Same-Sex Marriage is NOT a Civil Right

17 02 2007

Filed under: Homosexuality, Same-sex Marriage, Civil Rights, Liberalism, Christianity

This article was written by Greg Jones who blogs at Firm Foundation, which is the blog of Judge Roy Moore’s organization. He successfully refutes the notion that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue and demonstrates that is a moral one.

It has been suspected—and recent events bear out—that homosexuals actually want more than equal rights and they will do just about anything to get them. Part of the lesson of 1984 is that true equality exists only in tandem with freedom, and that you have to be careful not to destroy the latter through alleged intentions of seeking the former. It is a lesson worth remembering in the same-sex “marriage” debate. A few examples will help to illustrate my point.

1. Example one is in Massachusetts, where a nasty battle has occurred over whether a citizen initiative that would ban same-sex “marriage” in the state will be placed on the 2008 ballot. After a myriad of events that are worth their own blog entry at some point, the Massachusetts legislature reluctantly decided to vote on the measure, which resulted in it passing another hurdle toward going on the ballot. Not surprisingly, this enraged homosexual activists. Now two state lawmakers are going to propose a state constitutional amendment that would forbid citizen initiatives that “limit or abridge civil rights.” One of the legislators said about the proposal: “We never want to put something in our Constitution that limits people’s civil rights” In other words, these legislators want to place the issue of same-sex “marriage” beyond the reach of a democratic vote. The issue of same-sex “marriage” is so important to them that they would stifle the core of the democratic process: the vote of the people.

Implicit in the proposed amendment is the assumption that same-sex “marriage” is a civil right. While this proposition is legally untrue and philosophically unsound, it indicates the strategy the homosexual movement wants to use to get its way. In the beginning, supporters of special homosexual rights used the courts to force their policy wishes on the public. This is why same-sex “marriage” exists in Massachusetts in the first place: the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered the legislature to legalize such marriages. However, the severe nationwide backlash that succeeded the Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health decision—with most states passing constitutional amendments to protect the institution of traditional marriage—necessitated a different strategy. That strategy involves declaring by fiat that homosexual “marriage” is a civil right that trumps all other rights in our democratic society.

By equating same-sex “marriage” to a civil right, the homosexual movement believes that it can stymie democratic responses to their improper use of judicial power. It is not an entirely new strategy, as we have heard for some years now attempts to equate the civil rights struggle of blacks to the homosexual movement. But what had been unclear until now was the full implications of equating the two. What is at stake is nothing less than the bedrock institutions of our constitutional republic.

2. Two weeks ago, a councilwoman in Eugene, Oregon proposed a motion to have the city withdraw its support from the county’s Martin Luther King, Jr., celebration. Her problem with the celebration was that the keynote speaker was the Rev. Walter Fauntroy, an associate of Dr. King’s in the 1960’s, who has joined other black ministers in support of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would keep the definition of marriage between one man and one woman. The Eugene Council declined to entertain the motion, but the councilwoman’s justification for the proposal gives reason to pause. Of Councilwoman Bonny Bettman said of her proposal: “The merits of the speaker’s accomplishments or the right for him to speak are not an issue. I do not believe the city should officially sponsor, and therefore publicly condone, an event that features a speaker who advocates amending the Constitution to exclude members of our community from enjoying equal civil rights.” Note again the invocation of the term “civil rights” in reference to same-sex “marriage.”

It is interesting that Rev. Fauntroy obviously does not see a parallel between the civil rights struggle led by Dr. King and the push by homosexuals to gain the right to marry. Even so, Councilwoman Bettman does see a parallel and believes in it so strongly that she would ignore the credibility of Rev. Fauntroy on the topic of civil rights and would deny his right to speak about Dr. King if she could. As it is, she did not want the city to endorse a celebration of Dr. King that included a speaker opposed to same-sex “marriage” because of the supposed parallel between black equality and same-sex “marriage.”

3. Example three centers on a Madison, Wisconsin city council proposal to allow its public officials to take the oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Wisconsin, but then to permit those who wish to recite an “addendum” stating that they are taking the oath under protest and will “work to eliminate [the state’s marriage protection amendment] from the Constitution and work to prevent any discriminatory impacts from its application.” A couple of days after that post the Madison City Council made its protest oath official by a vote of 14 to 4, but decided to call it a “supplemental statement” rather than an “addendum” to the oath. The president of Madison’s Equal Opportunities Commission openly admitted that the reason for the addendum/supplemental statement/contradiction was to “give people some way to stand up for civil rights while being in public office.” In this case, then, the “civil right” of same-sex “marriage” trumps even a public official’s oath to uphold the law.

Thus, we see through these examples that “homosexual rights” activists are willing subordinate freedom of speech, the right to vote, and a public official’s duty to uphold the law to the issue of homosexual “marriage.” They justify these direct affronts to our constitutional republic by claiming that such “marriages” are a “civil right” and therefore they take priority over these other vital rights, presumably thinking about Dr. King’s admonitions about civil disobedience in the face of injustice. But Dr. King never shied away from public debate about the subject of rac
ism, he never argued that people should not be allowed to vote on certain subjects in our political system, and he only advocated civil disobedience with the understanding that sanctions would follow, implying that he expected public officials to enforce the law. So, from a historical perspective the parallel to the civil rights movement does not help homosexual activists.

Moreover, the parallel between the black struggle for civil rights and the homosexual movement’s push for same-sex “marriage” fails the test of logic. This is because the equality of blacks and whites centers on the fact that both are human beings made by God; the difference in color does not justify a difference in treatment because both are quintessentially human. Homosexuals are not and never have been denied the right to vote, the right to ride at the front of the bus, the right to attend the same schools as everyone else, or any of the other true civil rights that were unjustly denied to blacks for generations. These are rights accorded to all Americans because of their status as human beings. Homosexuals are not treated differently because of doubts about their humanity: indeed, each of them is created in the image of God just like any heterosexual human being. They are treated differently in this instance because of their behavior.

Homosexuals are denied the right of marriage because that right is not just based on the fact of humanity (though that is one criterion, which is the reason that bestiality is forbidden). The right of marriage is also based on gender and behavior. Marriage, by definition, is the sacred and lasting union between a man and a woman, meant to be the building block of family, which in turn is the building block of society. Homosexual behavior dictates that they would “marry” people of the same sex, which falls outside of the traditional definition of marriage. To allow homosexual unions to be called marriage would obliterate the distinctions in the law (gender and behavior) upon which the institution is based. Thus, in being denied the right to marry, homosexuals are being denied something they cannot rationally possess. Their complaint is equivalent to a man complaining about being denied the right to birth a child even though it is physically impossible for him to do so. Homosexuals are not being denied any kind of right, let alone a civil right, through marriage protection amendments.

Finally, as I hinted above, it seems that homosexual activists are willing not only to discard history and logic in their quest to obtain the right of marriage, but they are also willing to undermine the very fabric of our constitutional republic. If, as the examples above and others not mentioned yet readily available seem to suggest, homosexual activists consider same-sex “marriage” so important that it should not be spoken against, it should not be voted upon by the people, and when it is banned by a popular vote the law should be thwarted by public officials, then they are elevating that right above the bedrock principles of our nation. They are claiming that their version of equality trumps the very rights that make us free in this country.

It should be obvious to anyone that is capable of reading the Constitution that same-sex marriage advocates are trampling over it and every other law-abiding citizen with their demand for “equal rights.” For Christians to tolerate this type of behavior will only anger God. Certainly, Christians need to reach out to homosexuals that in their sphere of influence, that come to their church, or are co-workers even. But we must simultaneously fight to preserve the cornerstone of marriage in this country if we have any desire to continue in our freedom. Yes, we live in a free country, but with great freedom, comes great responsibility and Christians must take the lead.

Advertisements

Actions

Information

26 responses

27 06 2008
vladseventysix

Marriage legally predicates the perpetuation of the human species on mating, heterosexual human relations. Same sex marriage will legally predicate the perpetuation of the human species on matingless human relations. With same sex marriage, at best a man and a woman will be legally married as matingless opposite gender relations. At worst they will be married as two males performing anal sodomy, i.e., matingless “mating”. So, am I to conclude equality like beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

27 06 2008
Truth and Reason

No, homosexuals do not need equality.

28 06 2008
Mr. Incredible

==Marriage legally predicates the perpetuation of the human species on mating, heterosexual human relations.==

Those who claime to be homosexual must also rely on heterosexuality to produce children.

== Same sex marriage will legally predicate the perpetuation of the human species on matingless human relations.==

You don’t need marriage to do that.

== With same sex marriage, at best a man and a woman will be legally married as matingless opposite gender relations.==
However, the godly template is that a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, are joined by God. There is a relationship that OTHER children see between different viewpoints in an intimate setting that benefits those kids and the rest of society.

==At worst they will be married as two males performing anal sodomy, i.e., matingless “mating”. ==

Mating is between opposite “equipment.” It has purpose that is not achieved by same-sexers.

==So, am I to conclude equality like beauty is in the eye of the beholder?==

All men may marry members of the oppositge sex.

All women may mary members of the opposite sex.

No one is denied, unless you are claiming that those who say they are homosexual are members of a third sex not addressed by the law.

After all, the law addresses men/males and women/females. Unless you claim that those who say they are homosexual are not among those, the law doesn’t discriminate.

28 06 2008
Mr. Incredible

vladseventysix,

Jefferson says, in The Declaration of Independence, that all are created equal. He says that, for example, the Right to life begins at creation.

[The pro-choice=pro-abortion=wrong-choicers say that the Right to life begins at birth, thus disagreeing with Jefferson.]

So, when were those who claim to be homosexual created homosexual? Where is this spelled out in the Word of God as it is spelled out for heterosexuality?

We are on a need to know basis all up in here so that we can apply the Right to life to all who should get it. Unlike pro-choice=pro-abortion=wrong-choice people, we want not to leave anybody out of what Jefferson said we are ALL entitled to, the RIGHT to life.

28 06 2008
Mr. Incredible

==…matingless human relations…==

If such relations is “matingless,” then you got no prob with two sisters marrying. You got no prob with a father and his son, nor a mother and her daughter, I guess, too. How ’bout a father, his brother and the son?

28 06 2008
Mr. Incredible

vladseventysix,

What’s discriminatory about the language, “between a male and a female,” in the law? Are not those who claim to be homosexual males and females? Can’t a male who says he is homosexual marry a woman who says she is homosexual? I don’t care abut whether they want to, or not; that’s not anybody’s bidness whether they choose to marry, or not. I’m talking about ability, and ALL males have the ability to marry, and ALL females have the ability to marry, and ALL of them are beholden to the same set of rules, male and female, whether they claim to be bank robbers, wifebeaters, or homosexual.

29 06 2008
vladseventysix

Mr. Incredible: I honestly don’t understand what points you’re trying to make. My point is simply that it is possible for human beings to legally predicate the perpetuation of the human species on mating, heterosexual human relations, or, on matingless human relations, but, that the perpetuation of the human species can not be legally predicated on both mating, heterosexualsexual human relations, and, matingless human relations at the same time. Which is why I ask ; so, am I to conclude equality like beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

2 07 2008
Mr. Incredible

==I honestly don’t understand what points you’re trying to make.==

Well, I wrote them in English, and you’re an English writer and reader, and you can go over what I wrote as many times as you need until you understand them. So, I honestly don’t understand the difficulty.

What point(s) trouble you?

==My point is simply that it is possible for human beings to legally predicate the perpetuation of the human species on mating, heterosexual human relations, or, on matingless human relations, but, that the perpetuation of the human species can not be legally predicated on both mating, heterosexualsexual human relations, and, matingless human relations at the same time.==

Soooooooo, I can’t have friendships which are “matingless” human relations????

== Which is why I ask ; so, am I to conclude equality like beauty is in the eye of the beholder?==

Everybody can conclude what they want. Far too many of them will conclude wrongly.

Now, answer my questions. Resolve the issues I brought up.

2 07 2008
Mr. Incredible

==…it is possible for human beings to legally predicate the perpetuation of the human species on mating, heterosexual human relations, or, on matingless human relations…==

Soooo, “matingless” human relations perpetuate the species??? Heh. I never knew that.

==…but, that the perpetuation of the human species can not be legally predicated on both mating, heterosexualsexual human relations, and, matingless human relations at the same time.==

Why would the law want to protect what you allege to be “matingless” perpetuation???? How can we perpetuate by not mating??? Did I miss something in sex ed??

3 07 2008
vladseventysix

Mr. Incredible: Is it logical to legally predicate the perpetuation of the human species on matingless human relations, whether matingless opposite gender human relations, and/or matingless same gender relations?

3 07 2008
Mr. Incredible

==Is it logical to legally predicate the perpetuation of the human species on matingless human relations, whether matingless opposite gender human relations, and/or matingless same gender relations?==

Illogical, since there is no perpetuation without mating. Soooo, so-called “same-sex ‘marriage'” has no hand in perpetuating the species.

In any case, notbody is legally stopping relations between anybody.

“Bbbbbbut.” you say, “those who claim to be homosexual can’t marry each other!”

Neither can same-sex hets. ALL men are stopped from marrying each other, and ALL women are stopped from marrying each other. No discrimination there.

These laws say that “marriage” is between “a man and a woman.” Everybody is either a man, or a woman. Did they leave anybody out? Isn’t everybody accounted for?

4 07 2008
Mr. Incredible

ADDITIONALLY…

==Is it logical to legally predicate the perpetuation of the human species on matingless human relations, whether matingless opposite gender human relations, and/or matingless same gender relations?==

Illogical, since there is no perpetuation without mating. Soooo, so-called “same-sex ‘marriage’” has no hand in perpetuating the species.

In any case, notbody is legally stopping relations between anybody.

Society has the Right to decide what the best method of perpetuating itself and Humanity, and society recognizes that mating does this, when it can be done. Society isn’t much interested in relations between two men, nor two women, insofar as those relations don’t ultimately affect other individuals, society, culture, or country.

For example, we aren’t concerned that two men go out for coffee; but we are concerned when two men conspire to rob a bank. So, there is regulation of relations between people, whether they mate, or not, in contracts, for instance.

5 07 2008
vladseventysix

Mr. Incredible: Only We The People have the authority to make this decision, agreed.

5 07 2008
Mr. Incredible

==Only We The People have the authority to make this decision, agreed.==

What decision?

5 07 2008
Mr. Incredible

The decision to do what?

5 07 2008
vladseventysix

Ciao.

5 07 2008
Mr. Incredible

==Ciao.==

So, your answer to my questions, “What decision?” and, “The decision to do what?” is, “Ciao”?

5 07 2008
Mr. Incredible

Why, TR, can’t we ever get a straight answers to serious questions out of these people???

5 07 2008
Mr. Incredible

It appears that these people simply cannot make their own cases, only drive by and unload a few shots, then disappear back into the darkness.

11 10 2008
beetlebabee

This is a good post. Personally, I don’t see Proposition 8 taking anything away from civil unions or partner laws. I see Proposition 8 as separate from the gay issue. It’s more about legal protection for those of us who would rather have private matters be private and who wish to preserve our own free speech and freedom of religion rights.

24 10 2008
johnbisceglia

It boggles my mind that no one is SCREAMING AT THE TOP OF THEIR LUNGS:

“It is NOT acceptable to have a fundamental right UP FOR A VOTE.”

“It is NOT acceptable to have FUNDRAISERS to either PURCHASE a civil right OR to EXCLUDE American families FROM a civil right.”

“Children are hurt by Marriage Inequality.”

(the Christian Right thinks their children will be “traumatized” when faced with the REALITY of the existence of LGBT families; they have no idea what cruel traumas their family COULD experience if they lacked the rights & protections of civil marriage).

Oh yeah, and also “No Taxation Will Happen UNTIL Representation”.

16 11 2008
johnbisceglia

The U.S. government crossed a VERY serious line with PROP 8.

This “proposition” threatened children’s sense of safety and belongingness in California. Children’s safety.

Regardless of THIS particular fight, there are way too many fights on way too many fronts for us to conquer piecemeal. The Time is Now – DRAW A NEW LINE in the sand and demand from President Obama and our representatives FULL EQUALITY.

Equality Is Simple When You Simply Include Everybody.

What? Not detailed enough for the lawyers?

OK, we can list repealing DOMA, repealing DADT, include transgender in the ENDA Bill, allow adoption of abandoned children, equality in immigration
issues, recognize our hate crimes as such, equal family/children rights……….whew! See what I mean?

We are EQUAL SOULS in HUMAN BODIES. Could we please STOP discriminating due to the genitalia attached? Plumbing will determine each civil right?! Any separation from the pack is ultimately due to gender (and/or gender roles & stereotyping), and that is SEXISM. I cannot marry Bob
because I am the “wrong” gender; if I were a woman I could marry Bob. SEXISM.

And I cannot stress ENOUGH how my own suffering from Marriage Inequality is NOT the reason for wanting or needing equality. I am not something to focus on. But my story, and the stories of countless other Americans desperately need to be addressed in this civil rights struggle. Marriage laws
were put in place many years ago in order to PROTECT individuals and their FAMILIES; if they were NOT necessary they would not exist (for heterosexuals). When these laws are NOT in place for ALL OF US, horrible, horrible suffering occurs. My WEBSITE has many examples.

So Americans want to continue denying us what they have already deemed as essential. And many people want us to WAIT…2….5……10…….20……..30 YEARS, depending on the “civil right”, for what WAS and IS our birthright.

I personally have a HUGE problem with that. I cannot wait. I will not wait.

Will you join me on Wednesday, April 15th, 2009, and help me inform the government that WE are eager to be included in the federal tax base as
soon as THEY include us in society’s laws? My 5-year-old students could understand this concept: EQUAL = EQUAL

As Americans can’t we agree that there are MANY other important issues to address (like the Economy, Education, Health Care, Poverty & Homelessness, Iraq/Afghanistan…all of these are related), and solving THOSE problems is more urgent than having “Equality Issues” TIE UP THE COURTS for another 30+ years? We will NOT go away.

You keep procreating; we keep popping out. Sorry.

Our representatives have spent years inventing 4-letter words (DOMA, DADT) to restrict us, deny us, demoralize us, and harm our beloved families and children. Enough is enough.

NO MORE. NO MORE.

=======================
The National Equality Tax Protest
– Wednesday, April 15th, 2009 –
=======================

18 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

==The U.S. government crossed a VERY serious line with PROP 8. ==

The California Constitution allows the vote.

==This “proposition” threatened children’s sense of safety and belongingness in California. Children’s safety. ==

We’re aware that you people are tracking down every possible way to challenge the vote of the People, even if the challenge is ridiculous and unreasonable, not to mention an appeal to undemocratic principles.

==…demand from President Obama and our representatives FULL EQUALITY. ==

University of California v Bakke [SCOTUS] says that groups have no “Rights,” that only individuals/persons do. Therefore, couples cannot claim Rights.

So, since the law doesn’t say that a person must be heterosexual to marry, the law doesn’t discriminate against persons.

==Equality Is Simple When You Simply Include Everybody. ==

A man wo claims to be homosexual may marry a woman who claims to be homosexual. So, everybody is included since everybody is either male, or female.

==We are EQUAL SOULS in HUMAN BODIES.==

Really?? What does “EQUAL SOULS” mean?

== Could we please STOP discriminating due to the genitalia attached? ==

So, when a man chooses to date only women, is THAT discrimination in YOUR world?

==Plumbing will determine each civil right?!==

No. All men may marry women, and all women may marry men. Heterosexuality is not required of any person.

== Any separation from the pack is ultimately due to gender (and/or gender roles & stereotyping), and that is SEXISM.==

Again, if a man chooses to date only women, is THAt discrimination?

== I cannot marry Bob because I am the “wrong” gender…==

Nobody is the “wrong” sex. You are what you were formed to be.

In any case, NO man may marry another man. That is not sexism, rather equality. All men are treated alike.

==…if I were a woman I could marry Bob.==

That’s the same for all. That is what’s meant by “equal treatment and application.”

==…this civil rights struggle.==

Blacks say that it is not a Civil Rights struggle.

== When these laws are NOT in place for ALL OF US, horrible, horrible suffering occurs.==

“Suffering” cuz you aren’t getting what you want, the way a child “suffers” when he doesn’t get what he wants, and he thrashes around on the floor, holds his breath ’til he turns blue and stomps around. The child thinks he oughta get what he wants, too.

==…Americans want to continue denying us what they have already deemed as essential.==

What is being denied that was there all the time??? Certainly not so-called “same-sex ‘marriage.'”

== And many people want us to WAIT…2….5……10…….20……..30 YEARS, depending on the “civil right”, for what WAS and IS our birthright. ==

You try to make a case that doesn’t exist. Three is no such “birthright.”

==I personally have a HUGE problem with that. ==

Things are tough all over.

==I cannot wait.==

A child want’s what he wants and he wants it now, too.

== I will not wait.==

You plan to start a shootin’ war?

==Will you join me on Wednesday, April 15th, 2009, and help me inform the government that WE are eager to be included in the federal tax base as
soon as THEY include us in society’s laws?==

No. You are already included in “society’s laws.”

==My 5-year-old students could understand this concept: EQUAL = EQUAL==

All men may marry and all women may marry. Heterosexuality is not a requirement in individuals who wanna marry.

==As Americans can’t we agree that there are MANY other important issues to address (like the Economy, Education, Health Care, Poverty & Homelessness, Iraq/Afghanistan…==

Yes, and we can multitask all of them.

==…solving THOSE problems is more urgent than having “Equality Issues” TIE UP THE COURTS for another 30+ years? ==

Not necessarily.

==We will NOT go away.==

Neither will we.

Now what?

==You keep procreating; we keep popping out.==

Except that you choose the homosexual, alternative-lifestyle orientation option. No one is born homosexual.

== Sorry.==

We know you are.

==Our representatives have spent years inventing 4-letter words (DOMA, DADT) to restrict us, deny us, demoralize us, and harm our beloved families and children. Enough is enough. ==

Start a revolution and see what happens. We’re ready.

18 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

Individual men and women claim a “Right” that they say is availalbe to other persons and is not available to them.

In what way does a law, defining “marriage” as the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, exclude men and women if all of Humanity are either male, or female??? Is there a third sex that is being excluded??? Are members of a third sex claiming this discrimination? No. So, where heterosexuality of persons is not a requirement, where’s the discrimination?? Even the couple – a man and a woman – doesn’t have to be heterosexual since each can claim to be homosexual. So, again, where’s the discrimination against individuals?

18 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

This “proposition” threatened children’s sense of safety and belongingness in California. Children’s safety. ==

The time to bring this up is before the election, not after. Of course, it woulda been rejected then as now.

19 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

== I will not wait…We will NOT go away.==

Didn’t the SA [Sturmabteilung] say the same thing on Kristallnacht?

==You keep procreating; we keep popping out.==

If that has been the case since Time began, how come you people are <2% of the population??

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: