; the ones that morally pre-exist government) are inherently individual. A State marriage license is a legislated construct that incorporates a new entity (“the marriage of J and M”) and compels third parties to recognize it. That is a privilege created by government, not a fundamental right.

    [government should] do so equally for all its citizens unless there exists a strong and compelling reason not to

    Because a State marriage right is a government construct and, as such, a privilege, government gets to set the qualifications for who can enter. The very purpose of any State licensing scheme is precisely to create discrimination: for example, to discriminate between those whom the State will allow to practice law, and those whom it will not. The _Loving_ decision simply means that the discrimination cannot rise to the level of “invidious” discrimination. For example, the State cannot withold a medical license from someone because they are black, or (specifically to _Loving_) a marriage license from a couple because they are mixed-race. The criteria of discrimination do need to bear some rational relationship to the purpose of the discrimination: for example, medical licenses are granted (or withheld) on the basis of the person’s qualifications to practice medicine.

    Now, if you want to argue that discrimination against same-sex couples in State marriage licensing is also invidious, go ahead, you make that argument. I simply argue that it is poor public policy. Since the purpose of a State marriage license is precisely to discriminate in favor of stable, two-person couples, I think the State can rationally set qualifications related to the couples (or more precisely, to the individuals’) family status, gender, and so forth.

    The crux of the argument is whether the purpose of State marriage licensing is heterosexual reproduction. Some argue that it is. I think they’re mistaken, because of the plethora of heterosexual marriages that have nothing whatever to do with children (it being known, or fairly easy to know, at the time of marriage that the couple can’t have children). Some point to earlier times when the (only or primary) purpose of marriage was heterosexual reproduction, and fear what might happen if we change that. I say, sorry, we already did; you’re at least forty years too late.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 12, 2011 @ 11:18 pm - August 12, 2011

  11. Typo sorry… should read, “Because a State marriage —license— is a government construct…”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 12, 2011 @ 11:20 pm - August 12, 2011

  12. (continuing the thought) Since today, heterosexual reproduction is neither the only purpose nor the primary purpose of State marriage licensing (although it may still be *a* purpose), I argue that the primary purpose of State marriage license must be something else. Namely, to encourage the formation of unattached and unrelated individuals into stable couples who will (among other things) help care for each other, or tend on average to assure each other’s mutual welfare. (Plus that of any kids who come along for some couples.) I think same-sex couples can be part of that (especially ones who may adopt kids, or have kids from previous attachments). I think that including same-sex couples would be a good public policy which strengthens the institution.

    That’s my opinion, and people may disagree with me, i.e. may oppose gay marriage. I don’t consider them bad people for it, I just go “Oh… we don’t agree on that. Oh, well.” Since State marriage licensing is a legislated privilege, it should only be changed by a legislative majority. It is up to me (or other gay marriage proponents) to persuade people. Until we do, and/or if we cannot, well it is not the end of the world. Sodomy laws leading to death camps, would be the end of the world. But America is very very VERY far from the latter.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 12, 2011 @ 11:29 pm - August 12, 2011

  13. The crux of the argument is whether the purpose of State marriage licensing is heterosexual reproduction. Some argue that it is. I think they’re mistaken, because of the plethora of heterosexual marriages that have nothing whatever to do with children (it being known, or fairly easy to know, at the time of marriage that the couple can’t have children).

    Slightly off in my opinion, ILC.

    Reproduction came into the human consciousness long before marriage did. Marriage is a response in law that codifies the best, most suitable, and most stable arrangement for dealing with the fact that humans reproduce, and a means by which the government encourages people, with society’s dollars, to raise children in such a relationship.

    As taxpayers, we subsidize marriage. Everyone pays a little more so married people pay a little less — again, to provide an offset for the cost and time of childrearing, which benefits society. It’s not unlike an electric car tax credit; the idea is to encourage a behavior that the government has deemed more useful by offering a benefit that offsets, although not completely, the additional cost of said behavior. Marriage is an expense to everyone; however, we bear the cost because of the need to regenerate society and the strong probability of negative consequences of children raised without it.

    Same-sex marriages do not offer any such benefit to society. There is little to no return on investment and no value given back to the taxpayer in exchange.

