For every activist who engages in criminal mischief (or is simply obnoxious), there are about a hundred more who do not. This can be said about most every political/social movement.
The Black Panthers, formed in '66 during the height of the civil rights movement, even resorted to violence. Does this reflect either the approach of African-Americans in general at the time or imply that the push for civil rights was, as a whole, without merit?
In regards to the North Carolina amendment, even David Blankenhorn, a primary witness in support of Prop 8, says it goes too far.
"For one thing, it means that North Carolina could not, now or ever, take any step or devise any policy to extend legal recognition and protection to same-sex couples. No domestic partnership laws. No civil unions. Nothing.
That’s mighty cold. If you disdain gay and lesbian persons, and don’t care whether they and their families remain permanently outside of the protection of our laws, such a policy might be your cup of tea. But it’s not our view, and we doubt that it’s the view of most North Carolinians.
They enjoy the same legal protections as other unmarried persons.
What "families" do you mean? Their parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and siblings?
There's no such thing as same sex "couples." Homosexuals have open relationships. Homosexuals are promiscuous. They don't pair off. Two left shoes are not a pair.
However, homosexuals can enter into contractual relationships with each other, if they so desire.
The purpose of the law is not to protect vice. The domestic arrangements of homosexuals are no more entitled to legal protection than polygamy, or child marriage, or the Syndicate.
In some cases it is, though. Idolatry and heresy are vices, are they not? Yet, our government guarantees freedom of religious expression not to just Calvinists but to Catholics, Mormons, Pentecostals and even Buddhists. They even grant these other faiths certain tax exemptions.
"Homosexuals have open relationships. Homosexuals are promiscuous. "
Some gays are indeed promiscuous. Do you know the personal lives of every single self-identified gay person in the US? Quite an assertion.
The law exists to protect the liberties and safety of its citizens, not to enforce a particular vision of religious ethics (and varied they are). As such, we should be vigilant about any attempt by any political movement to restrict the freedoms of others where there is no compelling public interest in doing so.
I've critiqued the excesses of the far homofascist left on this as well when they seek to silence any opposition.
At the same time, if they choose to designate their "families" as biological kin or individuals they bring into their lives through adoption or a civil contract, I see no compelling reason why they should be denied the ability to do so, if only out of respect for the Constitutional and legal frameworks that guide our nation's laws as well as their own freedom of conscience.
"In some cases it is, though. Idolatry and heresy are vices, are they not? Yet, our government guarantees freedom of religious expression not to just Calvinists but to Catholics, Mormons, Pentecostals and even Buddhists. They even grant these other faiths certain tax exemptions."
i) You're failing to distinguish between de facto and de jure. The Nürnberger Gesetze were the de facto law of the land, but that's not the purpose of law.
ii) You're also failing to distinguish between criminalizing something, decriminalizing something, and making it a civil right.
iii) The Establishment Clause allowed the states to discriminate against religious groups. It simply prohibited a national church.
"Some gays are indeed promiscuous. Do you know the personal lives of every single self-identified gay person in the US? Quite an assertion."
i) You're playing dumb. Even queer activist Andrew Sullivan admits that homosexuals are promiscuous.
ii) In addition, the law isn't concerned with what's exceptional, but what's typical.
"The law exists to protect the liberties and safety of its citizens"
i) Which assumes there's a liberty to protect. Whether sodomite marriage ought to be a civil right is precisely the point at issue, not something you can take for granted. Clearly the framers of the Constitution and the states which ratified the Constitution didn't think it was a civil right, given all the anti-sodomy laws on the books.
ii) The state has a compelling interest in protecting the safety and liberty of foster children from homosexual "couples."
"...not to enforce a particular vision of religious ethics (and varied they are)."
You're turning the Constitution on its head. The First Amendment contains an establishment clause, not a disestablishment clause.
The very first Congress sponsored Christian missionaries.
"As such, we should be vigilant about any attempt by any political movement to restrict the freedoms of others where there is no compelling public interest in doing so."
i) Queer activists are in the business of restricting Christian freedom.
ii) There's a compelling interest to uphold natural marriage (between a man and a woman), which is the fundamental social unit. That goes to the social fabric.
"At the same time, if they choose to designate their 'families' as biological kin or individuals they bring into their lives through adoption or a civil contract, I see no compelling reason why they should be denied the ability to do so, if only out of respect for the Constitutional and legal frameworks that guide our nation's laws as well as their own freedom of conscience."
i) Sodomite marriage runs counter to the intent of the framers.
ii) By contrast, the electorate is expressing its Constitutional right to ban sodomite marriage. That's called popular sovereignty.
Loathe as I am to enter into this conversation on the side of James, some comments.
There's no such thing as same sex "couples." Homosexuals have open relationships. Homosexuals are promiscuous. They don't pair off. Two left shoes are not a pair.
This just goes too far. It's irrelevant whether they do pair off, for the purposes of your argument. But this sort of statement just invites someone to bring up any single homosexual 'couple'.
On the flipside, I believe statistically and in a broad sense you're right.
And frankly, I would have had sympathy to the 'this law goes too far' argument - back when it wasn't abundantly clear that "going too far", and then excusing it, is exactly the goal with many on this and other subjects.
NC will ban civil unions? That's more than fine by me. Just as it's clearly fine by James and others that Dan Savage says what he does, so long as they think he can get away with it.
Another example: Anti-Bullying Speaker Curses Christian Teens
ReplyDeleteFor every activist who engages in criminal mischief (or is simply obnoxious), there are about a hundred more who do not. This can be said about most every political/social movement.
