Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Alan Sears :: Townhall.com Columnist
Obama: Building a Monument to Tolerance on the Rubble of Religious Freedom
by Alan Sears
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Well, that didn’t take long.

To many, it may seem premature to confront head-on the agenda of the new president, in the initial days dedicated to celebrating his political success and the peaceful transition of power in our republic.

But, sad to say, in the marriage of President Obama’s political destiny to that of these United States, it’s Mr. Obama who chose to cut short the honeymoon.

No sooner had he finished speaking of his fellow Americans in his inaugural address as a people who “have chosen hope over fear [and] unity of purpose over conflict and discord” than his staff posted, on the White House Web site, a virtual declaration of war against those who oppose the demands for special rights and privileges by those who engage in homosexual behavior.

It is the swiftness of the onslaught, not the scope of the agenda, which surprises.  Repeatedly, during the campaign, Mr. Obama affirmed in speeches and on his Web site his wholehearted support for the homosexual legal and political agenda.  Now, that agenda has moved en masse to the front and center of the new president’s parade of “change.”

As posted, the agenda includes:

·         Expanding the definition of, and ramping up the penalties for, “hate” crimes.

On its face, that may sound reasonable…except that punishing “hate” requires the creation of second-class victims.  Every violent crime is rooted in hate, and every victim deserves equal justice.  “Hate crimes” laws create a two-tiered justice system where some victims are “more equal” than others.  What elevates these victims above others?  The mere broadcast of a preference for certain sexual acts.

Violence is an action; hate is an emotion.  “Hate” crimes laws erase that distinction.  How do you defend yourself against charges that you “hate” someone?  Who gets to decide what “hate” is?  How long before simply reading a passage from the Bible is a “hate crime”?  Indeed, the passage of “hate crimes” laws inevitably leads to persecution for ideas that favored “victims” abhor.  Yes, even in America.

·         Expanding “anti-discrimination” employment laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

Bottom line:  this is about forcing religious groups (including churches) and private organizations (like the Boy Scouts and businesses) to hire those who whose open announcement of sexual behavior runs counter to the beliefs of the organizations.  And when those organizations point to those beliefs...well, see “Hate Crimes” above.

·         Opposing a constitutional amendment banning same-sex “marriage,” while promoting the legalization of these and other same-sex relationships – granting them the same federal legal rights and privileges as other married couples.

The president is calling for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and the enactment of extensive legislation elevating same-sex relationships to the level of marriage.  In the name of “equality,” these new laws would eradicate thousands of years of moral, social, and legal precedent, open a wide door for the legalization of polygamy and other counterfeits of matrimony, and effectively destroy all meaning of marriage – the expressed wish of many of those promoting same-sex unions.

·         Securing full adoption rights for same-sex couples.

This effectively rewrites all natural definitions of family, since it denies the fundamental need of every child for the parental influence of both a mother and a father.  By eliminating the legal requirement for either one, the courts will basically eliminate the need for both.  Parenting will become legally irrelevant, and birth parents will increasingly find their traditional legal protections trumped by the “emotional” prerogatives of legal strangers.

Many Americans, in their zeal to elect Mr. Obama for other reasons, chose to ignore these promises and their implications when he made them on the campaign trail.  Many, indeed, want even now to persuade themselves that rewriting the laws and reshaping the culture of this country to embrace and promote homosexual behavior will prove harmless to our society and our children’s future.

But it won’t.  One can’t take a sledgehammer to the foundation of the house and expect the house to stand.  Marriage, family, and religious faith are the irreplaceable cornerstones on which this extraordinary nation was erected.  It is the outspoken intent of many of those promoting the homosexual agenda to destroy that foundation.  And President Obama has launched his brave new world of hope and change with a pledge to be not just an accessory to, but the instrument of, that destruction.

“Know,” he warned Muslim leaders of other nations in his inaugural address, “that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.”

President Obama undoubtedly believes that he himself is building a monument to tolerance and equality.  But the nihilistic architects of his agenda have designed that monument to stand on the rubble of religious freedom, recognized by this nation’s founders as our “first freedom.”  And if he proceeds, his legacy will be the incalculable cost of destroying it.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Alan Sears, a former federal prosecutor in the Reagan Administration, is president and CEO of the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance employing a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

Be the first to read Alan Sears' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Excellent Article
Thank You. Obama was very clear about his gay-agenda during the campaign. But, many including many black Christians were not paying attention.

adoption
I still for the life of me cannot figure out why anyone would think that 1 mother, 2 mothers, 1 father, or 2 fathers are all somehow worse than NO PARENTS.

Why does Obama champion evil

acts?

He avidly pursues making the killing of Almighty God's pre-born children easier.

He also avidly pursues enshrining the evil acts of sodomy as civil rights.

Why is Obama a champion of evil?

eddie also
Using your logic, fathers shouldn't be allowed to raise their daughters and mothers should be allowed to raise their sons.

Makes no sense.

Letter from a Birmingham Jail

"Martin Luther King points to a people of Christian faith that demanded an end to infant killing.

In Rome in their declining years, it became law that upon the birth of your newborn child, if you didn't like the color of their eyes, the texture of their hair, the complexion of their skin, you could by law lay your child by the side of the road to die.

The law further stated, anyone touching your child to give aid would be put to death.

The newborn child was to be left to die!

The early church under the threat of death scooped those children up and raised them as their own.

Martin Luther King called not giving children "left by the side of the road" receiving no aid, evil!

Barack Obama calls it a good thing.

80% of Americans call partial birth abortion, evil, while Mr. and Mrs. Obama call it a good thing."

Rev. Dr. Clenard H. Childress, Jr.

http://www.blackgenocide.org

NOTE: Please support Dr. Childress by going to his website and encourage him with prayer. Posted with permission from Dr. Childress.

"Stop Black Genocide". Retired Geek


Excellent Article
Unfortunately, the ones who would and should care most about these issues are the very ones whose lives are so busy taking care of their families and children and communities, they are without the time and energy to study the issues or even to listen carefully and often to their favorite black "Christian" candidate for President. They hear all of it in sound bites, believe it in sound bites and vote in sound bites. Most of the Dems I know have been voting for them since 1963 and have not really noticed the huge changes in philosophy. And if you call it to their attention, at first they smile and then they disbelieve and then they get angry and then they tell you they don't want to talk politics or religion. Most of them also watch American Idol. They have stopped attending church. Of course, the abortion thing is awful but it doesn't really affect them personally. Mr. Obama have been watching apparently more advidly than the Repubs. On the Dem side, the politicians laugh at the public and the public laughs right back. What a happy bunch they are while winning elections everywhere and decent hard working people are shaking their heads asking how did that happen. I have no desire to vote any more. What a terrible waste of time. I could read a book, or say a prayer. Thanks for letting me vent.

William,

your last post explains your character quite well. Proponents of sodomy should be opposed always and everywhere.

Just because you think self-abuse is amusing does not make it so.

eddie
Who said anything about sodomy? But to each their own...

Typical hyperbole
"Marriage, family, and religious faith are the irreplaceable cornerstones on which this extraordinary nation was erected."

No, this county's foundation was built on the freedom of the individual, not family. Ersatz conservatives like Sears are waging a war to destroy that foundation.

Homosexual Tax would be fair

The Homosexual tax would help defray the costs the rest of us have to pay because of their 'Chosen Lifestyle'.

This money should be escrowed to help poor families buy health insurance and life insurance which has skyrocketed because of the poor decisions made by those 'Choosing a Homosexual' lifestyle.

Common sexual practices among gay men lead to numerous STDs and physical injuries, some of which are virtually unknown in the heterosexual population. Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs. In addition to diseases that may be transmitted during lesbian sex, a study at an Australian STD clinic found that lesbians were three to four times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men who were high-risk for HIV.

It is well established that there are high rates of psychiatric illnesses, including depression, drug abuse, and suicide attempts, among gays and lesbians. This is true even in the Netherlands, where gay, lesbian and bisexual (GLB) relationships are far more socially acceptable than in the U.S. Depression and drug abuse are strongly associated with risky sexual practices that lead to serious medical problems.

The only epidemiological study to date on the life span of gay men concluded that gay and bisexual men lose up to 20 years of life expectancy.

Freedom of the individual
Freedom of the individual is not something the left espouses to. (pardon the pun)
Freedom is not a concept the left or this current administration is going to aspire to supporting or defending.

To Retired Greek
"The only epidemiological study to date on the life span of gay men concluded that gay and bisexual men lose up to 20 years of life expectancy."

Take a closer look. Studies from Norway and Denmark have also shown @25 year reductions in life expectancy for homosexuals, as well. Median age around 52 for those who did not die of AIDS, 42 for those who did. You can find info on the internet, though as with all such things one should try to get the actual study documentation.

Wow
Certainly one has to be on the look out for discrimination and attacks on religion. But it is amazing what people looking for such things need to come up with.

It is now an attack on religion to oppose violence in the name of hate, discrimination in hiring, equal privileges in separate institutions (certainly not what the radical homosexual agenda actually wants)and providing homes for as many foster children as possible.

So religion becomes about hate, discrimination, and leaving children unprotected. And it was a religious person making the argument, not somebody strawmaning religion. Wow.

Second to Retired Greek
The study I mentioned, as it turns out, was by Family Research Institute. Being ideologically interested in the homosexuality issue doesn't automatically disprove or invalidate the findings of their study, but it *certainly* means that their methods and findings demand close scrutiny before acceptance.

MELVIN
Where did you get the information about people eating fetuses for sport rather than a starvation situation.?

I have read about people eating other people to prevent their own death from starvation.

Eating a fetus is just for sport is outrageously insane!

melvin
Okay, it's a little amusing but it needs some work. You're not yet a Jonathan Swift.

P.C. Mindf*ck
1. Perhaps heterosexuals should start an Institution of Mating that does legally acknowledge the existence of mating other than being a sexual offense. 2. Nobody, but, nobody has the right to be liked. Nobody, but, nobody has that Royal Prerogative.

Donjindra
"No, this county's foundation was built on the freedom of the individual, not family. Ersatz conservatives like Sears are waging a war to destroy that foundation."

Through the looking glass, Alice.

Freedom requires responsibility; not license.

Lon
Stop it. You're not that stupid.

Just in case Lon is serious
"It is now an attack on religion to oppose violence in the name of hate,"

No, it's an attack on religion to say that killing, say, Matthew Shepard because he was "gay" (though the two hoods that did it were of no faith) should not be more punishable than killing, say Jesse Dirkhising because he was not (though the rapist-murderers were both "gay").

"discrimination in hiring,"

Faiths have the right to require or forbid behaviors on the part of their adherents -- unless of course you're willing to force a mosque to provide Honey Baked Hams to its employees.

"equal privileges in separate institutions"

They have the same privileges and institutions as anyone else; the fact that they wish to ignore these and create new ones is not a reason to accommodate them.

"providing homes for as many foster children as possible. So religion becomes about hate, discrimination, and leaving children unprotected."

2 men doing each other or 2 women are not a home, and it certainly is not leaving children unprotected to recognize this. Google "NAMBLA" if you wonder why.

Chuck
"Freedom requires responsibility; not license."

Are you suggesting you're not responsible enough to be free?

Grassfire.org
I am not going to sit by silently as Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid re-make our nation in their liberal image. The Republicans are too frightened to oppose him and the 'news media' will do no honest reporting of his activities.

Join a grassroots conservative group to resist Obama's liberal agenda. Go to the website below.

http://www.grassfire.org/111/petition.asp?PID=18745116&NID= 1

It's time to stop talking and start doing.

Well
no one can say Obama is voting present now. I knew this guy could do it. Forward!

cmon folks...
...you may disagree with codifying the "homosexual agenda" by legalizing gay marriage, etc., but PLEASE stop pretending this has anything to do with "defending traditional marriage."

how can it POSSIBLY cause harm to your marriage if the neighbors down the street are gay? how does that even affect your marriage?

personally, I know some gay couples who are in long-term committed relationships that are a lot better role models than Britney Spears or any of those Hollywood types who mate for a month and then move on.

in addition to the hypocrisy surrounding this issue, it's also a complete non-starter for the decimated Republican Party. I'm a former Democrat who voted McCain/Palin. I will work to defeat Obama in 2012. you need me. don't lose me with self-righteous posturing.

Sick Liberals
Why does the left want to get rid of anything and everything decent? Anything that is established behavior and rules,it is unsatisfactory to them. Bottom feeders and sewer dwellers,all.

no time to dawdle....
February 12, 2009 is 'Darwin Day' the 200th anniversary of C. Darwin's birth. Fifteen days to prove that humanity hasn't been sleeping for the 150 years since Darwin published his groundbreaking work.

What other silly superstitions can we abandon before then?

Obama for religion - not Christianity
McCandlish Phillips, a Christian reporter for the New York Times, wrote in 1970 in 'The Bible, The Supernatural, and the Jews':

"The first step in the satanic takeover of a nation is to draw the people away from faith in God and in His Word. The next stage is to increase them steadily in the indulgence of sin. The third stage is to lead them into false worship and false supernaturalism. The final stage is usually to bring them under dictatorship. We are in the third stage now."

With Barack Obama, and the present Democratic and RINO government, it looks like we've entered the fourth stage.

Barack Obama, as a pathological narcissist, (http://www.faithfreedom.org/obama.html) isn't kidding when he says he's here to save the world. We've seen the youth singing praises to his majesty. We've seen the election fraud with ACORN (which is supposed to get up to $4.1 billion as part of the bailout). We've seen the brutalization of the election process.

http://billong.blogtownhall.com
http://www.infowars.net/articles/january2009/260109Deceptio n.htm



Michigan Ruth
***"how can it POSSIBLY cause harm to your marriage if the neighbors down the street are gay? how does that even affect your marriage?"***

Because it will become a civil rights discrimination crime to air the belief that homosexuality is wrong.

Gay activists do not want merely a live-and-let-live co-existence. They want full governmental approval, which results in using the force of law to mainstream homosexuality.

Change For The Worse
Yes we will have change but it will be change that you don't want to believe in. This country will go from bad to worse.

I agree
About the hate crime angle. Hate can already be taken into account to establish motive, establishing increased penalties based on a person's emotional state or political views is effectively punishing someone for the opinions they hold, the antithesis of free speech. If we punish opinions we disapprove of, we are falling short of the ideals of a free society.

I say this even though I believe the government's role in defining marriage should be strictly limited, for similar reasons, and I don't buy that it's a slippery slope from giving someone an extra year on an assault charge for beating up someone for being gay to not being allowed to read bible passages in public.

Challenge
For those upset at the idea of allowing homosexual couples to adopt children. Adopt at least one yourself. If one-in-ten Christians Against Gay Adoption would adopt, there wouldn't be any non-adopted children left for the gays. You can save those children!

Simple solution:
Exchange the word "marriage" for intersexpairbond. There! Problem solved! Same sex couples are definitionally unqualified for official recognition.

Boy scouts are not a private group
The boy scouts are not a private group, as they receive tax benefits and rent public spaces for meetings at practically free rates.

wjriii:
Why is so important that you be able to criticize homosexuals?

Do we believe God?
The question of homosexuality actually comes down to a question of God. Do we believe He exists? Do we believe the Bible is His Word? Do we believe in His standards of righteous and morality? Do we believe that the things He calls sin actually are sin? He calls any sex outside of marriage - sin. And He defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.

You can't change the definition of marriage without eliminating God. The fact 'gay marriage' is even a question shows how far we've gone as a nation in eliminating God from the public square.

And we Christians have been complicit. We've stayed in our churches, we've accepted teachings about the last days (dispensationalism) that I believe are the doctrines of demons. 'Everything has to get worse, but God is going to rapture us before they get too bad.' We stopped conducting business in the culture in which God has placed us. And so we ceased to be salt and light. And inevitably, the culture has decayed around us. Talk about self-fulfilling prophecies.


to Insighting Truth
It's not important to be able to criticize homosexuals; it's important to be able to criticize ANYBODY. Not just criticism, but real observation and evaluation. It's true that we should not be irrationally judgmental, but life does often require judgments to be made.

The fact that any group can criticize at will while remaining protected from the rest of society goes against the American ideal, and against justice. (The funny thing is, while reading that last sentence, a liberal probably thinks about the Church or the Boy Scouts.) The homosexual activists would silence all opposition. This is not about what you do with your private parts as much as it is about control, and giving any group this much power--not just over actions, but over THOUGHT--paves the way to complete subjugation. The first ones to be subjugated would be the opponents of this group, but don't be surprised when even supporters get stepped on later.

The "far left" and the "liberals" are two separate groups. The liberals are those who dig the word "progressive" but don't really know why, who imagine they would have made good hippies, and who rush to the defense of people and ideas they couldn't stand in their own lives. They wear liberalism like a T-shirt their parents hate, but they're ultimately puppets, easily driven by bumper-sticker slogans and TV show philosophy. The far left is the group who knows better, and they're in control of all the things liberals think are "new ideas". And they use those new ideas as means to control.

It's about power; don't let the window dressing fool you.

steve in CA
Darwin himself recognized the problems with his theory, that there were no transitory fossils showing that animals somehow changed from one species to another, and which have never been found (no, Archeopteryx is not a transitory example). Also, Darwin did not have the benefit of microbiology and other advances in science that have shown that evolution could not have happened the way you evolutionists insist that it did. I agree that there can be changes within a species, such as giraffes with longer necks being able to survive whereas those with shorter necks do not, so the ones with shorter necks eventually die off, but at no point does a giraffe become anything other than a giraffe. If you want to believe in the fable of evolution, something that you cannot prove, fine with me. Just be man enough to admit that you believe it because you have "faith" in the words of others that it exists.

Why are Christians objecting NOW?
Christians have been protected by hate crime legislation since 1969.

That's right -- 1969.

But they don't get upset until the government considers offering those same protections -- those exact same protections -- to gays and lesbians. And then they claim it's only because they oppose the concept of hate crimes per se. FORTY YEARS after they got their own protection.

What hypocrisy.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/245.php

On building straw men
"...effectively destroy all meaning of marriage – the expressed wish of many of those promoting same-sex unions."

Somebody send Sears another truckload of straw. He must be running low.

Patriots United
resistnet.com

TO igorant Igor
To Ignorant Igor in NM.First of all there is not mention of church and state separation in any of the things that our founding fathers left behind.NOT A ONE!Marriage is spelled out in the Bible as one amn and one woman in Genesis 2:24Question:What part of that don t you understand.If these intolerate homosexuals want to get married then they can get married to the opposite sex which is the way GOD designed it in the Bible.Hate crimes are in violation of the 14th Amendment which will provides us with equal protection under the law.These homo facist hate crimes laws will provide special protection for homos and SCREW the rest of the country.Also Ignorant Igor WE do not have a hate crime problem in this country.I mean DUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.HELLO.

LOL
I kind of don't want to dignify that with a response, but... What I don't understand is why you want to use the Bible, a document of dubious origin that not everyone believes in, as a basis to make laws that everybody has to follow. The phrase "separation of church and state" comes from a letter that Thomas Jefferson (a founding father!) wrote to some Baptists. However, in the first amendment of the constitution it says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." What this means is that you are free to use your Bible to think whatever you want, however the moment you presume to use your Bible to make laws for the rest of us, you've crossed the line into "unconstitutional."

Also, to say that gays can get married like everyone else...to someone of the opposite sex, is to completely miss the point. It would be like if there was some law that everybody had to believe in Scientology. I could say "you have complete religious freedom, you are free to be a scientologist, like everybody else." I think everyone would agree, that is not religious freedom. So...to say that gays are free to marry someone of the opposite sex is just ridiculous. You're free, so long as you can be something that you aren't. That's not freedom, or equality.

Christians shouldn't lie
"These homo facist hate crimes laws will provide special protection for homos and SCREW the rest of the country."

I just pointed out that these hate crime laws already protect Christians, and the proposed changes simply offer THOSE EXACT SAME protections to gays.

So stop lying.

Geoff
"The homosexual activists would silence all opposition."

Actually history shows that the opposition tries to silence all homosexuals.

You have hate crime protection as Christians. Why are you so scared of giving these same protections to gays?

CHANGE
Hey, the giddy masses voted for "change" what did they expect?

InsightingTruth asks
"Why is so important that you be able to criticize homosexuals?"

I do not want to criticize homosexuals. I believe that homosexual behavior is wrong, not that homosexuals are bad.

I do not want my children's school to teach them otherwise.

If marriage is extended to gays, you KNOW that gay activists will push to make any dissent declared discrimination and hate speech. Then the gay community will have the force of law to restrict my religious freedom.

BTW, I have the same problem with living together out of wedlock and adultery. The only difference is that these demographics do not have as strong a special interest group pushing their beliefs on others.

Also, I do not want to hurt or persecute anyone. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect, even if you do not agree with their life choices.

The religious right is constantly accused of trying to force their beliefs on others, but the gay activist community is forcing their beliefs on me.

Sorry Igor
The phrase "Congress shall enact no law regarding the establishment of religion" means that the Federal government will not have a state-sponsored religion, like England does (the Anglican Church).

Do you know why? Because there were states which had their own state-sponsored religions, and they did not want the Federal government sponsoring a different religion.

Remember, it's "Freedom of religion" not "Freedom FROM religion".

Obama
was elected because he is black. No one cared at all about his agenda for the nation. It was, and still is all about the "historic nature" of having a black man in the white house. It's a high and ultimately destructive price for a free nation to pay.

wjrii
..."the gay activist community is forcing their beliefs on me."

Please be specific. When has the gay community ever prevented you from making your own choices or living your life the way you want?

No, no, no
Yes, the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means that we cannot have a state sponsored religion. It also means that congress cannot favor one religion over another, or favor religion over non-religion. It is "freedom of religion" AND "freedom from religion." You are free to practice whatever religion you choose, but as far as our laws go, non-religion wins. Which means that opponents of marriage equality will have to come up with something better than "the Bible says it's wrong."

And anyway, it definitely means no state-sponsored religion. Doesn't this alone mean that we can't use the Bible to make our laws?

Also, I don't know anybody who wants to make simply speaking against homosexuality a crime, let alone a hate crime. Even if there was anybody who actually wanted that, there is no way it would ever get written into law. We value our freedom of speech too much.

Just look at civil rights struggles in the past. There was never a law made against simply speaking against any other minority group. It's not a CRIME to call someone a n*gger...it just makes you look like a jackass. To say that this is inevitable is rather unfounded, if you look at historical examples.

We gay people don't want to be BETTER, we don't want MORE rights..we just want the same rights. Equality. If you can get married, I want to be able to get married too, if I want. And it's wrong that I can't, if you can. It's just as simple as that.

The Party's Over
Eventually, it will dawn on you that the American People have rejected government by Fundamentalist Christian principles. Don't believe me? Why is abortion still legal after 35 years or so of fighting? Why did South Dakota recently reject the ban? Why is it that despite opposing same-sex marriage a least a majority of Americans approve of some type of recognition of such long-term committed relationships with domestic partnership and civil union recognition showing up in a number of states. It would be nice if you people would let your gay and lesbian neighbors live their lives in peace, even if you disapprove, rather than continuing the decades old crusade to eliminate fair housing, fair employment, custody of kids, service in the military and any recognition of same-sex relationships. Not only is it a miserable anthesis to Christian love, it's not even a generally effective political tactic anymore.

Robert
You asked:

*** "Please be specific. When has the gay community ever prevented you from making your own choices or living your life the way you want? " ***

That is a non-sequiter. One can force beliefs on another without forcing them to PARTICIPATE in those beliefs. Re-read my posts.

Igor part 1
Sorry, "establishment of religion" has nothing to do with preferring one religion over another. That is not in the Constitution.

We can't use the Bible when making laws? Should we then drop laws against murder? Oh, a majority of people favor laws against murder. But on what basis do the majority favor laws against murder? It had better not be religion.

Having a state-sponsored religion means that your tax dollars are used to fund an officially sanctioned religion. Prohibiting the federal government from funding an officially sanctioned religion does not prohibit a legislator from using any book or philosophy as the basis for a new law.

Igor Part 2
The second part of your post shows that you want gay marriage to be considered equal to traditional marriage. Any other position is unacceptable ("it is as simple as that").

It is NOT as simple as that. There is opposition to gay marriage from more than just the religious. The results of Prop 8 in California shows this. Even a healthy portion of DEMOCRATS were opposed. How many times has gay marriage been imposed on the public by gay activists through liberal judges who disregard the will of the majority?

Does it bother you that NO OTHER SOCIETY, religiously based or not, in human history has equated gay with traditional marriage? Some societies recognized homosexual relationships, but they were not equivalent to traditional marriage.

The majority has made it's position clear, but you still want what you want. You must feel that your position is morally correct, and opponents are morally wrong. That's where we diverge.

So, what are you prepared to do to force the majority to accept your wishes? How are you going to fight discrimination in your effort to mainstream gay marriage? Sue churches which refuse to marry gays and possibly lose their tax-exempt status? Oops, too late. It's already happened.

What are you willing to do to impose your will upon me?

wjriii
"One can force beliefs on another without forcing them to PARTICIPATE in those beliefs."

Please explain: What, then, is your definition of forcing beliefs on another?

the bible and murder
"We can't use the Bible when making laws? Should we then drop laws against murder?"

Arguments like this flabbergast me. Are you saying the bible is the only reason to outlaw murder? Are you saying if it weren't for the Biblical prohibition, you'd be out killing people right and left without a twinge of conscience?

I doubt that very much. And if I'm right, then you must have reasons for outlawing murder that have nothing to do with the Bible.

wjriii
No, we can't use the Bible to make our laws. Murder is illegal because it is evidently wrong for reasons other than "the Bible says so." A few of our laws happen to coincide with the Bible's teachings...because a few things in the Bible actually make sense. Yes, obviously it's wrong to murder, or steal. That doesn't mean that we should take the other stuff from the Bible that doesn't make sense and write that into law too.

Thus, for gay marriage to not be legal, we need some other reason other than "the Bible says so." The "it's traditional" argument makes no sense to me. You know what else was traditional? Slavery. Tradition does not always equate to correctness.

What I would like is for the federal government to recognize my long term relationship just the same as it recognizes everyone else's. No, I will not be suing churches who refuse to marry me. I was not aware that this has happened, would you care to share your sources?

I don't care if churches refuse to marry anybody. That is their right, and they do it now anyway. People get turned away from some churches all the time for not being the right type of christian, for being an interracial couple...the list goes on. I don't care. I just want the same government recognition and benefits that come with marriage that everyone else gets.

I'm not trying to impose anything on anybody. All I want is equality in the eyes of the law.

Igor
Please prove to me that In a Godless world, why is murder wrong?

If you say the majority says so, I will respond that the majority is not always right. If you say that murder conflicts with some unwritten set of morals that many people seem to share, I will respond by asking, what makes these "feelings" correct? Is murder wrong because that belief has been passed down from generation to generation? Oops, that is the definition of tradition, which you have discounted.

Once you have proven murder is wrong, please prove that denying traditional marriage to gays is wrong.

Your post indicated that it is a matter of fairness and justice that traditional marriage must be extended to gay couples.

I ask you, how do you determine what is fair and just?

Is it as simple as stating that if someone can do something, you should be able to as well?

Is "fairness" an absolute? Is it fair that a hugely famous celebrity like Elvis is not able to go for a walk just like anyone else? Is it fair that the murderer of your child be acquitted because of a legal technicality? The answers are no and no, because there is a higher principle than what is fair to just you.

How can you know that there is not a higher principle at work which is more important than your perception of fairness?

Why do you believe that all societies before are wrong and you are right?

If you want, we can get into the specifics, but before we do, please answer these questions.

Robert Forcing beliefs on others
It is absurdly simple to show that one can force beliefs on another without forcing one to participate.

One clarification. Forcing a belief on another does not mean that they must in turn believe as well.

Our new President Obama has signed an executive order that through my tax dollars, I must pay for others' abortions. I am not forced to have an abortion nor give one.

I am not participating in abortion any more than the owner of a stolen gun is responsible for the actions of the thief.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.