    Of the examples you cite, those types of couples are disabled — either by age or by biological damage that prevents reproduction in their case. Society thus has not seen fit to exclude them because their number is relatively small and their conditions are invariably due to matters beyond their control.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 13, 2011 @ 12:03 am - August 13, 2011

  14. You simply assume what you believe you’re proving: that a State marriage license is a fundamental right.

    We assume it because of Loving v. Virginia, with the unanimous decision stating that:

    Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…

    To say that marriage in the United States is not a fundamental right is to ignore clear legal precedent on the matter.

    Comment by Serenity — August 13, 2011 @ 2:41 am - August 13, 2011

  15. Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…

    That is the cherry-picked short version by a biased amateur.

    Here is the statement is all its glory:

    These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

    Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

    These convictions must be reversed.

    It is so ordered.

    Be it understood, via Loving, that each man in a gay partnership is not being blocked from marrying by the state because he is a man. Each can find one, of legal age, not too closely related, mentally competent woman of any race or creed or ethnicity and marry. No state law will prohibit it.

    Loving is about denying the civil right of one man and one woman to marry because they were of different races. It is the height of clown-school foolishness to pretend to find a parallel between homosexual couples and Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving.

    The only issue that continually pops up as constitutional grounds for homosexual marriage is based on “the pursuit of happiness.” You might just as well say it is required for the general welfare, because if gays ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy. Or some such idiocy.

    As one who opposes gay marriage, I sure wish you could come up with an argument that makes me consider why reworking the age-old, traditional reasons for marriage have glossed over the compelling reasons why not permitting gays to marry has harmed society.

    Gay marriage is, in short, a pretense. It is beyond my comprehension why gays will strut and posture over marriage when their real life concerns could be settled with civil unions comparable to common-law arrangements among heterosexuals.

    Comment by Heliotrope — August 13, 2011 @ 9:40 am - August 13, 2011

  16. My apologies Dan for popping off. Guess I had an encounter with Miss Rita Bead’s (NDT’s alter) evil sister, Anita Cocktail, and she possibly overtook me, but now I am back to myself.

    Still considering your title of this post.

    Yes, it would be nice not to have any more intrusive acts that would create harm or would lead to a decrease in the pursuit of happiness. And gay folk aren’t being tossed into holding cells, scurried off here and there, or forced to deny their ‘loved ones’.

    But then you have the folks running in the big R club spouting off for a Federal Ammendment concerning marriage. Sounds even more Orwellian to me than the folk asking for the similar privileges already established, but are just seeking to gain.

    Since my introduction to GP a few years ago, I value the instruction and enlightenment from folk like ILC and LW and you, GPW. . .

    But again, Dan, my apologies. I will try to keep miss anita under control.

    Comment by rusty — August 13, 2011 @ 10:09 am - August 13, 2011

  17. I do love how the issue of marriage being a fundamental right or not immediately goes off-topic as soon as Loving v. Virginia gets brought up.

    ILoveCapitalism’s assertion was that marriage is not a fundamental right. It is, quote, a ‘legislated construct’ which makes it a privilege, that people have no intrinsic right to.

    So which is it? Is marriage a right, or a privilege? As far as I can see, the Supreme Court of the United States seemed pretty clear, marriage is indeed a right, not a privilege, so ILoveCapitalism’s argument has nowhere to stand.

    Each can find one, of legal age, not too closely related, mentally competent woman of any race or creed or ethnicity and marry. No state law will prohibit it.

    I imagine this theoretical right would feel pretty hollow to a gay man wishing to marry his partner. It’s like “You can marry! Just not with the one person you actually want to be married to”. Feels like a sick joke to me.

    Loving is about denying the civil right of one man and one woman to marry because they were of different races. It is the height of clown-school foolishness to pretend to find a parallel between homosexual couples and Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving.

    My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

    Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

    I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.

    Freedom to Marry, by Mildred Loving

    Seems Mildred Loving herself disagreed quite emphatically, drawing a direct parallel between the case in which herself and her husband were involved and the current debate over same-sex marriage.

    As one who opposes gay marriage, I sure wish you could come up with an argument that makes me consider why reworking the age-old, traditional reasons for marriage have glossed over the compelling reasons why not permitting gays to marry has harmed society.

    I’ve always believed the only reasons same-sex marriage has not been legal has been a pervasive homophobia in society (a trait that has, fortunately, weakened significantly in recent years) and religious condemnation of homosexuality as a whole. The former is just not an argument, and the latter should not matter towards that secular side of marriage in a supposedly secular government like that of the United States. I don’t think any government should be taking sides of religious issues, as people are never going agree on them.

    Hence, I think it’s your job to some up with a rational and secular argument detailing why you think same-sex marriage would be harmful to society and should not be legal.

    Gay marriage is, in short, a pretense. It is beyond my comprehension why gays will strut and posture over marriage when their real life concerns could be settled with civil unions comparable to common-law arrangements among heterosexuals.

    I’ve heard the argument about “Well why don’t we just all have civil unions then?” and I think it’s a complete dead end. The debate is emphatically not a religious one, the concept of marriage being debated over is civil marriage, as recognized by the government, and distinct from religious marriage. The fact that the two get conflated so often is unfortunate but really has no bearing on the issue.

    So given that we’re talking about civil marriage, which actually predates most major religions, why change the name to civil unions? No religious institution can be forced to recognize them as valid, and current marriages are not devalued, so what’s the big problem?

    Comment by Serenity — August 13, 2011 @ 11:53 am - August 13, 2011

  18. Correction: The piece by Mildred Loving is actually called Loving for All. I got a bit confused there.

    Comment by Serenity — August 13, 2011 @ 12:09 pm - August 13, 2011

  19. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.
    Mildred Loving. . .thx Serenity

    Comment by rusty — August 13, 2011 @ 12:19 pm - August 13, 2011

  20. Serenity,

    You are babbling.

    I’ve always believed the only reasons same-sex marriage has not been legal has been a pervasive homophobia in society

    Good grief! What you think is meaningless in the grand scheme of human history. You say that civilization has conspired to keep gays from marrying because of “pervasive homophobia.” OK. What is the term for society keeping old men and little boys from marrying? What is the term for society keeping a gaggle of girls marrying a stud adonis? You must have a whole dictionary full of wrongs committed by society’s “pervasive (whatever.)”

    I’ve heard the argument about “Well why don’t we just all have civil unions then?” and I think it’s a complete dead end. The debate is emphatically not a religious one, the concept of marriage being debated over is civil marriage, as recognized by the government, and distinct from religious marriage. The fact that the two get conflated so often is unfortunate but really has no bearing on the issue.

    How stupid can you get? Start up a gay church with a gay god and gay apostles and throw glitter all around and read from the gay testament and the gay credo and then marry each other in an entirely religious ceremony and go sue civil society for not getting with the program.

    You want the people out of “civil marriage.” You then want to claim that marriage between a man and his child happiness maker is off the charts. Whose charts? Just yours?

    Serenity, your sense of “logic” is best summed up in your words: “I have always believed…..” Guess what, you have zero standing.

    Comment by Heliotrope — August 13, 2011 @ 12:20 pm - August 13, 2011

  21. I just have a hunch that 5,000 years of Judeo-Christian tradition has a better sense of what arrangements work best for society than Insipidity does.

    Comment by V the K — August 13, 2011 @ 1:33 pm - August 13, 2011

  22. Well since Senility loves court cases, then I’m sure he’s willing to abide by Baker v Nelson

    Comment by The_Livewire — August 13, 2011 @ 4:11 pm - August 13, 2011

  23. Pomposity posits:

    I imagine this theoretical right would feel pretty hollow to a gay man wishing to marry his partner. It’s like “You can marry! Just not with the one person you actually want to be married to”. Feels like a sick joke to me.

    I imagine it would also feel pretty hollow to the gay man wishing to marry his three roomies. Or the bisexual who prefers a succession of pre-adolescents of either gender. Or the old lady all dedicated to her doll collection and one cranky Tom cat.

    It is always amazing how these big-hearted Progressive featherlights can operate on the justice derived from their empathy. They don’t consider Sharia because, well, because, well, ….. look a UPS truck!