ReplyDeleteThe Black Panthers, formed in '66 during the height of the civil rights movement, even resorted to violence. Does this reflect either the approach of African-Americans in general at the time or imply that the push for civil rights was, as a whole, without merit?
In regards to the North Carolina amendment, even David Blankenhorn, a primary witness in support of Prop 8, says it goes too far.
"For one thing, it means that North Carolina could not, now or ever, take any step or devise any policy to extend legal recognition and protection to same-sex couples. No domestic partnership laws. No civil unions. Nothing.
That’s mighty cold. If you disdain gay and lesbian persons, and don’t care whether they and their families remain permanently outside of the protection of our laws, such a policy might be your cup of tea. But it’s not our view, and we doubt that it’s the view of most North Carolinians.
They enjoy the same legal protections as other unmarried persons.
ReplyDeleteWhat "families" do you mean? Their parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and siblings?
There's no such thing as same sex "couples." Homosexuals have open relationships. Homosexuals are promiscuous. They don't pair off. Two left shoes are not a pair.
However, homosexuals can enter into contractual relationships with each other, if they so desire.
The purpose of the law is not to protect vice. The domestic arrangements of homosexuals are no more entitled to legal protection than polygamy, or child marriage, or the Syndicate.
ReplyDelete"The purpose of the law is not to protect vice."
ReplyDeleteIn some cases it is, though. Idolatry and heresy are vices, are they not? Yet, our government guarantees freedom of religious expression not to just Calvinists but to Catholics, Mormons, Pentecostals and even Buddhists. They even grant these other faiths certain tax exemptions.
"Homosexuals have open relationships. Homosexuals are promiscuous. "
Some gays are indeed promiscuous. Do you know the personal lives of every single self-identified gay person in the US? Quite an assertion.
The law exists to protect the liberties and safety of its citizens, not to enforce a particular vision of religious ethics (and varied they are). As such, we should be vigilant about any attempt by any political movement to restrict the freedoms of others where there is no compelling public interest in doing so.
I've critiqued the excesses of the far homofascist left on this as well when they seek to silence any opposition.
At the same time, if they choose to designate their "families" as biological kin or individuals they bring into their lives through adoption or a civil contract, I see no compelling reason why they should be denied the ability to do so, if only out of respect for the Constitutional and legal frameworks that guide our nation's laws as well as their own freedom of conscience.
Sorry ... paragraph should have read:
ReplyDelete"Some gays are indeed promiscuous. Many are not ....
They have a post-edit feature for those like me who press Submit without proof-reading.
James said...
ReplyDelete"In some cases it is, though. Idolatry and heresy are vices, are they not? Yet, our government guarantees freedom of religious expression not to just Calvinists but to Catholics, Mormons, Pentecostals and even Buddhists. They even grant these other faiths certain tax exemptions."
i) You're failing to distinguish between de facto and de jure. The Nürnberger Gesetze were the de facto law of the land, but that's not the purpose of law.
ii) You're also failing to distinguish between criminalizing something, decriminalizing something, and making it a civil right.
iii) The Establishment Clause allowed the states to discriminate against religious groups. It simply prohibited a national church.
"Some gays are indeed promiscuous. Do you know the personal lives of every single self-identified gay person in the US? Quite an assertion."
i) You're playing dumb. Even queer activist Andrew Sullivan admits that homosexuals are promiscuous.
ii) In addition, the law isn't concerned with what's exceptional, but what's typical.
"The law exists to protect the liberties and safety of its citizens"
i) Which assumes there's a liberty to protect. Whether sodomite marriage ought to be a civil right is precisely the point at issue, not something you can take for granted. Clearly the framers of the Constitution and the states which ratified the Constitution didn't think it was a civil right, given all the anti-sodomy laws on the books.
ii) The state has a compelling interest in protecting the safety and liberty of foster children from homosexual "couples."
"...not to enforce a particular vision of religious ethics (and varied they are)."
You're turning the Constitution on its head. The First Amendment contains an establishment clause, not a disestablishment clause.
The very first Congress sponsored Christian missionaries.
"As such, we should be vigilant about any attempt by any political movement to restrict the freedoms of others where there is no compelling public interest in doing so."
i) Queer activists are in the business of restricting Christian freedom.
ii) There's a compelling interest to uphold natural marriage (between a man and a woman), which is the fundamental social unit. That goes to the social fabric.
"At the same time, if they choose to designate their 'families' as biological kin or individuals they bring into their lives through adoption or a civil contract, I see no compelling reason why they should be denied the ability to do so, if only out of respect for the Constitutional and legal frameworks that guide our nation's laws as well as their own freedom of conscience."
i) Sodomite marriage runs counter to the intent of the framers.
ii) By contrast, the electorate is expressing its Constitutional right to ban sodomite marriage. That's called popular sovereignty.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteLoathe as I am to enter into this conversation on the side of James, some comments.
There's no such thing as same sex "couples." Homosexuals have open relationships. Homosexuals are promiscuous. They don't pair off. Two left shoes are not a pair.
This just goes too far. It's irrelevant whether they do pair off, for the purposes of your argument. But this sort of statement just invites someone to bring up any single homosexual 'couple'.
On the flipside, I believe statistically and in a broad sense you're right.
And frankly, I would have had sympathy to the 'this law goes too far' argument - back when it wasn't abundantly clear that "going too far", and then excusing it, is exactly the goal with many on this and other subjects.
NC will ban civil unions? That's more than fine by me. Just as it's clearly fine by James and others that Dan Savage says what he does, so long as they think he can get away with it.