Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Gay marriage

Our law is based on the Consitution and the philosophy of John Locke and a few others who believed that the governments only job is to protect the inalienable rights that everyone is entitled. Being as marriage is one of the inherent rights we are all entitled to under the Constitution, it would be inappropriate for officials to use the Constitution to take away our rights. Furthermore, one cannot make a valid arguement about the legality of gay marriage in the context of scripture. The Constitution was not meant to take away rights, but to secure them. So, lets not rant and rave about perversion, because it makes us looks stupid and makes it more easy for the libs to brand us as haters.


At 10/11/2005 09:52:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

It's intereseting to note that your endorsement of perversion extends to endorsement of perverting logic, as well. Thus, while many of the premises you state are unarguable, you wrongly enlist them in the service of faulty logic. However, I'm still trying to parse the assertion that "one cannot make a valid arguement about the legality of gay marriage in the context of scripture." What do you mean, "about"? Certainly, one cannot make a valid argument FOR the legality of gay marriage in the context of scripture, since Scripture (take your pick: Christian; Jewish; Muslim) uniformly condemns homosexuality.

The nonsensical premise from which you proceed is, of course, that marriage is an "inalienable[] right [to which] everyone is entitled." But, of course, "marriage" as you seek to pervert it has never been an "inalienable right." The state has long been permitted to regulate it. To a limited extent, everyone DOES have the "right" to marry, so long as they marry a member of the opposite sex.

And BTW, no one was "rant[ing] and rav[ing] about perversion." I was identifying the subject for what it was. We should not flinch from telling the truth about the nihilists who would destroy the fundamental institution of civilized society.

Or the perverse logic of those who give them aid and comfort.

At 10/11/2005 10:00:00 AM, Blogger neocon22 said...

For the record, i do not "endorse" perversion, but i do endorse consitutionality. You are demonizing me in a way that damages your own credibility, which damages your arguement. For you to become so enraged at a simple blog post shows maybe you have your own deeper issues with the subject.

At 10/11/2005 09:55:00 PM, Anonymous NoVA Scout said...

This is fairly low level discourse. But if anyone's interested in upgrading it, try this: What is the appropriate role of a limited federal government in controlling the activities of consenting adults in non-public settings?

I don't know the answers. I just think this is the better question for conservatives.

At 10/12/2005 08:06:00 AM, Blogger Mitch Cumstein said...

Well said, NoVA Scout.

At 10/12/2005 08:48:00 AM, Blogger neocon22 said...

this was exactly my original question or point rather. this is a state issue that shouldnt be used by our federal elected officals to use during election seasons to rally the base when they otherwise drop the ball

At 10/12/2005 09:41:00 AM, Anonymous NOVA Scout said...

To refine it a bit further, let's ask ourselves whether there is a meaningful distinction under our system between the roles that the federal and the state/local govenrments play in regulating this kind of consensual conduct. Again, I don't have the answers, but I think the question is worth discussing, given the amount of heat these types of subjects generate.

At 10/12/2005 10:09:00 AM, Blogger neocon22 said...

this is an emotional issue for both sides. should it be left to the people of the states to decide? or should it be left to the state assembly

At 10/12/2005 10:11:00 AM, Blogger Riley, Not O'Reilly said...

"Being as marriage is one of the inherent rights we are all entitled to under the Constitution"

Where does it say that? If it doesn't say it, then granting such a right is reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment. Scalia, Thomas and Roberts would eviscerate that argument you make.

At 10/12/2005 10:22:00 AM, Blogger neocon22 said...

some say that its part of the EPC. and i do believe this is a state issue. if u read my earlier posts, you would see that i have already made that arguement. my point, and my only point, which i will again reitterate for those who are having a hard time absorbing, is that federal officials use this issue as a rally for the base whom they have otherwise not produced any results for. they have no business doing so.

At 10/12/2005 07:37:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Go away for a little while, and things get out of control.

neocon22 said "For you to become so enraged at a simple blog post shows maybe you have your own deeper issues with the subject." For the record, I am: (a) not "enraged," and (b) somewhat sick of the belittling homosexual argument, to which you allude, that those who oppose the radical homosexual agenda "have [their] own deeper issues with the subject." Sadly, it is the refuge of those who attack five thousand years of societal standards. It is akin to novascout's sophomoric attack as "fairly low level discourse." Aristotle taught that the mean is something devoutly to be wished; I would submit that the "mean" in responding to such arguments is to condemn them for the nonsense that they are.

And BTW, neocon22, while you apparently don't "personally" "endorse perversion," you suggest that conservatives should not resist those who demand society's endorsement by creating gay "marriage." It is a distinction without a difference. Which also responds to nova scout's silly assertion about the "the appropriate role of a limited federal government in controlling the activities of consenting adults in non-public settings." If nova scout doesn't recognize the difference between "control" and "recognition/endorsement," then I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to him.

And federal involvement is mandated as response to the synergy between those who wrongly claim that it is a federal question, and activist federal judges who buy into such arguments.

And at the risk of being accused of being an "amen chorus," couldn't say it better myself, Jim.

At 10/12/2005 07:59:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Individual rights are not GRANTED by the state or the federal government.

At 10/12/2005 08:14:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is the add-on to my post above (for some reason it did not appear).

The Constitution:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

POWERS not delegated in the Constitution are reserved to the states.

RIGHTS not enumerated are reserved to the people.

Marriage seems to be a question of interpretation - is it a power delegated to the states or is it an individual right which would then be retained by the people?

It's unfortunate that I almost never hear this discussion addressed in Constitutional terms. Instead it always seems to degenerate into a tit-for-tat regarding perversion and who is "right" and "most moral."

At 10/12/2005 10:23:00 PM, Anonymous NOVA Scout said...

Sorry James. I must have missed something in my own comment. what was my "silly assertion about the 'appropriate role of a limited government . . .'"? I didn't even realize that I had made an assertion. I thought I was posing a question. When you get a chance, let me know what I was thinking.

At 10/12/2005 10:32:00 PM, Anonymous NOVA Scout said...

PS: James - see if you can keep it under 500 words. I'm not that deep -shouldn't be an impossible task.

At 10/12/2005 11:48:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...


At 10/13/2005 12:55:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Marraige is a contract. A civil contract falls under the perview of government. Government has the authority to limit civil contracts, subject to the restrictions of the constitution.

So, for example, the 14th amendment says that if government allows a white man to marry a white woman, it must allow a black man to do so as well.

Likewise, although not explicitly defined, homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals, since they both have the rights of "people". So, a homosexual man has the same right to marry as a heterosexual man -- that is, to marry a woman. A gay man can marry a gay woman if he likes.

The constitution clearly does not provide "equal protection" based on sex. We know this because there was a push for a constitutional amendment to add this right. And it failed. If it passed, then a woman would have the same right to marry a woman as a man does.

So, the constitution does not grant the right for homosexual marraige based on heterosexual marraige.

A better question would be why the state has anything to do with marraige at all? The answer is that there is a compelling government interest in having children raised in two-parent homes with opposite-sex individuals. These homes provide the best opportunity for children to grow up to be responsible, well-adjusted, productive members of society, which benefits us all. So the government can grant special "favors" on married couples to encourage the practice.

Sure, other arrangements work in specific instances, but government is based on generalities. Some people can drink 4 beers and not be effected, but if they are over 0.08 they are drunk drivers even if, in that condition, they are still twice as good a driver as some 70-year-old with bad eyesight.

At 10/13/2005 10:34:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

Well, nova scout, here's the issue: by "asking" "What is the appropriate role of a limited federal government in controlling the activities of consenting adults in non-public settings," you are suggesting that "controlling the activities of consenting adults in non-public settings" is the issue. It isn't. The issue --- and primary goal --- of the radical homosexual agenda is to obtain societal license/approval for homosexual activities, and equation of homosesexual relationships with normal relationships.

Once again, a Conservative has to shed light on a Liberal's surreptitious effort to control the agenda by setting illegitimate terms of debate. I know that it probably bothers you that someone recognizes what you are trying to do, but tough.

See, under 500 words.

At 10/13/2005 12:39:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is sad to see people continue to state that the Constitution GRANTS rights. It does not. RIGHTS are INHERENT. They are not granted by a person or a piece of paper.

At 10/13/2005 06:27:00 PM, Anonymous NoVA Scout said...

Bravo, James. Concision is an achievable goal for you. Keep after it, young man. Thanks for letting me know what was on my mind. By the way, who was the "Liberal" you caught surreptitiously trying "to control the agenda by settig illegitimate terms of debate." I went back up through the thread and couldn't find anyone who seemed obviously "liberal" (there may be some libertarians lurking in there) or any "illegitimate terms of debate." But I'm with you all the way. If we find that guy, let's string him up.


Post a Comment

<< Home