Liberty has been competing against equality for about 250 years. In the 18th century, both burst onto the political scene. Liberty gave birth to the greatest, freest nation this world has ever seen and equality gave birth to the first modern genocide.
Now we are facing another battle. One group has taken up the mantle of equality. Given how badly things end up every time the cause of “equality” is taken, should we be very afraid?
The latest group to take up the banner of equality are the liberals who are screaming for “marriage equality.” They have invoked the equality name because gay marriage does not poll well with Americans.
Gay marriage is often identified as a social issue and many in the conservative and Tea Party movement say leave social issues alone.
While we can have that debate as to whether we should include social issues or not, this is an issue that is not purely a social issue.
The left has been making war on the family in America for over fifty years.
Why?
The traditional family, and the left hates that expression, is the most stable unit in America. The left wants to transform America from a liberty based, free market economy into a socialist economy, absent freedom.
What is on of the most effective tools socialists have to do this?
Attacking the family.
The left has been wrong on so many issues, why do we even give them the time of day?
Almost fifty years ago, the left launched its most successful attack on the family. They called it the war on poverty.
Fifty years ago, a black child and a white child might have different challenges facing them in society; they did have something in common. The divorce and illegitimacy rates for blacks and whites were roughly the same. A black child had the same chance of growing up in a stable, two parent household as a white child had.
Today, a white child has well over a 50% chance of growing up in a stable two-parent home. A black child has a 6% chance.
Why is this important?
The single greatest predictor of poverty is being born out of wedlock. If you are a child born to a single parent your chances of being raised and living in poverty increase by an order of magnitude.
The single greatest predictor for young men ending up in the criminal justice system is the lack of a father in the house.
These facts have been known for decades.
In the sixties, the war on poverty subsidized bad behavior. Young people had sex but back then if an unplanned pregnancy resulted, most often it meant a trip down the aisle for the couple. In the fifties and sixties, this was expected. In the fifties and sixties, more unintended pregnancies were avoided by a man or a woman changing their mind just thinking about the possibility they would have to marry the other person.
For women, pregnancy was a huge issue. Women did not have the career opportunities they do now and women worried about how they would support the child if the man did not marry them.
Welfare ended that.
Welfare told woman you do not need a husband. If you have a child or two, the government will take care of you. Welfare went even further by telling women you cannot be married or have a man in the house to collect those benefits.
Now, fifty years later, we see the effect on the black family. The traditional black family is on the endangered species list as two thirds of all black children are born out of wedlock and into poverty.
Liberals operate under a delusion called socialist reality. Things are never as they really are, but only as they should be.
According to liberals, blacks are over represented on welfare rolls and in the criminal justice system because America is a racist nation. The truth is, we implemented the programs the left wanted and this is the result.
Now the far left wants to turn marriage into a freak show involving 3 men, 5 women, 2 dogs and a Bengal tiger.
The left’s definition of equality is to allow anyone and anything to marry.
Marriage is recognized by various religions for theological reasons. Marriage is also recognized by the state for policy reasons.
Policy is simply the promotion of certain behaviors that we the people consider good and beneficial. Creating a stable structure for the raising of children is a good and beneficial behavior.
Creating structures that encourage young men in particular to do good and beneficial things, such as working and not engaging in bad behavior is a beneficial thing.
The left’s attempt to turn marriage into a freak show is not beneficial. Given their track record on being wrong with everything else, the fact they support these policies should be enough of a warning that we should automatically reject these policies.
The left usually reacts to those who disagree with their policies with either emotional hysteria (people should be allowed to love who they choose!) to outright lies (conservatives want gays to die, not be allowed to pass along their property, visit loved ones, etc.)
Most conservatives have something of a strong libertarian streak in them. As long as everyone is of age and capable of consenting, not only do we not care what you are doing behind your closed doors, we actually don’t want to know.
Most conservatives are liberty minded enough that we strongly agree with the ideas that a person should be able to visit their close friends in the hospital, that they should be able to leave their property to anyone they want, including their cat. And, we strongly support the right of anyone to choose the person to make the important decisions for themselves, other than their cat.
But when you take what should be private and try to force it on the public, then things change.
Traditionally marriage has worked well in America for centuries. It has always been one man and one woman. Those who want to change this bear the burden of showing why this would be good for the nation.
So far they have not.
Given the carnage that the liberals’ policies have created, the idea of redefining marriage into something unrecognizable and equally indefinable should be something that we conservatives must reject and defeat in the political arena and in the court of public opinion.
Liberty and freedom depend on a stable nation, stable government and stable families. Those who claim they support “equality” do not support liberty. They support anarchy.
Anarchy and freedom cannot co-exist.
In the end only one can prevail and history is riddle with the graves of those who learned what happened when freedom lost.
Tags: equality, gay, liberty, marriage, on, poverty, war, welfare
Permalink Reply by Pat Keller on I don't understand why gay marriage is even an issue. Like it or not, right or wrong, gay people exist and no amount of legislation is going to make them go away.
Like the author says "As long as everyone is of age and capable of consenting, not only do we not care what you are doing behind your closed doors, we actually don’t want to know." Great - so can we just let them get married already?
How does a gay couple getting married affect my own marriage? It doesn't!
From a religious perspective, no church should be forced to host a gay marriage either. Legalizing gay marriage won't change that.
Bringing up animals as the author does is just ridiculous. Animals cannot give consent That kind of rhetoric just provokes ridicule of the Tea Party. It turns people away from it. Many Americans are fed up with both the Democrats and Republicans and we wish there was another option. We actually like some of the Tea Party's ideas, but things like this just remove the Tea Party from consideration.
This issue is a distraction from things we should really be focusing like fiscal policy, taxes, foreign policy and containing and restricting the power of the federal government from interfering with our lives.
Permalink Reply by Vern Shotwell on Not an issue to you? Ignore it, then!
There are fiscal issues of course. Like marriage deductions, primarily created to assist procreation, family formation and so on. Perhaps a study in biology is would help you?
Permalink Reply by Pat Keller on I didn't say it wasn't an issue. I said I don't understand WHY it is an issue.
It may surprise you but I also object to "marriage deductions". Childless heterosexual couples as well as single people also contribute to schools and other infrastructure.
There are certain economies of scale to forming a family. Just living together under the same roof reduces costs.
If a couple can't afford to have children then they shouldn't have children. Family and procreation is great but the government shouldn't be subsidizing it.
I still don't see why gay marriage is such a huge issue. If you object to any "marriage deductions" a married gay couple may get then do away with those marriage deductions. There are already deductions for dependents and there have been for decades. If you don't have kids, you don't get to take those deductions.
Gay people exist. They're going to "commit" to each other and live together. I really don't think it diminishes my own marriage if the state extends that same recognition of matrimony to them.
Permalink Reply by JC Patriot on The key to this argument is the word "marriage." Haven't you noticed that they are not arguing for civil unions to exist in every state as the legal equivalent to marriage? They are trying to gain some type of acceptance of their behavior by co-opting the "more-normal" word "marriage" to now also describe their lifestyle.
The word "marriage" has an implied religious meaning to many people that get married in some type of religious ceremony (beyond the simple justice of the peace process). To these people, most of whom oppose homosexual behavior because of their religious beliefs, it is offending for homesexuals to be trying to use the term "marriage" with all of it's implied religious roots, when those roots actually are critical of homosexuality itself.
By ignoring the religious connotations implied, your marriage becomes nothing more than a legal contract with your spouse for tax, estate, and insurance purposes. Just go tell your husband/wife that your marriage is the same thing as your employment contract!
Permalink Reply by Pat Keller on I'd be in favor of civil unions for everyone. Get rid of marriage. My wife and I wed in a church with our pastor performing the ceremony and we made vows to each other in the presence of our family, our friends and GOD.
The marriage certificate the state issued is just a piece of paper to us.
But about this "implied religious meaning" that marriage has....Are you Christian? Muslim? Jewish? Something else? I shouldn't assume, but whatever you are does a marriage of someone of a different faith offend you?
And where in the Constitution does it give you the right to not be offended?
Don't you believe in the separation of church and state? Should the state really outlaw gay marriage for religious reasons? Isn't that a large part of why many of our founding fathers came to this country for? To get away from state imposed religious laws?
I think the bigger problem is people getting all hung up about this while there are bigger issues at hand. Instead of worrying about whether or not that gay couple across the street from you has a piece of paper from the state you should be worrying about health care, taxes, economics, foreign policy, etc...
Permalink Reply by JC Patriot on Quite a few people out there might question the notion of "get rid of marriage." Perhaps you mean get the government out of the marriage business? The only things that government might have a role in would be the testing to make sure you're not too closely-related, and possibly to encourage heterosexual marriage as being more beneficial to the upbringing of children than single or nonheterosexual relationships.
Being offended or not is not in the Constitution, but the same should be said about the government trying to redefine what the term "marriage" means. We know the historical context of the term, and ignoring that seems illogical. The government is already involved in too many aspects of our lives, so we hardly need them to start acting like they're in the dictionary business.
As you know, separation of church and state is also not in the Constitution. What is there is that the government shall not endorse a specific religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. (As an aside, this means that there is no Constitutional authority given to the government to ban religious activity on public property -- the founders frequently prayed on government property while on government duty).
We can walk and chew gum at the same time -- multiple issues are not a threat, unless the individual belongs to the superficial channel-flipping masses that might catch a newsbite by accident every so often (and most of them don't vote).
Permalink Reply by Pat Keller on Sorry if I wasn't clear. I did mean that perhaps the government should get out of the marriage business.
I know that's not going to happen and there are some benefits for married couples who share joint property and all the other legal intricacies which marriage entails. If it weren't for state-recognized marriage couples would probably have to seek a lawyer out to outline these things in some sort of contract.
You are right with respect to separation of church and state not being explicitly delineated in the Constitution, but it is well established case law. What that means is unfortunately a subject of some debate. Some extremists take it to mean that a city like Steubenville, Ohio cannot depict well recognized landmarks in their city's logo. What's next? Should Corpus Christi, Texas be forced to change its name? I don't think so.
But on the other hand, I did not bring up "implied religious meaning" and I am reluctant to accept religion as a valid reason for legislation. In my opinion there should be some compelling reason to legislate something other than it's against someone's religion.
I see gay marriage as a losing issue to stand against. SCOTUS has already ruled that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional. There is growing support for gay marriage within the US. It's inevitable. It's a losing battle and it's not worth fighting over anyway.
Instead of legislating against gay marriage I think the better approach is to reach out to people and get them involved in your church. How good is a society that acts morally out of fear rather than out of choice?
And like I've said several times already, I think it is a distraction from more important issues.
Permalink Reply by JC Patriot on Separation of church and state well-established by case law? Are you implying that case law trumps the Constitution, which is quite clear on the issue. The example I gave you of the founders praying on government property elicited no response -- is this omission intentional?
You have made no reference to the alternative campaign issue for gays: civil unions. Is this omission also intentional? Why is "marriage" specifically being targeted as their goal?
As for gays being involved in the church: the belief system of many churches is against homosexuality. Therefore, the congregation would be trying to save their souls by teaching them that their behavior is wrong in their religion. Is this what you mean? I remember how well the idea of "praying the gay away" was received.
I am sure you do not mean reconfigure the religion to fit the preferences of a small minority -- that would be silly.
Permalink Reply by Thomas Angle on I am sure you do not mean reconfigure the religion to fit the preferences of a small minority -- that would be silly.
Also that would be blasphemy and a ticket to Hell.
Permalink Reply by Pat Keller on As I'm sure you know the Constitution is law. I don't know what you want me to say about politicians praying - they are certainly free to do so even while acting in their elected positions.
I've addressed civil unions in other posts. We should choose - allow gays to marry or abolish marriage in law and have civil unions for everyone who wants to share their life with another human being.
And yes, churches are free to preach what they want. Most religions do not accept homosexuality. You can pray for gays, that's fine. You can evangelize, that's fine too. It's not up to the government to make sure everyone accepts your religion though.
Some people will not be saved. The Bible is clear about that. You should not try to legislate religion. The Founding Fathers were very clear about that too.
I'm not sure why this is so difficult for people to understand.
Permalink Reply by JC Patriot on So we apparently agree that civil unions would eliminate the need for homosexual couples to marry under the government's definition of what marriage is or might be, but I don't see why that would require your additional measure of eliminating marriage in the current law for heterosexual couples. That would be an example of changing something that isn't broken: the established laws for traditional marriage that many religious people hold so dear. Marriage cannot be completely separated into either a totally religious function nor a totally legal function without angering a huge percentage of the population.
Creating civil unions as a newer legal classification for homesexuals, however, does solve the problems they claim are behind their concerns, but does nothing to anger or infringe on the rights or religious beliefs of religious heterosexuals. So if having both exist at the same time solves all problems and offends nobody, why isn't this the answer?
Permalink Reply by Thomas Angle on And where in the Constitution does it give you the right to not be offended?
Where in the Constitution does it give the federal government the right to regulate marriage or change the meaning of the word?
Don't you believe in the separation of church and state?
There is no separation. The 1st Amendment only states that the federal government can not establish a religion. But a state can if they choose to do so and they did. If there is any argument on this, please see the 10th Amendment.
Should the state really outlaw gay marriage for religious reasons?
Assuming that there is such a thing as gay marriage (a marriage is a union between a man and a woman). Yes the state has every right to outlaw it. But then again, there is no such thing as gay marriage.
Instead of worrying about whether or not that gay couple across the street from you has a piece of paper
It is not about a piece of paper to them. It is about acceptance of their perverted life style. To be honest, I am getting really tired of them shoving it down my throat and forcing it on my kids in school. I would think you would be too since the life style is an abomination in God's eyes and a ticket to Hell.
Hey but all they want is a piece of paper. Who care who goes to Hell in the process of getting it.
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
