Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Could This Become the Libertarian Position on Marriage?


In case you missed it, and Exhaustive Debate is being raged on our blog regarding same-sex marriage.  Now one of the Anonymous (Wish they would take a name) commenters has posted the following from Ben Shapiro:

Within the next few months, Justice Anthony Kennedy will likely rule that same-sex marriage is mandated by the Constitution of the United States. The ruling will offend both common sense and Constitutional law. But it will nonetheless become the law of the land. With it, states will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages; same-sex marriage will enter the public school lexicon; religious institutions will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages or lose their tax-exempt status. Religious Americans will be forced into violating their beliefs or facing legal consequences by the government. The First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty will largely become obsolete.

There is only one way to stop this development: Get the government out of the business of marriage. Right now.

States and localities originally gave tax benefits and crafted specific legal systems in order to incentivize Americans to get married and have children within the context of marriage. But those legal institutions have been undermined over the past several decades by a culture that degrades marriage and child rearing. Incentive structures that used to provide the cherry on top of good moral decision-making no longer matter enough to drive such decision-making.

That gap between culture and the legal system has led to a cycle of defining deviancy down, with government taking the lead. The view of the value of marriage in American life changed in the 1950's and 1960's; the left used that cultural shift in order to legitimize no-fault divorce laws, legal custody and child support arrangements that incentivized divorce and social welfare systems that incentivized unwed motherhood.

The last bastion of the old value system was the state's approval of traditional marriage. But thanks to a decades-long cultural shift away from marriage, the left is now in position to use the levers of government to redefine the institution once and for all -- and in the process, destroy the American religious culture that under-girds American freedom.

Unlike the movement to retract laws restricting sexual behavior, the same-sex marriage movement has never been about freedom in any real sense. The push for same-sex marriage is not about wanting freedom to copulate; same-sex copulation has been effectively legal in this country for decades, and formally legal since Lawrence v. Texas (2003). The push for same-sex marriage is not about wanting legal benefits available to heterosexual couples; same-sex couples are largely able to make contractual arrangements to achieve those benefits, and in many states, civil unions equate legally with marriage.
The push for same-sex marriage is about placing the power of government in direct opposition to traditional religious viewpoints.

And conservatives cannot stop that push unless they are willing to restrict government power. Conservatism has always been about preventing the power of government from invading the lives of citizens. Leftism has always been about using the power of government to restrict the behavior of others. It is time for conservatives to recognize the reality of their situation, realize the dangers inherent in their insistence on government interventionism and act quickly.

Getting the government out of marriage would mean voluntary lifestyle arrangements governed by contract -- a practice that has roots stretching back millennia. Religious people would not be forced by the state to approve behavior they find morally problematic. They would not have to worry about their children being taught about such behavior. Conservatives would be forced to rebuild a culture of marriage rather than focusing on a crumbling legal bulwark.

Conservatives lost the culture. Then they lost the law. They can only regain traditional values by removing legal coercion and incentivization from the table -- the left will never hesitate to use those means -- and focusing once again on the raising and production of children within a culture of traditional morality.


56 comments:

Blogger said...

Anonymous, if you had a pseudonym then the next time you would be recognized as someone who makes important contributions. You would no longer be just any old anonymous.

Sarkazein said...

Ben wrote- "The push for same-sex marriage is about placing the power of government in direct opposition to traditional religious viewpoints."

I believe that. I have read many liberals on this blog who hate religion more than they hate Al-Qaeda or organizations who promote child abuse. So homosexual marriage is their thumb in the eye of religion. But I also believe it is their false belief that by forcing homosexual marriage on society, it will become the norm and acceptable by all. It won't make that difference.
I hope the "libertarian position" will never be to allow government to redefine traditions at the will of those who think fads and pop culture rule the day. The libertarians cannot stop rabid leftist lawyers from suing in the courts to force their will on others. Libertarians should not be push-overs. They will find it hard to be libertarians in a society where the thought police rule.

Happily Married said...

Sark,

Most liberals do not hate religion. Most liberals are religious people. Most liberals only hate religion when it is forced on them because religion is a personal choice and the first amendment clearly states that the government shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion.
1) By making a religious argument that marriage is only between a man and a woman, NC forced the religious viewpoint onto its citizens even if their religion believes otherwise.
2) By spending tax payer dollars on ten commandments carvings and praying to God before county commission meetings - the local government is FORCING christian religion on its citizens at a public meeting. (No one took me up on the challenge to tell me how this is different from the Baker with the cake).

I have stated many times that personal religion is great - just don't force your personal religion on all because people might want top believe differently. I also think it would not be OK to force religious principles on any Christian in the same respect. It works both ways.

Happily Married said...

Shapiro is wrong on two points:
1) Religious Americans will be forced into violating their beliefs or facing legal consequences by the government.
If someone does not believe in same sex marriage - they will not be forced to marry someone of the same sex. Recognizing that same sex marriage exists does not violate personal beliefs any more than recognizing that (gasp!) there is an entire religion that does not believe in the baby Jesus. People will not be allowed to discriminate - that is all. That means that the baker, if he sells wedding cakes, will need to sell a wedding cake to anyone that requests one - not just those that meet his personal religious convictions. This is not violating his personal religious beliefs as he will not be participating in the ceremony, praying to his god for the couple or marrying someone of the same sex as part of the sell of the cake.
2) The push for same-sex marriage is not about wanting legal benefits available to heterosexual couples; same-sex couples are largely able to make contractual arrangements to achieve those benefits, and in many states, civil unions equate legally with marriage.
This is patently false - especially here in the great State of NC. It is all about equality and the desire to be treated the same as everyone else - to have survivorship benefits, adopt, and not get discriminated against. To proclaim this as some sort of war on religion is ridiculous. The only possibility of a war is against those that force their religion on others.

Anonymous said...

HM,
This is only about the millionth time you've said the same thing -- give it up! I personally will never accept the premise upon which your arguments rest and you will never accept mine. Let it go (woman has to have last word). Just because YOU think someone else is wrong doesn't mean that they actually are -- you must be awfully full of yourself to declare a lawyer wrong, along with every other poster here that you have judged wrong. It's too bad you can't just accept that this issue is out of our hands and in the hands of nine people we have no control over. Have you EVER argued so vigorously for one of your so-called conservative positions anywhere - here or on the Watch? Nope.

Question: Let's say the court strikes down DOMA and all laws prohibiting gay marriage and it becomes the law of the land. Let's say someone comes to me and my business and asks me to make a product or provide a service specifically for their gay wedding and I refuse for religious reasons. Then, the government comes and fines me, but I refuse to pay. Then I get arrested. Is this what you want? Do you want to see me and perhaps many other religious minded people take perp walks because they don't agree with you? What you refuse to acknowledge is that a person's religious conscious is THEIRS, not for you to determine for them. I'm going to start calling you Mao (those who understand history will get that -- I'm sure you'll google it to figure it out).

Sarkazein said...

Happily Liberal- Would you say you defend liberalism more or Conservatism more? What with you not being a liberal and all...

Nobody said...

Has anyone given any thought to the actual idea Shapiro is supporting as the perfect compromise? HM, wouldn't this solve the issue for you -- to get the government out of marriage altogether. Then, the NC amendment wouldn't matter. I would have to think on this for awhile about the logistics but it is interesting. Government doesn't sanction or condone anything, but doesn't condemn anything either. Do away with all tax benefits and have everyone file individual returns. Health care plans for spouses would become obsolete anyway, given your support of multi-spouse marriages, so everyone would just purchase individual health care plans. Partners would draw up contracts pertinent to their situations (and could even write in division of property prenups so courts would be free from divorce proceedings). Gays could have a wedding ceremony and call themselves married and straight couples would do the same thing - equality for all! Except pedophiles, since we have drawn an arbitrary line for adulthood at eighteen. I mean, why not 19, or 21 (which it use to be), or 16, or 14? If you can be tried as an adult at 14 why not get married? If a 14 year old really wants to marry a 40 year old, why should some arbitrary line matter, right?

On a side note and tying this to another thread, this could be a winning issue for conservatives with hispanic voters, given their traditionally strong, Catholic value system.

guy faulkes said...

HM, you already lost this debate. You are starting to use La La La La La tactics. Can you not come up with some additional reasoning to further your cause or at least provide links that would do so?

You say the same things you have before, causing me to say the same things I have before, causing Sark to say the same things he did before, causing NewGuy .....

BORING!!!!

Sarkazein said...

I am lining up many candidates right now for when the Court says- OK marriage wasn't really between one man and one woman (it's out of our hands), you are a consenting adult so take on as many as you can. Now that my son has moved out "on his own", I have room for several. That is assuming the Court won't just pick one special group and will allow equality for all.
Don't rule out the 14 year olds so quick. This could be called the Elvis Act. And don't rule out 14 year old cousins either. This could be called the Jerry Lee Lewis Act.

Nobody said...

Guy,
No one wants to let the other have the last word and leave the impression they "lost." So the merry-go-round continues forever. I'm with you -- everything that can be said has been said, but you can bet HM will not allow it to rest as long as anyone posts after her. Kind of like the joke nonny posted on the other thread.

Nobody said...

Sark,
Don't get me wrong -- I'm still opposed to legalized gay marriage for the religious freedom reasons. But Shapiro may have hit on the best way to protect religious liberty if the court rules as he predicts. Truth is, you never know how the court will actually rule. I think most people expected the court to strike down Obamacare. And the European court on Human Rights earlier ruled that gay marriage was not a human right - an odd thing given that Europeans are generally seen as being more progressive than "prudish" America.

Sarkazein said...

Nobody- I just don't see any realistic chance for getting the government out of it. Ben has a wish. But I don't see how it is anymore than a wish. There are too many special interests involved. All seek redress through the courts (government). I read Ben's idea as wishful apathy. I am for getting government out of most things. My marriage is not grounded on government permission. I could do without the license and the sense that a bureaucrat granted me permission to wed. Right now we have special interests going to courts and lobbying legislators to change the definition of an act I know to be between one man and one (for now) woman. For Ben to say "get government out of it" is no where in the cards and could be translated as apathy or surrender to the thought police.

Happily Married said...

Sark, I will say once again the world is not black and white and there exists a world between liberal and conservative.

Nobody is absolutely right! Many have argued to remove marriage from all government issues and the problem goes away. All could have civil unions with the same benefits. Churches could decide if it is within their religious conscious to marry whomever.

Taking religion out of the government and government out of religion solves all manner of ills. The Baker's "religious conscience" is no more important than someone attending a County Commissioner's meeting and (if they are not christian) having to sit through a christian prayer in order to participate in government. I notice how no one even attempted to argue how those were different.

I did not think this was about right or wrong but a forum to express ideas on both sides. I am often asked questions which I respond to, but when I ask the tough questions about hypocrisy, no one responds. I have just about determined that the blog is just a conservative narcissistic bath house for those who want to remain in the fog and be glad about it.
I never got anyone to respond to my questions, so i didn't lose. And without a response to my questions - you certainly did not win. Nobody seems top be the only one capable of independent thought here.

Sarkazein said...

Happily Married wrote- "Nobody is absolutely right!"

And yet you hold on to your prayer of SCOTUS coming to your rescue. Which means, you don't want the government out of it. Everything you have written is the opposite of "getting the government out of it".

This is what I meant about Ben's idea being a surrender to the thought police. Liberals will take it anyway they can get it. All government, government not allowed, one judge ruling... the ends justify the means.

Nobody said...

Happy said, "I did not think this was about right or wrong but a forum to express ideas on both sides."

Then why did you use the phrase, "(fill in the blank) is wrong," so many times in this discussion. You leveled that at me a few times, declared Shapiro to be wrong, and the various nonnymouses wrong.

Sarkazein said...

HM- Your ad nauseam question regarding "hypocrisy" is an answer you will only get from reading the comments and deciding for yourself unless Blogger or NewGuy wants to post a thread of "are too" "are not"
"are too" "are not" "are too" "are not" "are too" "are not" "are too" "are not" "are too" "are not".....

Happily Married said...

Sark,

I misspoke. I meant to suggest absolutism in that anything that is not ultra conservative on this blog is dismissed without merit or reason. I have indicated previously that I have posted as anon to see if my comments would at least be evaluated anything I post as HM is not. Sark, in usual fashion, only knows quips and blurbs and ridicule with no real substance. I believe SCOTUS will rule in favor of gay marriage because, at this point, government must intervene. NC has a constitutional amendment that must be overturned and the SCOTUS is the only way to do that anytime soon. I don't want government involvement and I did not want the constitution changed.
In response to anon earlier, I do accept the premise on which your arguments rest. The premise is that no one should be able to force their beliefs on you. The problem is it is a hypocritical premise - one which no one here can refute or address.

Happily Married said...

Sark,

No one answered the question. You provided the only answer with - "the question is null and void because same sex marriage does not exist." No one has answered the question because it will show the pure hypocrisy that exists. I will, for the sake of those not interested in reading past comments, repeat the questions:
1) Those that are for preventing marriage between same sex couples claim that their male-female marriage is traditional and religious and anything else will violate their religious beliefs. If one's religious beliefs include same sex marriage, does not the law (as it stands) violate THEIR beliefs - is that not hypocrisy?
2) The baker claims that providing a cake for a same sex couple violates his religious convictions (despite the fact that the sale of the cake is not a religious ceremony or the cake was not used in a religious ceremony). When someone of the non christian faith decides to participate in government and attend a county commissioners meeting, they are forced to participate in a ceremony where prayers to god are made that might violate their religious convictions.

Sark, you cant have it both ways - try to answer the question you racist (as evidenced by your "whites ended slavery" comment) arse.

The problem here is that I am truly interested in determining of this entire debate is in the interest of religious freedom or "whatever as long as my religion wins".

guy faulkes said...

I meant to suggest absolutism in that anything that is not ultra conservative on this blog is dismissed without merit or reason. - HM.

I beg to differ. We take opposing views on issues very often. The issues concerning the status of the Republican party and the ETJ issue are cases in point.

Once again, HM is reverting to La La La La La status. Why does she think she is the entity that decides the merit of the substance of a statement? She can have any opinion she wants, but it is only an opinion.

How are the points made about SCOTUS being a function of government not of substance? It seemed to me to be a telling counter to HM's opinion.

HM, kindly explain why Sark's observation is wrong instead of just ridiculing it. Then the discussion will have some merit. (My opinion.) As you seem to want the government out of the issue, but want SCOTUS involved, what exactly is your logic?

I am not interested in the non issue of gay marriage, but would like to understand your thought process.

Sarkazein said...

Happily married- Try to find a comment by me, saying it is because of my religion that I appose being told by the government that the definition of marriage is being changed to a certain special interest groups desired definition.
I'll wait here.

Sarkazein said...

Whites didn't start slavery. However, it was the Old White Men's US Constitution that lead to the end of it here in the US. It was the Old White Men (Abe Lincoln, General Grant and the huge majority of his white troops that ended it. Some of the first white people to come to the US were slaves.

Anonymous said...

You folks are imploding. It's fun to watch.

Sarkazein said...

Pardon me, oppose not appose.

Happily Married said...

Guy,

Thanks for asking, and I will be happy to answer a question. I believe Nobody was correct in the "idea" to get Government out of marriage completely and let it be a religious institution. The only recognized government entity that would receive benefits would be civil unions. Churches would be free to marry - or not - anyone they wished and the parties could also file fro a civil union. I specifically indicated it as an "idea" because, like Sark, I believe we are too far gone to not have government fix the mess they have created. I do not believe that the public in general will support doing away with a government definition of marriage. Since the current definition with all of the legalities and benefits attached are currently discriminatory, the SCOTUS will have no choice but to overrule the current system. Its not that I want government interference, I just believe it currently is the only way out since it was government that screwed everything up in the first place.
If it is a government policy - it cant be discriminatory. In this case, the ends do justify the means.
I appreciate you don't really care about the matter, think it is a non issue, and think it could all be handled with contracts. You never did answer my query as to the similarities between your "contractual" solution and the "separate but equal doctrine" that kept racial discrimination alive and well for decades.
I am also interested in you opinion of why no one will tackle the question of hypocrisy.

Happily Married said...

Sark,

That's fine if you want to say that your reasoning to be against gay marriage has nothing to do with religion - but is about a historical definition. I am not going to take the time to review the blog. I am curious, the definition of marriage has changed constantly over the years. Why are you so opposed to the current change? Marriage, in biblical times was between a man and many women. Marriage used to be arranged and not about Love (please note the argument by the CNN opinion letter focused on love and family). More here:http://theweek.com/article/index/228541/how-marriage-has-changed-over-centuries

Now that the current definition is considered discriminatory and is being changed, you are up in arms.

I will once again reiterate, this is not about providing special benefits for a special group. Gender and sexual orientation should have nothing to do with marriage and anyone should be able to marry for any reason. (And please don't trot out the tired (what about children marrying or brothers and sisters - been there and done that).

Sarkazein said...

Happily Married- Let me give you a true example of hypocrisy. YOU are the one that first commented in a derogatory way -" Old white men". I defended old white men and you then called me a racist. Text book.

guy faulkes said...

I do not see any hypocrisy in using the term civil union, HM. That is what a marriage is. It is a non issue.

You still have not explained your directly contradictory claims that your want government out of the marriage issue while at the same time you wish SCOTUS (part of the judicial branch of government)to enforce your opinions.

By your admission, the SCOTUS decision could be discriminatory, either in your view or Sarks or mine.

What will you do if SCOTUS finds against you?

Happily Married said...

Guy,

I did not suggest any hypocrisy regarding the term civil union. You will find the hypocrisy questions in previous posts. You however, did not answer my question about "separate but equal". By your own admission: "civil union, HM. That is what a marriage is. It is a non issue." I think this is the same as setting up separate drinking fountains and schools - they still deliver water and teach by the old argument - therefore "separate but equal" are OK. This is what kept discrimination against blacks thriving for decades. I suggest this separate but equal approach will keep discrimination thriving against gays until the approach is changed as well.

I did explain "directly contradictory claims that your want government out of the marriage issue while at the same time you wish SCOTUS (part of the judicial branch of government)to enforce your opinions" In fact I said it pretty distinctly: "I believe we are too far gone to not have government fix the mess they have created. I do not believe that the public in general will support doing away with a government definition of marriage. Since the current definition with all of the legalities and benefits attached are currently discriminatory, the SCOTUS will have no choice but to overrule the current system. Its not that I want government interference, I just believe it currently is the only way out since it was government that screwed everything up in the first place." Wanting government out of it yet realizing the practical impossibility of that happening are not contradictory.
The SCOTUS can't find against me because I enjoy the benefits of having a male-female marriage. they can only rule against gays and prevent them from having a loving marriage that will be seen as equal in the eyes of the law and the public.

Happily Married said...

Sark,

I will admit that it was "Old White Guys" that handled the legalities of ending slavery if you admit it was the "Old White Guys" who brought the slaves over in the first place and worked hard to prevent them from being freed.

guy faulkes said...

So in other words. HM you are now saying that you want the government out of the marriage issue but that it has to be involved. It is not possible to have it both ways. This is not what you said in the beginning.

I did not mean that SCOTUS would find against our personal marriage, but what will be your thoughts on government involvement if they support the traditional definition of marriage?

There is no separate but equal problem. There are just different terms for the same thing. For instance where is the separate and equal problem for the term Negro versus the term Black?

Sarkazein said...

HM wrote- "Sark,
I will admit that it was "Old White Guys" that handled the legalities of ending slavery..."

No, old white guys died and/or put their lives on the line to end US slavery. Only a few percent of Americans owned slaves. A larger percentage of freed slaves owned slaves. No Americans owned slaves in the states where slavery was not allowed. Africa still has slavery.
There is a lot of resources out there for pre hashish, LSD, and pot head historian's views of our history. Think of how many college students were taught US History by stoned professors since the late Sixties or early Seventies. Why do you think your kind didn't have this negative view of our history until after the Seventies? America and the old white men that lead this country crated the greatest country on Earth. Then came the Sixties and Seventies.
Your "Old white men" BS is part of the all destructive political correctness. In your world of PC it is hideous that anyone would even try and defend them. You have mainlined the Kool-Aide. There is no hope for you.

Happily Married said...

Sark you big dummy -
"No, old white guys died and/or put their lives on the line to end US slavery."

Exactly who did they put their lives on the line against?

I am against the "Old White Guy" mentality that continues to promote discrimination - such as your BS attitude. As stated - you are as bad as the commenter at the conservative convention proclaiming the freed slaves should have thanked their former owners for giving them food and shelter. Your just sad.

Guy, as expected you don't see any difference in "separate but equal" - the problem is there is a big difference and until you experience that type of discrimination, your obvious lack of empathy will not allow you to see it. Separate but equal did not work with blacks - will not work with gays.

Typical sad responses from,I am assuming, two "Old White guys" who have no heart and think it is OK to discriminate.

I challenge you to answer either question on hypocrisy.

Sarkazein said...

Happily Married wrote (and I'm not kidding)-" Sark you big dummy -
"No, old white guys died and/or put their lives on the line to end US slavery."

Then she asks-" Exactly who did they put their lives on the line against?"

Wow! I thought I was exaggerating about the Sixties and Seventies. Guess not.

Anonymous said...

Happy Mao,
The premise I was talking about is not the one you ascribe to me. I was talking about our two different premises on our conception of marriage -- this is why I said this will never end. You see, I define marriage as a union, currently between one man and one woman, where the central function is the creation and raising of children. In this ideal situation (though not always attained because of selfish attitudes), children grow up knowing the mother and father that created them. Even when marriage was defined differently (polygamy), it still had as its central focus the children that were created. In most states, that is the definition of marriage and in that system, I believe anyone can be with anyone they want or as many people as they want, they just can't, through the institutions of government, force me to change my conception of marriage. If I were to REALLY force my beliefs on others, then I would demand that homosexual acts be illegal (as they once were), but I'm not going to force others to live by my beliefs. You define marriage as....well, I don't know how you could clearly define marriage given that you pretty much say anyone can marry anyone and as many as they wish. Maybe you would define marriage simply as the right of people to create a legally binding union with whoever (and as many) as they want, and that government must recognize every possible situation and then force everyone to accept it, but that's kind of selfish, isn't it? I mean, to you it seems marriage is just an expression of personal wants, and if a gay couple want to get married and adopt a child, good, but will that child grow up to wonder who created it? Unfortunately, the child might get picked on for having two mommies or daddies. Maybe the child will struggle with his/her own identity. Who cares about the child?!? Gays must have equal rights and the children (social experiments) can cope, even if they have problems outside of the control of the gay parents. Then, YOU want the government to prosecute anyone who doesn't accept YOUR definition of marriage, fine them, arrest them and imprison them (you never answered my earlier question on wanting to see me take the perp walk if I refuse to participate in any way, shape or form in a gay marriage ceremony). Bottom line, you want this debate to be on your terms, that your definition of marriage is the only one that matters, that, based on your definition, everyone else here is hypocritical, and that you are the only one respecting the rights of everyone. On your terms, the legal definition of marriage must be changed to suit you, everyone else must accept your view, and must modify their behavior according to your view (this is why the baker story is so detrimental to you -- it illustrates how people like you claim for yourself the right to determine someone else's religious conscious, another point you've failed to answer -- what gives YOU the right to determine someone else's conscious???) You're wrong. If this debate is on my terms (and in my mind, it is) then marriage is an institution between one man and one woman, but anyone can live their life as they choose. Gay? Fine! Multiple Partners? Fine! Bi-sexual? Fine! I'M not forcing my beliefs on others by telling everyone they must only have sex with someone of the opposite gender, and be faithful to only one person. Just don't FORCE your beliefs on me through the force of government, which is what you will do. That's my answer to your charge of hypocritical, and as far as I'm concerned YOU are the hypocrite here by CLAIMING to NOT be forcing anything on anyone -- but I at least am willing to concede that based on your definition of marriage (whatever it is...) then I am the hypocrite from your viewpoint.

Anonymous said...

Happy Mao,
And another thing -- YOU are the one completely unwilling to give an inch on this -- I've been talking to quite a few of my religious friends and very few are aware of the baker story and what it will mean for everyone, but every one of them was shocked that they might not be able to simply say, "I disagree with gay marriage for religious reasons and, sorry, I will not provide something for the wedding." They are able to see what you are obviously unable or unwilling to see -- that there is a difference between complete discrimination of the scale of Jim Crow south (all blacks banned from all areas) and refusing to participate, either directly or through provision of goods/services specifically only FOR a gay marriage. If I run a business and daily serve gay customers without batting an eye, but refuse to provide my good specifically for a gay marriage because of religious objections, that's very different from refusing to serve all gay people all the time, so your comparison to separate but equal doesn't work, either. Again, why do liberals like you claim the right to tell everyone else what their conscious is allowed to be???

Reader said...

I'm in agreement with you, Anon. I think this issue is not really about marriage, it's simply about getting the benefits of what the "government" provides to the married. Nothing else.

I'd also like to comment, if the republican party continues to sway toward gay marriage, I will change to unaffilated as well. My beliefs are conservative, even though Guy doesn't agree with me. I don't agree this is a non-issue. It's a big issue to me.

The baker story is a non-issue. So what? He refused them. Stomp your foot and go on. 2 months of being fixated on this story is disturbing.

Happily Married said...

Anon,
Despite the name change, I am happy to respond to your rant. You see your perspective is exactly why people are discriminated against. Your perspective is exactly why gays are bullied and commit suicide. Your perspective is the same as the reason that discrimination continued for blacks after the “separate but equal” approach was made – because your perspective is one of judgment. Marriage might have a central function of creating and raising children. But it is not limited to that function. For the married man and woman, who cant have children, where do they exist in this “central function”. They, if they want children, will most likely adopt. And if their exception is OK then what is wrong with a gay couple adopting? You think homosexual acts should be illegal – who are you to judge and what difference does it make. You probably think that people who commit homosexual acts are deviants and “less than” in your eyes – hence the judgment and ensuing discrimination. You claim that you have no issue with gays – but you clearly do. That underlying contempt and your most likely communication of it is the course of discrimination. I had a gay relative who was told that, now that he came out, one particular family member could never be around him without imagining him in some sort of deviant sex act and he found it disgusting. My gay relative quickly shot back – “Why –I don’t imagine you engaged in whatever sex you have”. The point being is that people are still people no matter what happens in the bedroom and what happens in the bedroom is none of anyone else’s business. Your stuck up morality compels you to judge anything you don’t consider “normal”. Who the hell are you to say what is normal? You have forced others to live by YOUR beliefs. Gay people cannot marry the love of their lives in this great state because of righteous asses like you. An adopted child will most likely wonder who created it whether it is with a gay family or a heterosexual family so that pint is ridiculous.
And here is the icing on the cake – “Unfortunately, the child might get picked on for having two mommies or daddies. Maybe the child will struggle with his/her own identity. Who cares about the child?!? Gays must have equal rights and the children (social experiments)” The only reason this child might get picked on is because of attitudes like your that suggest their marriage is somehow unacceptable. Your judgment is unwanted and uncalled for. You call the children social experiments and then act like I don’t care about children you hypocritical ass.
I don’t want the government to prosecute anyone for their beliefs – I have said that many times but your feeble mind can’t seem to get around that. I even gave more than an inch when I suggested it was perfectly reasonable that anyone who might be offended by a gay marriage NOT participate in the ceremony (I specifically referenced singers, clergy, photographers, etc.) so shut your hole about not giving an inch. (to be continued)

Happily Married said...

The baker makes cakes for a living – period. I don’t claim any right to determines someone else’s conscience – never did. You might want to rethink the term conscience here. He bakes cakes. He does not own a religious bake shop – he simply bakes cakes. Can he just as easily refuse to bake a cake that might be used in a Jewish ceremony because Jews don’t even believe in Jesus? How freaking offensive is that to say to a Christian that your savior was not a savior? Why is this not an issue? Because you self righteous religious hypocrites pick and choose how you interpret your bible and judge people according to the flavor of the day. If the baker is so religious minded that his religion is in everything he does, he needs to do just that – open a religious bakery and only serve religious baking needs. He discriminated – plain and simple. I have also explained that it is a cake that is not even used in the ceremony. He was not asked to attend the ceremony, pray to his god for the couple, and kill a sheep in their honor, nothing religious. He was simply asked to bake a cake – a prop to be used during the RECEPTION. Claiming this is anything other than discrimination is patently absurd – he was just using his position to make a point – to force his religious views on others. How far do you want to take this farce? Should the Muslim gas station owner refuse to sell gas for the limo if he sees the happy gay couple in their wedding attire? How far? This is real freaking easy – believe whatever you want to believe – just don’t discriminate. If you offer your wares to anyone, then offer them to everyone. Keep your judgments to yourself. If you don’t think gay marriage is right – DON’T HAVE ONE for your personal self and maintain your personal religious integrity. Your opinion on others having one is irrelevant. No one has to accept my view – just stop discriminating!
I am not forcing anything on anyone here. If you don’t want a gay marriage don’t have one. If you don’t believe in them – don’t have one. Your answer is typically stupid in that it is not an answer. You are forcing your beliefs on everyone in this state as gay marriage is illegal – you are a hypocrite – plain and simple and you’ve managed to piss me off. You self righteous p[pompous conservative asses take your beliefs and force them on everyone and act like it is OK. I have read where marriage will somehow be diminished if gays can be married. Is that not the same thing as saying gays are somehow “less than”? Your attitude, judgment and approach continue the cycle of discrimination and your post simply proves that you think gays are “less than”. I think maybe you are “less than” and should be treated accordingly, but that would be reducing me to your pitiful level.

Happily Married said...

People very rarely understand the impact they have on others and i get frustrated when others are hurt. Allowing gays to get married is not going to "hurt" anyone. I even made the argument that more gay marriages means more families that might be able to adopt and we could reduce the number of single women families. No one responded to that. No one here seems to realize that by separating out people for whatever reason is diminishing and damaging. seems like maybe you are OK with gays being bullied because you think maybe they deserve to be. It is just sad. All of this from a "loving and forgiving" god fearing people. If only you loved and forgave as much.

Happily Married said...

Senator Rob Portman finally saw the light because his love for his son was greater than any personal religious conviction. Maybe there is hope.

Anonymous said...

You are an idiot if you don't understand the difference I described above. Reread it. Your comparisons don't make sense if you understand how I said a business person who serves gays every day draws the line at providing specifially for a gay wedding. Everytime you make this argument, you are conceding the FACT that people will be forced to change. I've never discriminated against anyone for any reason, but I am sick to death of unbearable liberal dictators like you telling me what I'm allowed to believe, do, say, eat, drink, drive, own, how much of my money I can keep, who I am allowed to associate with, and who I have to associate with. I call you Mao because it fits -- you wish to bring about you own cultural revolution. If you had you way, I'd be shipped off to a reeducation camp to have my hypocritical, judgmental neanderthal ways beaten out of me.

Anonymous said...

And your "giving an inch" is idiotic. So a person's particular profession MIGHT excuse them? Wouldn't THAT be discriminatory? The baker has to provide his wares, but the photographer does not? I guess you'll claim for youself the right to pick and choose in this regard as well, right? Why use the word, might? Don't want to commit to anything, huh? I will not give in to your dictatorship. I've already explained that if I was trying to force my beliefs on someone I would be condemning homosexuality completely. You are too stupid to see the difference.

Anonymous said...

So, what does everyone else think? Which of us SOUNDS more like the angry, judgmental, hypocritical, dictatorial "ass?" What do you think I said that warranted the vulgar outburst? This is what happens to a liberal when you refuse to submit to them. This is also why they don't want us to have guns -- much easier to force the unarmed to submit.

Anonymous said...

One last thing and i'll be done. Happy mao is the perfect example of how one cannot say to a liberal that we can agree to disagree. She will never, ever, ever leave this discussion as long as any one responds to her. I will not post anymore on this topic. She can believe, in her own little angry, vulgar mind that she has won but i'll leave that up to the readers. It was amusing to see her blow her top over my posts which weren't even overly confrontational. She pretty much proved me right by judging me, a person she has never met, based on her premises and notions. And the old white man thing -- doesn't that make her an ageist, racist sexist? She is what she hates.

guy faulkes said...

Reader, I think almost everyone on this blog is a conservative. This is why we have such interesting discussions. Conservatives do not all think alike and only mouth talking points.

Unfortunately, they have not gotten past the idea that the Republican party is conservative. It is not and will not be as long as it is the liberal lite party. The reason it is so confusing is that there are so many conservatives still supporting a lost cause without changing its direction.

I think you are a conservative, but you do not have the years of frustration to cause you to change your mind as you supported a party that moved farther and farther to the left by always supporting the lessor of two evils that I do. I used to think like you and Sark until I decided this was the problem. Never again.

There is no use continuing the dialogue with HM. She has her La La La La La talking points and nothing else. We will be discussing the same thing forever.

Happily Married said...

Anon,

I judged you based on your comments alone. You might think you have never discriminated in your life - but you would be wrong. Very few people, if any, in this world can say that.

Oh, and I did give an inch and i did not say a persons profession might excuse them. but of course you are comprehension challenged. i said the actual having to participate in a religious ceremony might excuse them. I also indicated that that ruling would have to be made by courts - I was simply putting it out there that it does not make sense to force someone to have to participate in a ceremony. Baker is different. I said might because I don't pretend to make the rules - i simply submit my opinion - not because i am afraid of commitment. You have forced your beliefs on marriage on those around you by making the law reflect your beliefs only. people will not be forced to change - they will not be forced into a gay marriage or forced to believe in it. They will simply not be allowed to discriminate. Funny thing is the baker got off scott free and i think that is great. And i want you have guns - constitution sort of guarantees that. SCOTUS will end this shortly - not you or your perceived position of my dictatorship. Tsk Tsk wrong on so many counts.

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous wrote- " And the old white man thing -- doesn't that make her an ageist, racist sexist? She is what she hates."

Yes. And also a person void of a sense of history. Abolitionists and the Civil War never never happened.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I have to point this out:

I said: " If I were to REALLY force my beliefs on others, then I would demand that homosexual acts be illegal (as they once were), but I'm not going to force others to live by my beliefs."

Happy Mao said in reply: "You think homosexual acts should be illegal – who are you to judge and what difference does it make."

She then tells me: "but of course you are comprehension challenged."

Excuse me, WHO is comprehension challenged? You're not really reading and understanding well, are you? Can't see through the fog of anger in front of your eyes? You're also practicing classic projection -- applying what YOU believe to be true of all religious conservatives to specific individuals. Typical liberal idiot -- letting emotion cloud what limited thought processes you have.

Happily Married said...

Sark,

Your compete inability to answer a question indicates a lot. i never suggested the civil war or abolitionists did not happen. I will say it was old White men that the two were fighting as it was the Old white men who wanted to keep slavery in place. Can you actually disagree?

Happily Married said...

Anon,

I was acknowledging that you "THINK" homosexual acts should be illegal not that you are advocating for it. Your post clearly indicated that. reread and this time include the word "think".

My rant from above mostly stems from this very troubling statement:Gays must have equal rights and the children (social experiments) can cope, even if they have problems outside of the control of the gay parents.
Children are not social experiments - they are kids. If they have the love of parents, they will do better. If they don't face bullying because of pinheads like you - they will do better. They are children - not social experiments. They are no different from your children or mine or any other children. Your obviously biased perspective will continue to pigeonhole children and cause them harm. Shame on you.

Anonymous said...

Actually, I would not bully the child. My statement was in regards to how pinheads like you will turn children into social experiments all in the name of "equality." My bet is everyone but you and your comprehension-challenged mind understood that.

Happily Married said...

Anon,

If everyone were considered equal 9as it should be by law, by community, by we are all god's children), there would be no social experiment. I would place a child in a loving family environment. It is your hate and judgment that would deem it a social experiment and cause their to be a difference from every other family.

Happily Married said...

At first it was a "social experiment" when whites and blacks were allowed to marry. People thought it was wrong or unnatural and the kids faced a lot of hate and bullying because they were seen as different or unnatural or in an "unconventional" family. Some of that still exists today, but thankfully, most of that type of bigotry is gone. Kids from gay marriages will only perceive being treated differently if they are actually treated differently. Now who here sees them as different?

Anonymous said...

I don't hate anyone. For an example of hate, go back and read your post from 9:13 last night. You truly must suffer from a God complex since you claim to know what others truly think. I've accomplished what I set out to do - expose you for the intolerant liberal dictator that you are, as you demonstrated in your blood vessel-popping explosion last night. Now post one more time so you can get the last word in, you dictatorial, judgmental pompous fool. I will never post on this again and leave it to the readers to decide for themselves what to believe and how to live their lives.

Sarkazein said...

Happy wrote- "I will say it was old White men that the two were fighting as it was the Old white men who wanted to keep slavery in place. Can you actually disagree?"



Somewhere around 2% of Americans owned slaves. This leaves about 98% of Americans that did not own slaves. Around 25% of freed slaves owned slaves.

Sarkazein said...

POLITICO Reporter: LaPierre Is ‘Tired, Old White Guy That Is Clinging on to Something of the Past’

Liberal birds of a feather...

Happily Married you are an official hardcore liberal. Of course you've known it all along.