Miss California defended by… Michael Kinsley?
posted at 8:48 am on May 22, 2009 by Karl
From the Left, former Crossfire host Michael Kinsley schools his progressive pals:
Miss California’s views on gay marriage have nothing to do with her qualifications for the job and shouldn’t disqualify her for it.
This is really Liberalism 101, and it’s amazing that so many liberals don’t get it. Yes, yes, the Bill of Rights protects individuals against oppression by the government, not by other private individuals or organizations. But the values and logic behind our constitutional rights don’t disappear when the oppressor is in the private sector. They may not have the force of law in that situation, but they ought to have the force of understanding and of habit. The logic behind freedom of speech is that “bad” speech does not need to be suppressed as long as “good” speech is free to counter it. Or at least that letting the good and bad do battle is more likely to allow the good speech to triumph than giving anyone the power to choose between them. Congratulations to Donald Trump for making the right decision in this case. But we can’t count on every employer to be as sensitive and understanding as The Donald.
As Carrie Prejean (and her family) continue to come under attack by Tinseltown’s tabloid media, Kinsley aptly reminds Hollywood “liberals” that the blacklist destroyed people’s careers over their beliefs. Though Kinsley does not specifically mention it, the blacklist was a creation of the MPAA, acting without direct governmental coercion.
Kinsley also misses that freedom of religion is a related subtext to Prejean’s case, and to the gay marriage issue generally. The passage of California Proposition 8, which reaffirmed the traditional definition of marriage, prompted gay marriage activists to launch a wide-ranging “Mormon boycott” that conveniently excluded other demographics (blacks, latinos, etc.) that supported Prop. 8. Hollywood heavy Tom Hanks ended up apologizing after calling Mormons “un-American” for supporting the proposition.
Indeed, earlier this week, a bill legalizing gay marriage failed in New Hampshire because the state’s House of Representatives objected to language in the bill that would have allowed religious groups to decline to participate in gay marriage ceremonies. While Kinsley was correct to note that the Bill of Rights protects individuals only against oppression by the government, people of faith are already getting a look at how fast supposed “liberals” want to slide down that slippery slope.
This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
pffft, since when does she need to be defended for speaking whats right? Ignore the a-holes and they will go away. No need to have to respond to them.
johnnyU on May 22, 2009 at 8:59 AM
Wow, imagine Powell saying this… Eh, not so much. If we must have lefties in the “conservative” movement, can we at least swap.
Upstater85 on May 22, 2009 at 9:00 AM
Well, I thought I’d never want to comment on another Prejean post ever again.
But…
The lefties, as always, are really screwing up any headway made in the fight for what’s right: gay marriage. Boycotting Mormons, and making demands of any religious groups, is beyond the fray. And will set the movement, which only recently has made great strides, back years. Honestly, I can’t even blame the anti-gay marriage crowd for getting p.o.’ed at this one.
JetBoy on May 22, 2009 at 9:04 AM
Almost NO liberals get it. Obama doesn’t get it. Liberals are constantly whining about how bad discrimination is, and how employers must be color-blind (and gay-blind, etc). Yet we have Obama NOT looking for the most qualified person for the supreme court – he’s looking specifically for a female gay hispanic.
Daggett on May 22, 2009 at 9:09 AM
did you steal jetboy’s login??
you’re making too much sense for the jetboy we all know and love!
right4life on May 22, 2009 at 9:11 AM
Only thing is I don’t remember anyone anywhere suggesting Klein be silenced; only that he’s an a$$hole.
But of course, that’s the way it always is when a leftist dares offer an opinion contrary to leftist orthodoxy. There absolutely has to be a ‘they do it too’ somewhere in the text.
Typhoon on May 22, 2009 at 9:12 AM
And yes I would much rather talk about this lady..and see her picture, than san fran nan ‘i can’t feel my face’ pelosi…
right4life on May 22, 2009 at 9:13 AM
If they don’t get it, are they really liberals? Wouldn’t appear so. When people like Michael Kinsley get on and start going on and on about what liberalism is, do they realize that the modern American liberal doesn’t even value such things?