    I suppose that in Proclivity’s world that if every homosexual had a Gay Mitzvah at age pimple prone and there was a Gay Scouts and society really worked hard at getting Ernie and Burt hitched and Barbie had an AI kit and we had a national transgender beauty contest that everyone would roll over and be relieved from having the evil of societal bigotry lifted.

    Comment by Heliotrope — August 13, 2011 @ 5:40 pm - August 13, 2011

  24. One has to remember, Heliotrope, that to Pomposity and the “progressive” movement, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” mean different things.

    For life, it means that THEIR life is precious and to be preserved in its fullness at everyone else’s expense. Yours, on the other hand, is subject to removal if they think it will cost too much or if they find you “undesirable”.

    For liberty, it means they have the freedom to do whatever they want at your expense, and you have the freedom to do whatever they want and pay for it yourself.

    For the pursuit of happiness, it means that whatever they want at that point in time is delivered to them on a plate, correctly cooked, with no “icky” spices, and with all the bones removed. You, on the other hand, should be grateful that they take the time to manage your life for you, because what makes you happy is clearly not what they deem best for you.

    In short, Pomposity and its ilk are spoiled brats who expect government to continue in loco parentis once they’ve drained theirs dry and dead.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 13, 2011 @ 6:11 pm - August 13, 2011

  25. “You can marry! Just not with the one person you actually want to be married to”.

    I’m not married to former San Jose Shark Todd Harvey! My rights are being violated! I’m being oppressed!

    Comment by V the K — August 13, 2011 @ 7:10 pm - August 13, 2011

  26. ILoveCapitalism’s assertion was that marriage is not a fundamental right.

    Incorrect.

    My assertion was/is that a ***STATE MARRIAGE LICENSE*** is not a fundamental right.

    There is a difference between that and “marriage” in the sense of a religious and/or a personal construct. Two people can commit to each other, and consider themselves married, regardless of having a State license for it. Or can be married in the eyes of their religion without a State license, etc.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 14, 2011 @ 2:28 am - August 14, 2011

  27. Is marriage a right, or a privilege?

    Part of the problem (the cause of argument) is that the word covers both aspects of it. Again, when two individuals commit to each other, they are exercising their individual rights. When, however, they obtain a State license to incorporate a new entity with its own interests that the State compels others to recognize, they are not exercising their individual rights. They are exercising a privilege granted and created by the State alone.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 14, 2011 @ 2:30 am - August 14, 2011

  28. Well said, ILC.

    As long as the state doesn’t prevent individuals from living together and calling themselves married, then they have the right to marry.

    I wanted to use this post (as well as several planned followups) to show address just that distinction that you address.

    I don’t see straight-recognized marriage as a civil right. And in the Loving case, the Supreme Court was also addressing the freedom of the Lovings to live together, something the state of Virginia was refusing them.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — August 14, 2011 @ 4:31 am - August 14, 2011

  29. Thanks Dan.

    I’ve noticed that lefties seem to have trouble understanding the distinction between marriage as a personal and/or religious construct, and marriage as a State license. I think it’s because, functionally, the State is their religion. They wouldn’t go to a church to get married; only to City Hall. That should tell you what (or Whom) they really believe in. Likewise, the State is their substitute Mommy-Daddy who validates their existence and tells them what must be taken seriously; their promises/commitments aren’t ‘official’ if the State wasn’t there to bless and approve them.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 14, 2011 @ 11:24 am - August 14, 2011

  30. (continued) So, to their way of thinking, the marriage *is* the piece of paper from the State; not their own commitment, taken for their own reasons under their own freedom of action and regardless of recognition from others. As surrogate Mommy-Daddy, the State is there also to help them get their way with others.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 14, 2011 @ 11:47 am - August 14, 2011

  31. ILC,

    The state giveth and the state taketh away in Progressive liturgy. Social justice and redistribution of wealth and fundamental egalitarianism can only exist within the great Statist Garden of Regulated Eden. In this garden, Adam and Eve do not eat the forbidden fruit, but thrive on the approved, government sanctioned fruit. After all, the forbidden fruit is government regulated and declared off limits and to act against the government is to deny civilization.

    Progressives must kill and bury religion in order to solidify the rule that one must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s so that Caesar can oil the clockwork of egalitarianism. All Hail Caesar! Ave! We come not to diminish Caesar, but to worship him. The good that men do in their lives is done in praise of Caesar. Freedom is slavery and obedience to the state is freedom.

    Marriage? It is only what the state says it is. In the pursuit of happiness, the state must rule for happiness and banish all those who would permit anything less. Those who oppose gay marriage oppose happiness for light and transient reasons and must be at least muzzled, if not ostracized for anti-statist activities. The state is god and God is a subject of the state.

    Comment by Heliotrope — August 14, 2011 @ 11:50 am - August 14, 2011

  32. Perhaps somebody can explain to me how something that is considered a basic human right, requires a license from State. I don’t have a State issued license for life, liberty, or the pursuit happiness. I have a State issued driver’s license because I have met the requirements to receive one. I don’t have a medical license because I don’t meet the requirements. I am currently trying to get my professional engineering license, but I don’t yet meet the requirements of the State. I don’t have a basic human right to be issued any license without meeting the standards of the State. Ask any licensing agency and they will tell you that obtaining is a privilege and not a right.

    People can argue over the standards required to obtain a marriage license, but I don’t see how it is considered a basic human right.

    Comment by Grizzly Glenn — August 14, 2011 @ 2:28 pm - August 14, 2011

  33. Perhaps somebody can explain to me how something that is considered a basic human right, requires a license from State.

    I’ve posted several comments explaining it. The part where you and your partner commit to each other, is your freedom – your right to direct your own course. The part where you incorporate legally as a third party (a new entity) compelling recognition from fourth parties, is a State license.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 14, 2011 @ 2:37 pm - August 14, 2011

  34. (continued) Because it involves both, is where people get confused. (or exploit the confusion of others)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 14, 2011 @ 2:38 pm - August 14, 2011

  35. Grizzly Glen,

    Marriage is a construct of the society and therefore the state. It is not a basic human right. Propagation of the species is a fundamental “right” as it is a biological imperative.

    It is sadly amusing to follow the trail of basic human rights pontifications since the enlightenment. One group of “scholars” after another has tried to list and explain these rights, but all have ended up with a fatuous document jam-cram full of psychobabble.

    In our country, you pick your mate and see if your choice passes the legal tests of the precious few prohibitions and then secure the license that makes you married. You can do this with a church or without. In short, you have to pass a test to be legally married.

    However, if you wish to join together in carnal knowledge, you do not need permission, a training permit or a kindergarten degree. However, if you prefer to do this in public on the town square, you may find that you have violated an ordinance or ten.

    Comment by Heliotrope — August 14, 2011 @ 3:33 pm - August 14, 2011

  36. ILC, in #29, good point.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — August 14, 2011 @ 4:03 pm - August 14, 2011

  37. Thanks ILC and Helio, I agree with you both. I have asked the question of people who believe SSM is a basic human right, but I have yet to hear a coherent answer. I’m kind of hoping to hear from someone here who believes SSM is a basic human right.

    I’m still undecided about SSM. Every time I get in a discussion about it, contrarian that I am, I usually take the opposite side of the subject. And I am thoroughly convinced I’m right whichever side I’m on. lol When SSM supporters come at it from a basic human right perspective, I just don’t get it. They also seem to be the ones who say SSM opponents are homophobes or haters or some such. That to me is a losing argument that will change no ones mind, and may only antagonize SSM opponents.

    I think society, through the state, conferred benefits on married couples because married couples are a benefit to society. It seems to me the way to change hearts and minds it to show how SSM would benefit society.

    Comment by Grizzly Glenn — August 14, 2011 @ 4:27 pm - August 14, 2011

  38. You are babbling.

    I’m sorry I made such a lengthy and well thought-out post, it must have made your job of cherry-picking the parts you were able to comprehend more difficult. Sadly, I will not make your job any easier.

    Good grief! What you think is meaningless in the grand scheme of human history.

    My views have to have a social impact hard enough to be felt about 6,000 year of human civilisation?

    There’s moving the goalposts, and then there’s what you just said.

    You say that civilization has conspired to keep gays from marrying because of “pervasive homophobia.”

    That’s pretty much the long and the short of it, yes.

    OK. What is the term for society keeping old men and little boys from marrying? What is the term for society keeping a gaggle of girls marrying a stud adonis? You must have a whole dictionary full of wrongs committed by society’s “pervasive (whatever.)”

    So you see no difference between two adult men or women getting married, and men marrying children?

    This is the classic slippery slope argument, that fails to take into account that children (or animals, or inanimate objects, as others have used in this argument) are not considered to fully understand the consequences of their actions and thus cannot enter into a binding contract of any sort, including a marriage. Two adults both can though, differentiating them from your examples.

    How stupid can you get?

    Did you really need an ad hominem like that to make yourself heard?

    Start up a gay church with a gay god and gay apostles and throw glitter all around and read from the gay testament and the gay credo and then marry each other in an entirely religious ceremony and go sue civil society for not getting with the program.

    There are already churches that recognize gay couples, it doesn’t seem to have made much of a difference, not that it should to a civil issue such as this.

    You want the people out of “civil marriage.”

    I want what? Sorry, that statement doesn’t seem to make any sense.

    You then want to claim that marriage between a man and his child happiness maker is off the charts. Whose charts? Just yours?

    Indeed, whose charts? I made no reference of charts.

    But I already explained how flawed your analogy is above.

    Serenity, your sense of “logic” is best summed up in your words: “I have always believed…..” Guess what, you have zero standing.

    Just because you say so, doesn’t actually make it so. My opinion is not invalidated by your dismissal of it. Besides, in that case you have no more standing than me, so what’s the point of this debate?

    Comment by Serenity — August 14, 2011 @ 9:20 pm - August 14, 2011

  39. Unfortunately, the single word “marriage” is used to describe: a particular form of “committed relationship”; a state-regulated “lawful” relationship between 2 individuals; and a specific, unique human relationship defined by religious doctrine. The “institution of marriage” in this country embodies the moral, traditional, and lawful aspects of a very specific relationship.

    Because the building block of any society is the family unit, society encourages committed pair-bonding where the possibility of resulting offspring exists. Society does this through social recognition and privileges, as well as through legislative rewards.

    If there were no secular privileges, health insurance benefits, or tax benefits to being “legally” married, would “same sex couples” still be clamoring for the “right” to get legally married? Would the number of hetero couples getting married decline?

    Comment by LechDharma — August 14, 2011 @ 9:24 pm - August 14, 2011

  40. I imagine it would also feel pretty hollow to the gay man wishing to marry his three roomies.

    Although I’m sure you didn’t mean to, you have just stumbled on a better analogy than Heliotrope was able to.

    An adult wishing to marry multiple other adults is a different issue to all of the other hypothetical marriages in this discussion thread, as we’re now talking about an arrangement where all of the participants can be taken to actually understand what they’re doing.

    In such a case, assuming all consent to the arrangement, I see no cogent reason to disallow a polygamous marriage. I’m sure others here will explode upon seeing that, but to say otherwise would be inconsistent and I see no intrinsic immorality to a polygamous marriage as long as there is full disclosure and all are in agreement.

    It is always amazing how these big-hearted Progressive featherlights can operate on the justice derived from their empathy. They don’t consider Sharia because, well, because, well, ….. look a UPS truck!

    Or possibly because Christian and Muslim laws are both religious law and I already stated that laws must have a secular basis?

    I suppose that in Proclivity’s world

    That’s a new one, what specific activity are implying that I engage in on a regular basis?

    that if every homosexual had a Gay Mitzvah at age pimple prone and there was a Gay Scouts and society really worked hard at getting Ernie and Burt hitched and Barbie had an AI kit and we had a national transgender beauty contest that everyone would roll over and be relieved from having the evil of societal bigotry lifted.

    I don’t even know what you’re trying to say here, so here’s a picture of a cat dressed as Hello Kitty.

    Incorrect.

    My assertion was/is that a ***STATE MARRIAGE LICENSE*** is not a fundamental right.

    There is a difference between that and “marriage” in the sense of a religious and/or a personal construct. Two people can commit to each other, and consider themselves married, regardless of having a State license for it. Or can be married in the eyes of their religion without a State license, etc.

    Part of the problem (the cause of argument) is that the word covers both aspects of it. Again, when two individuals commit to each other, they are exercising their individual rights. When, however, they obtain a State license to incorporate a new entity with its own interests that the State compels others to recognize, they are not exercising their individual rights. They are exercising a privilege granted and created by the State alone.

    In that case, to what were the Supreme Court justices referring to when they referred to marriage as “one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival”? Were they simply saying the Lovings had the right to ‘consider themselves married’?

    Comment by Serenity — August 14, 2011 @ 9:35 pm - August 14, 2011

  41. I don’t see straight-recognized marriage as a civil right. And in the Loving case, the Supreme Court was also addressing the freedom of the Lovings to live together, something the state of Virginia was refusing them.

    In that case, why was the verdict also taken to strike down all anti-miscegenation statutes in their entirety (rather than just the parts prohibiting sex and/or cohabitation between interracial couples) and compel all states to recognize interracial marriages on a legal level? Do you believe that the verdict has been been misinterpreted all these years? Or do you just disagree with the scope of the verdict? Should states have complete control over whom they issue marriage licenses to?

    Comment by Serenity — August 14, 2011 @ 9:42 pm - August 14, 2011

  42. And again, Senility quotes Loving, while ignoring that Baker v. Nelson completely undermines his ‘arguments’.

    Typical Lib, ignore anything that shows you’re wrong. (See Globull Warming).

    Comment by The_Livewire — August 15, 2011 @ 9:44 am - August 15, 2011

  43. My views have to have a social impact hard enough to be felt about 6,000 year of human civilisation?

    Yes.

    Because, Pomposity, what you are saying is that every single person prior to you is wrong.

    Therein lies the difference between conservatives and liberals. Liberals insist that they are the smartest people the universe has ever seen and that everyone before them was an idiot; conservatives recognize that intelligence and wisdom are timeless virtues, and that we learn from those who have come before us.

    For example, conservatives are aware that the non-Christian Greeks endorsed and supported sexual and ongoing relationships between adult men and what we would define as underage teens as completely normal, yet saw no reason to give relationships between adult men the same societal value and legal recognition as opposite-sex relationships. Indeed, there was a significant backlash against this behavior during the later Greek period and well into the Roman period, mainly because the Romans could directly point to it as a cause of family and societal breakdown.

    In short, there have been countless thousands of civilizations in those 6,000 years — yet overwhelmingly, these civilizations, regardless of governmental structure, religious belief, views on males and females, etc. have preferred and settled upon opposite-sex relationships as the ones that should and were preferred by society, with same-sex relationships being in the vast majority of cases actively discouraged.

    And frankly, Pomposity, your track record as it exists now is godawful. You and your fellow gay-sex liberals insisted that marriage was awful and outdated and that “free love”, wanton promiscuity, and unlimited divorce were the way to go; thus was birthed the AIDS epidemic, the pervasiveness of broken families and out-of-wedlock birth, and now the rioters you are applauding, trapped in an endless cycle of poverty created and sustained by the absence of any type of familial order or responsibility.

    Your problem, Pomposity, is the typical self-centered narcissism of the emotionally and intellectually immature. Yes, you do have to prove that you are smarter and that your ideas are better than 6,000 years of civilization. You can’t just stomp your feet and scream that you know best; that’s what a child does. Since you are ignorant of history and convinced of your own rightness, you demand that the mistakes of history, things that have already damaged civilizations prior, be repeated.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 15, 2011 @ 1:51 pm - August 15, 2011

  44. I don’t even know what you’re trying to say here, so here’s a picture of a cat dressed as Hello Kitty.

    I love it when lefties reveal the actual limit of their intellectual candlepower.

    The point is, gay marriage is a joke and it always will be. Gay behavior is outside the mainstream and it always will be. Regardless of how many legal fictions you create, you can not fundamentally alter human nature or natural law.

    Comment by V the K — August 16, 2011 @ 12:55 pm - August 16, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.