When’s the last time you’ve heard a modern American liberal actually invoke the Bill of Rights except maybe in the context of saying it needs to be rewritten?
Upstater85 on May 22, 2009 at 9:15 AM
I thought gay-marriage proponents were arguing that the concerns religious denominations had expressed that they’d be required to perform religious ceremonies for gays was completely unfounded.
The excerpt I quoted is Exhibit A in contradiction of the argument offered by gay-marriage advocates. Part and parcel of their schtick is persecution of religious denominations that don’t celebrate the gay lifestyle.
BuckeyeSam on May 22, 2009 at 9:16 AM
Kinsley regularly calls out liberal hypocrisy. Crossfire was in its golden era with him on, especially with Novak across from him.
MadisonConservative on May 22, 2009 at 9:18 AM
And yet, none of the so called liberals in this movement have even brought up the possibility of government getting out of marriage all together and letting people be free (~liberal) to do as they wish.
Upstater85 on May 22, 2009 at 9:19 AM
How long will it be before Kinsley gets tagged “right-wing” for coming out with this position?
perroviejo on May 22, 2009 at 9:22 AM
Kinsley and Juan Williams….about the last 2 sane liberals left.
angryed on May 22, 2009 at 9:26 AM
I’m still waiting for a liberal to explain why she is expressing “bad” speech , while Obama is expressing good speech?
jeffn21 on May 22, 2009 at 9:29 AM
I am very concerned that an Obama Supreme Court will choose equal protection over religious freedom in a clash over Gay Marriage. At that point, our country will be a step closer to criminalizing religion and speech which is intolerable to liberals.
Loxodonta on May 22, 2009 at 9:30 AM
It annoys me that Kinsely writes and argues so darn well–I can’t despise him.
albo on May 22, 2009 at 9:30 AM
Loxodonta on May 22, 2009 at 9:30 AM
My preacher told us recently that there is a bill in Ccongress that would place the same speech restrictions on churches and speaking in public as exist in Canada. Mark Steyn faced leagal issues up there for speaking about Islam.
kingsjester on May 22, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Because Obama is lying and everybody knows he is lying. If fact, as I have tried to explain to my wife, Obama isn’t even lying, because lying requires an intent to deceive. Obama is just saying something that is not true, while communicating, in a meta- sense, the truth.
gridlock2 on May 22, 2009 at 9:40 AM
He says what I’ve been saying for 2 years. I find it harder and harder to locate liberal principles in the left these days. There is a tremendous amount of repression going on. It started in the primaries, and it’s continued.
Ugly stuff.
AnninCA on May 22, 2009 at 9:40 AM
Sorry to get picky with language, but you’re mixing metaphors here in a manner that makes a big difference to your meaning.
Above the fray means not involved in an argument, remaining neutral on a subject.
Beyond the pale means unacceptable.
I assume you are not remaining neutral about the Left’s assaults on religious freedom, but consider such efforts to be intolerable. Am I correct?
Loxodonta on May 22, 2009 at 9:42 AM
A welcome read.
Shorter Kinsley: Disagree with her? Make it about her arguments, not her t**s.
DrSteve on May 22, 2009 at 9:43 AM
As the court is currently constituted (even taking into account Obama’s replacement for Souter), it all depends on Kennedy’s view.
I realize that man-woman marriage raises an equal- protection argument, but equal protection is not an absolute. If I recall, equal-protection can be set aside in cases of compelling state interest. I’d argue that policies promoting heterosexual marriage above gay marriage promote the propagation of the species and further the longstanding foundation of our society and societies before us–the family unit of a father, mother, and children.
If individual states want to change the status, that’s fine. I just don’t think the court should federalize gay marriage as the federalized abortion law.
BuckeyeSam on May 22, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Have you explored academia in the last 20 years? Liberal intolerance has been a growth industry there. And I use the term liberal because that’s what they call themselves. Either liberal or progressive, but they’re really totalitarian thugs.
Loxodonta on May 22, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Spot on!
Religious_Zealot on May 22, 2009 at 9:54 AM
Yes, but you’re being rational. Will Justice Kennedy?
And maybe the left will wait to bring a case when they know they have the votes. We are one traditional, strict constructionist away from inverting our Constitutional rights into the suppression of rights.
Loxodonta on May 22, 2009 at 9:54 AM
I just divorced it, Lox. *haha Explored it? I was living it! :)
AnninCA on May 22, 2009 at 9:54 AM
Let’s imagine a time, not too far off, when a leftist bureaucrat can deny medical coverage for you because of your viewpoint on homos being married. Yeah that’s what liberalism is truly about.
Scratch a liberal, find a fascist.
jukin on May 22, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Where is there an equal protection issue when it comes to gay marriage? Gays are not prohibited from marrying. They have the right to marry a person of the opposite gender just like everyone else. Everyone plays by the same rules so where does equal protection come into play? Does equal protection mean each citizen has a right to define marriage however he/she wishes to? The court would open Pandora’s box if they ever made such a ruling.
frank63 on May 22, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Sorry…Yes, Lox…I am not neutral about the Left’s assaults, but you say “not remaining neutral”, for the record, I never ever was neutral on that.
Religious freedom is very important to me. So is gay marriage, especially as it relates to equal rights under law. The two really should have nothing to do with each other.
JetBoy on May 22, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Funny how so many gay marriage advocates tell us that there is no such thing as a “slippery slope” and that all they want is to be able to get insurance policies for their partners.
While I believe that there are many gay marriage advocates who really believe that…
…the plain fact is that the most vocal and active gay marriage advocates are really looking for much, much more.
The anti-Prop 8 riots were Exhibit A.
The attacks on Miss Prejean’s faith are Exhibit B.
And what happened in the New Hampshire legislature is Exhibit C.
Gay rights over free speech.
Gay rights uber religious freedom.
Gay rights uber alles.
Religious_Zealot on May 22, 2009 at 9:58 AM
I hear you. I’d love for that argument to be the end of the story, but I’m pretty sure that it will be regarded as dime-store analysis. No offense, but a deeper argument needs to be found. I happen to think that promotion of the nuclear family is a compelling state interest.
BuckeyeSam on May 22, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Gay marrage is too creepy. Do what you want behind closed doors, but don’t shove that ickey thing im my face or my childrens face. Marrage has been set for thousands of years. History will look back on gay marrage as a sick political side show.
saiga on May 22, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Just respect, I think. They are, in fact, fighting back against some very serious prejudices in our culture. Crimes against gays is not a small matter. One young man was literally killed in an attack in my normally quiet town.
That’s not OK.
AnninCA on May 22, 2009 at 10:06 AM
“Have you explored academia in the last 20 years? Liberal intolerance has been a growth industry there. And I use the term liberal because that’s what they call themselves. Either liberal or progressive, but they’re really totalitarian thugs.” Loxodonta
Loxodonta is, if anything, understating the problem in academia. The new left crowd began making serious headway in the mid 1960s, and while many of these people were legitimate scholars, there were a strong component that were ideologues who viewed truth not as an empirical matter, but as whatever was politically advantageous. The politics of the left really started taking over in the mid to late 1970s. Since then, we’ve been treated to Michael Bellesile’s fabricated statistics on gun ownership, and Ward Churchill’s fabricated information on smallpox. These are only the few who get public attention, but there are many more like them still working on campuses. Check out all the big names who support the re-hiring of Ward Churchill. If that’s academic excellence, we might just as well shut down the whole public education system, because it’s a waste of our tax dollars.
Orson Buggeigh on May 22, 2009 at 10:08 AM
I was unable to survive academia being open about my beliefs. I had a “Miss California moment” many years ago. And now, living in a deep blue section of the country, I rarely express my views publicly any more. It’s just too risky. The Left can be ruthless.
Loxodonta on May 22, 2009 at 10:09 AM
Thank you! x 1000
JetBoy on May 22, 2009 at 10:10 AM
1) Crimes against gays should be punished appropriately with existing laws (I’m not a big fan of
thoughthate crime legislation)2) It is obvious that there is a very vocal and active segment of gay activists that will not rest unless and until it is a crime for religions to preach that homosexual activity is a sin. For these activists, it’s not so much about their rights as it is about attacking the church (and the synagogue and the mosque)
3) There are crimes that go the other “way” – The Wichita Massacre
Religious_Zealot on May 22, 2009 at 10:12 AM
I agree.
I realize that McCain wasn’t a great candidate, but I was convinced he could be trusted with judicial appointments. For that reason, I say, “Shame on you,” to conservatives who stayed home in November, and I say “You morons,” to those in the middle who decided to vote for the cool black guy who they thought was a middle-of-the-road Democrat.
Lox: I highlighted who because I know you’d be checking. Though tricky, who is correct because it’s the subject of the embedded clause in “they thought [that] he [who] was a middle-of-the-road Democrat.”
BuckeyeSam on May 22, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Kinsley is a classic liberal – from before we changed the definition of the word. And his observation that “this is liberalism 101″ is right on the mark, and many conservatives here have noted the demise of liberalism in favor of leftism/fascism over the past couple of years.
Jaibones on May 22, 2009 at 10:16 AM
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. Once you concede there is a real equal protection issue, the battle is all uphill to prove that there’s a compelling reason for the state to deny someone equal protection.
As far as convincing the public about the benefits of traditional marriage, I agree with you that promotion of the nuclear family is a stronger case. My point was more that as far as the Court goes, equal protection is a bogus argument and would inevitably open the door to other non-traditional views of marriage.
frank63 on May 22, 2009 at 10:17 AM
“Liberals” haven’t been liberal in decades.
I don’t know why anyone still uses that word to describe the American Left; they are remarkably and outwardly illiberal.
SlimyBill on May 22, 2009 at 10:21 AM
What was the language they were fighting over? If it requires churches to perform gay marriages or change their teaching, the legislature would be overturned by the court anyway. There is a reason the founders decided to keep some things away from elected officials.
dedalus on May 22, 2009 at 10:21 AM
That about sums it up nicely.
SlimyBill on May 22, 2009 at 10:23 AM
I’ll cave in. In the amicus brief that we submit when the case is granted cert by SCOTUS, the primary argument will be your argument, and the fallback argument will be mine–and any others that are developed over time.
BuckeyeSam on May 22, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Dr. Savage quoted a pure profound liberal the other day on the radio. (I don’t remember the person he was quoting). The statement was (paraphrasing) “While I despise the opinion of “this person”, I will go to my grave defending that persons right to deliver it without the threat of duress or persecution.”
Savage was pointing out the distinct difference from the traditional liberal and today’s new-age progressives that consume themselves in the demagoguery of restricting free speech.
Rovin on May 22, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Thanks for your clarification.
There have been means proposed, such as civil unions, that provide homosexuals with nearly all the rights and privileges as traditional marriage. Yet, this approach has often been rejected. And, as in the case of New Hampshire, there is even the rejection of ensuring protection for religious practices opposed to Gay marriage.
I believe that as long as the most vocal continue this approach, there will be growing opposition to your cause. I can say that over the past several weeks, my doubts have grown.
Loxodonta on May 22, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Without tracking the matter down, I recall that it was some kind of specific preemption language that some religious groups and conservatives wanted in the bill so that religious denominations didn’t have to be exposed to the expense and publicity of litigation. I may be wrong, but I think there might have been protection of state tax-exempt status too. That’s an important issue too as far as I’m concerned. Religious denominations should not have their tax-exempt status revoked simply because they won’t perform gay-marriage ceremonies. They should not be treated like Bob Jones University.
BuckeyeSam on May 22, 2009 at 10:31 AM
Just to let you know, as I am old and most often go on only four hours sleep, I will be checking all of your posts in the wee hours of the morning to correct your spelling, grammar and punctuation.
Loxodonta on May 22, 2009 at 10:34 AM
I highlighted the money quote.
Almost all is hardly equal now, is it?
JetBoy on May 22, 2009 at 10:38 AM
From Reuters:
Thus; Religious Freedom is now equated with “discrimination.”
Religious_Zealot on May 22, 2009 at 10:41 AM
Precisely. I make the distinction between “liberal” and “leftist” because, simply put, there’s nothing liberal about today’s lefties. Our Founding Fathers are the very definition of classic liberalism – standing against oppression, tyranny, and fascism.
Lefties, on the other hand, are the exact opposite. They embrace oppression, tyranny, and fascism – all in the name of some ill-defined concept of “the greater good.”
Vic on May 22, 2009 at 10:42 AM
I’m not 100% confident of this when I see a President who makes empathy an important qualification for a Supreme Court nominee. I’m afraid that’s code for filling the courts with those who are sympathetic to “the oppressed” (including gays) and pushing their agenda forward in ways that could never be accomplished via the democratic process.
frank63 on May 22, 2009 at 10:43 AM
I’ve been fighting bigotry for some 50 years as best I can.
It’s difficult to do, and I confess that I fail at times, but I do try to love the bigot, while fighting the bigotry.
Bigotry is always irrational and ugly, but it is not itself a crime. When it results in discrimination for no just cause, it’s criminal. When combined with violence, it’s always a crime.
Loxodonta on May 22, 2009 at 10:44 AM
All I know is that she is still a walking and talking living doll. It would be hard for me to get mad at her for anything. A sweetie like that is a gift from God.
saiga on May 22, 2009 at 10:45 AM
I’ll need to begin proofreading again.
BuckeyeSam on May 22, 2009 at 10:46 AM
No it’s not, and rightly so. Should men and women be treated equally in every situation, should they be required to meet exactly the same standards in every situation, even under law? ?
Should eighteen year olds and eight-one year olds be treated equally in every situation, should they be required to meet exactly the same standards in every situation, even under law?
Should people with IQ’s of 80 be treated equally with people having IQ’s above 145 in every situation, should they be required to meet exactly the same standards in every situation, even under law?
There are valid and just reasons to treat people differently in certain specific and limited situations, even under law.
Loxodonta on May 22, 2009 at 10:50 AM
not a chance. the courts have ruled against freedom of religion when it comes to gay issues…like the doctor in CA who didn’t want to provide a lesbian with artificial insemination…and the lesbian won..
right4life on May 22, 2009 at 10:51 AM
Don’t forget Paglia
Sekhmet on May 22, 2009 at 10:52 AM
It has nothing to do with equal rights under the law no more than the woman in england who was allowed to marry a dolphin after gay marriage was legalized does.
Marriage, in all civilizations throughout history, has been between a man and a women, even in greece, where men would often still have boytoys outside of marriage.
Your “fight” has nothing to do with equal rights and everything to do with destroying the 5000 year old idea of a family that civilization is based on.
TTheoLogan on May 22, 2009 at 10:54 AM
I’ll need to begin proofreading again.BuckeyeSam on May 22, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Loxodonta on May 22, 2009 at 10:56 AM
Wrong. Once the supreme court forces homosexual marriage on the states, homosexuals will begin to sue churches for refusing to perform marriages for them. It’s all about them frothing at the mouth over the fact that there are people who oppose their lifestyle as sinful and immoral, and they are going to do whatever they can to punish these people with the idea it will make them stop feeling bad about what they are doing.
TTheoLogan on May 22, 2009 at 10:56 AM
But there is no valid nor just reason to treat gays differently than straights when it comes to the rights and privileges given in legal marriage. Anything less than “equal” is discriminatory based on sexuality only.
And that ain’t right, not in my America. But it’ll change. Civil Unions are a great start…but not the end.
JetBoy on May 22, 2009 at 10:57 AM
we’ve seen your america, and it ain’t pretty…There are several good reasons, the first of which is protecting freedom of religion…the second is protecting existing marriages and children. as we’ve seen in the netherlands, gay ‘marriage’ renders traditional marriage meaningless…which means more broken homes, fatherless children…which leads to more crime, drugs, gangs, etc.
there are really no good reason to have gay marriage..what benefits are there to society??
right4life on May 22, 2009 at 11:01 AM
Please.
Slavery is…or was…a 5000 year old “tradition” that helped build civilization too. Should we bring it back, just for tradition’s sake?
In any event, will civilization really crumble because two men or two women get the same legal, and social, recognition as a man and a woman? Gays can’t raise a family? Or contribute to society? Tell that to many great inventors and artists and musicians…philosophers and scientists.
C’mon now with that stale “gays wanna destroy civilization” crud.
JetBoy on May 22, 2009 at 11:02 AM
and tell me when we have gay marriage, why don’t we have polygamy, polyandry, pedophilia, etc??
ever bit of ‘logic’ for gay marriage, can be applied to these other categories…
right4life on May 22, 2009 at 11:03 AM
You know what I think should happen to gay-bashers? They should run smack-dab into the Second Amendment rights every gay or straight American has.
Sekhmet on May 22, 2009 at 11:03 AM
Gay-bashers = people who actually commit violent acts against gay people, not people who say things gays don’t want to hear.
Sekhmet on May 22, 2009 at 11:05 AM
A gay man is not being treated any different than a straight man. Both play by the same rules when it comes to who they can marry.
If SSM supporters can convince the majority of Americans that gay marriage is a good thing and can bring it about via the democratic process (which I think they eventually will) then fine..they’ll win fair and square. But trying to win this through the courts is bogus…there are no equal protection issues here.
frank63 on May 22, 2009 at 11:06 AM
Newborn babies available for adoption are in high demand. Should homosexual couples have equal rights to heterosexual couples in adoption selection for newborns?
What is the end?
Loxodonta on May 22, 2009 at 11:06 AM
The doctor is subject to anti-discrimination laws and many other government regulations when operating his medical practice. He should be free to attend a church that teaches homosexuality is wrong, refuses to admit gays, or refuses them the sacraments.
dedalus on May 22, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Why not?
JetBoy on May 22, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Why hasn’t NOW forced churches to ordain women? They managed to get even the military to admit women. Why have any lawsuits aimed at churches toward that end fizzled?
dedalus on May 22, 2009 at 11:13 AM
So true. The speech codes and protest actions of today’s college leftists have nothing to with liberal thought. Farthest thing from it.
Jaibones on May 22, 2009 at 11:14 AM
Empathy is nice for congressmen but justices should interpret the law. A justice ruling empathetically would have a corrosive effect on the Constitution.
dedalus on May 22, 2009 at 11:18 AM
One liberal standing up for freedom of speech does not impress. He still refers to her opinion as “bad” speech as if he’s fit to qualify it. Yes, he’s entitled to his opinion as well, but it’s no more valuable than the opinion of some wino as to the comparative merits of sterno versus Ripple.
SKYFOX on May 22, 2009 at 11:24 AM
If you can cannot see that there are differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals that can justify different treatment under any circumstance, even to the point of placing your political goals over the needs of newborns…
Sorry, I can’t continue this discussion at the moment.
Loxodonta on May 22, 2009 at 11:28 AM
I think that’s different. Ordination is an in-house issue for the church. Who the church does or does not ordain has no affect on those outside the church. On the other hand, marriage is an issue that extends beyond walls of the church. Once my church marries me, my legal status automatically changes. There are ramifications to marriage that extend beyond the church which is why it is entirely reasonable to fear that the state will try to dictate marriage policy to the churches.
frank63 on May 22, 2009 at 11:28 AM
I think the state rep is probably wrong and the governor is probably right. The question for the lawmakers should hinge on what activities constitute “free exercise”. If the church is running a business above a certain size they shouldn’t be able to discriminate with health care benefits but they can’t be forced to change their religious practice.
dedalus on May 22, 2009 at 11:33 AM
The church doesn’t change your legal status, the state does. The church has a religious ceremony but the couple still needs to go to the county clerk.
dedalus on May 22, 2009 at 11:35 AM
I almost never use the word “liberal” anymore in the political sense.
I call them leftists, progressives, or Levin’s word statist. “Liberal” is not an accurate term to apply to most leftists, so I don’t use it.
juliesa on May 22, 2009 at 11:44 AM
What was the language they were fighting over? If it requires churches to perform gay marriages or change their teaching, the legislature would be overturned by the court anyway. There is a reason the founders decided to keep some things away from elected officials.
dedalus on May 22, 2009 at 10:21 AM
>>>>>
The way this is being argued – that it is an equal rights issue – puts it above Constitutional protection of freedom to practice religion. And that’s the point. Saying that homosexual behavior is wrong is to be considered a hate crime. The state will ban certain religious BELIEF.
I see what you’re saying. Pastors can refuse to marry whoever they want to refuse to marry at this point. It would seem like it’s all a moot point. That this right of a pastor would have to be reiterated seems unnecessary, but the fact that the legislature wouldn’t pass the thing BECAUSE it reiterated the Constitutional view of freedom of religion is downright scary.
The Constitution isn’t a given any more. With the judicial activism we have now, we have no Constitution. Where was the Tenth Amendment, for instance, when the federal government took Chrysler’s secured debt-holders’ money and gave it to the unions? Or when an Indiana judge denied STANDING to those whose money was being stolen? I could give tons of other examples.
We have no Constitution.
And the gay marriage folks are making sure that the Constitution we supposedly have actually encodes state control of which religious speech is permitted and which is “discriminatory”.
justincase on May 22, 2009 at 11:44 AM
It may be semantics, but should this be referred to as “Gay Marriage” or “Same Sex Marriage”? I don’t seem to recall that people have to somehow prove that they’re gay upon applying for marriage.
So, like you’ve all proabably discussed before, 2 straight guys could get married in order to take advantage of whatever benefits they wanted to get…correct?
Calgon…take me away!
cranbone on May 22, 2009 at 11:44 AM
“Political goals”? All I want to know is how a gay couple is any different when it comes to raising a child than a straight couple. And if you do a little bit of research, you’ll see that kids who grow up with gay parents aren’t any worse off than any other kid. Not a bit.
JetBoy on May 22, 2009 at 11:46 AM
True, but the minister has been given the right by the state to make the marriage happen. Church and state are already joined to some degree when it comes to marriage so it’s not unreasonable to think the state would not meddle further and start dictating who the church should and should not marry.
Perhaps that will never happen. However, there is more to fear than just whether the state will force ministers to perform SSM ceremonies. What about photographers, reception hall owners, etc. There are other entities besides ministers that are involved with marriage. Because they are not part of the church per se they stand less protected against lawsuits should they refuse to participate in SSM ceremonies due to their conscience.
frank63 on May 22, 2009 at 11:47 AM
and soon it will be discrimination..a hate crime…to say that homosexuality is sinful…
right4life on May 22, 2009 at 11:47 AM
becasue even though homosexuals ape heterosexuals (one ‘top’ or ‘male’ and the other ‘bottom’ or ‘female’) there is no substitute for a mother and father..a real mother and father…we’ve seen what happens in the black community with illegitimate children…more crime, drugs, wasted lives…
and some butch lesbian cannot be a real father..and if you ever had kids, you’d know there’s a point where a son needs a real father..he will not listen to mother…
just as some man cannot be a real mother..children need REAL mothers…
right4life on May 22, 2009 at 11:50 AM
cranbone at 11:44
Or brothers could marry…
Heck, what does all this do with polygamy, as well? If everybody has a right to marry whoever they want, why can’t a person marry 5 different people? Why just between two people?
It’s not about sex at all, from a legal standpoint. It’s about who gets first dibs on coordinated visas, citizenship, inheritance, adoption, etc.
justincase on May 22, 2009 at 11:55 AM
rigth4life at 11:50
Yes. That diversity in a family is important. Men and women are different. Both contribute something vital.
justincase on May 22, 2009 at 11:58 AM
I think he means liberalism in it classic definition…
RedSoxNation on May 22, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Is it OK to say I love her t**s?
yubley on May 22, 2009 at 12:01 PM
When performing marriages churches already discriminate against other religious groups and turn down people for a variety of other reasons.
Commercial activities such as photography are not protected by the first amendment. I think they should be able to turn down any business that comes their way, but when legislative bodies make laws that say otherwise the Constitution is less protective of their rights than of religious institutions.
dedalus on May 22, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Goodness, I’m anything but a gay activist. That’ll make my young liberal son chuckle. He thinks I’ve gone to the dark side. :)
AnninCA on May 22, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Just to lighten things up a bit, I have a rather humorous story.
So, a very matronly woman I know left her marriage of 20 years and hooked with one of the most masculine, stereotypical dykes I’ve ever met in real life. Right out of TV, practically.
3 years later, the dyke decided she wished to go one step further and go through the process of becoming a man, physically.
My friend was then back where she started, with a man.
:)
Life is stranger than fiction, eh?
AnninCA on May 22, 2009 at 12:10 PM
And that is why conservatives like me are so against gay marriage. I’m not trying to deny any one else their rights..I’m trying to protect my own. If we lived in a pure libertarian society I would be far less concerned about SSM. But we don’t. We live under the creeping power of a big and powerful federal government. Once gay marriage becomes law of the land, the left will be emboldened to persecute anyone who does not tow the liberal line on gay issues.
frank63 on May 22, 2009 at 12:15 PM
The Supreme Court forced Skokie to let the Nazis march, despite appeals to the courts from Jews who considered the swastika hate speech–and it is pretty hateful.
If a religious group wants to have a gathering with signs telling gays to repent or face an eternity in hell the court will recognize that they have even more Constitutional protection since both free speech and free exercise are involved.
dedalus on May 22, 2009 at 12:17 PM
Way to go out on a limb there!
DrSteve on May 22, 2009 at 12:19 PM
I’m opposed to much of the anti-discrimination law. However, gays are already a protected class in many states so businesses can’t discriminate regardless of whether gays are married or not. Presumably the photographer could already be sued if he failed to shoot a gay “commitment” ceremony.
Gays should get the same legal rights as other couples and the photographer should be able to turn down their business.
dedalus on May 22, 2009 at 12:20 PM
You’re right, they could already be sued and I believe there have been such actual cases. My point again is that lawsuits such as this will increase exponentially once gay marriage becomes law. Once hardline SSM supporters have won the trophy of the term “marriage”, what will be the next step? Do you think that will be the end of it? No way. The next step will be to exinguish every form of opposition from polite society, just as has happened with race.
I think what you’re doing is trying to make a libertarian argument for SSM in a very non-liberterian society. I respect your argument but I also recognize the realities of the type of system we live in.
frank63 on May 22, 2009 at 12:50 PM
An empathetic court might recognize that such behavior on the part of a religious group is hate speech and does not fall under the protection of free exercise. Remember, courts change. And the direction is almost always leftward.
frank63 on May 22, 2009 at 12:58 PM
That is essentially my perspective and I acknowledge your observations about government overreach. I’d hope, and also bet, that the courts will defend the first amendment against gay efforts to create speech codes or for religious organizations to perform weddings.
There is a case before SCOTUS now involving the New Haven firefighters and racial hiring. The expectation is that SCOTUS is getting set to roll back racial hiring preferences in government jobs. The expectation of this is based on Roberts seeking a color-blind approach. I hope Roberts prevails and gets government’s thumb off the scales.
dedalus on May 22, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »