'Gay marriage' is not about 'rights'

[igloo]

'Gay marriage' is not about 'rights'

David Limbaugh (archive)

February 27, 2004 | Print | Send

Proponents of traditional values are making a tactical error in allowing the homosexual lobby to frame the issue of same-sex marriage merely as one of equal rights for gays. Much more is at stake.

Let me raise a few questions. Do you believe that marriage is properly an institution between a man and a woman? Do you believe marriage, so defined, is an indispensable building block of our society? If you answered yes to these questions, do you believe that there is something wrong with you for wanting to preserve an institution that you believe is essential for society? Are you a homophobe? Are you full of hate?

The gay lobby, in its tireless determination, has succeeded in framing the same-sex marriage issue as one of equal rights instead of the right of a society to preserve its foundational institutions. They have painted those who nobly want to preserve these institutions as hateful, homophobic bigots.

But opposition to same-sex marriage not about "rights," and it's not about hate or bigotry. No one is preventing homosexuals from living with one another. All homosexuals have a "right" to get married and to have that marriage sanctioned by the state. But in order to do that they must marry someone of the opposite sex -- that's what marriage means and has always meant. When they insist that society be forced to redefine marriage to sanction same-sex unions, they are attempting to establish new and special rights.

What's worse is that if we view this from the narrow perspective of "gay rights," we are overlooking that these "rights" will not be created in a vacuum, without consequences to our society. It's not as simple as saying that homosexuals will have the right to live together and receive the "legal incidents" of marriage.

If they coerce society into placing its imprimatur on same-sex marriage, they will have eroded one of the fundamental supports of our society. But in our postmodern licentious, amoral culture, we are so hung up on radical individualism we no longer seem to comprehend that society has a vital interest in establishing rules grounded in morality and enforced by law.

This is the larger issue underlying the marriage turf battle. Does our society even have a mandate anymore to base its laws on moral absolutes? Or does our myopic zeal for pluralism, "tolerance," "multiculturalism," "secularism," and moral relativism require that we abandon the moral pillars upon which our system is built?

I know it is chic to subscribe to the mindless notion that we can't legislate morality or that we can't even base our laws on our moral and religious beliefs, but that thinking is as destructive as it is nonsensical. We have always based our laws on our moral beliefs and must continue to for them to have any legitimacy.

It is completely possible to base a nation's constitutional system on specific religious beliefs and simultaneously guarantee the rights of its citizens to exercise other religious beliefs. That's precisely what our predominantly Christian Framers did. They built a system on Judeo-Christian roots, which they believed would guarantee, not threaten, political and religious freedom. America's history conclusively vindicates them.

They designed a governmental system grounded in the laws of nature established by the God they believe created them in His image and Who was therefore the source of their inalienable rights. A society so founded has an interest in preserving the moral foundation established by this God and observing His laws of nature. And the protection of this interest is wholly consistent with, indeed essential to, guaranteeing an ordered society with maximum political and religious liberties.

We are so spoiled with our freedoms that we never stop to think that they are based on a moral foundation, which, if uprooted, will uproot our liberties as well. You don't have to be an ardent churchgoer to grasp that we cannot continue in our rebellious and narcissistic quest for unrestrained liberty with impunity. If we persist in demanding freedom without responsibility; if we recklessly reject self-control and moral parameters; if we defy the laws of nature established by an omniscient God, we can expect chaos and the eventual erosion of liberty.

It is chilling that those who want to preserve our unique system and the unparalleled freedom it guarantees are viewed as a threat to that freedom, when, in fact, they are its sacred guardians.

[bigpoppanils]

Originally posted by igloo

They have painted those who nobly want to preserve these institutions as hateful, homophobic bigots.

The conservative lobbyists have done an equally successful job of painting those that support gay marriage as being hateful anti-christians and catholics.

[bigpoppanils]

Originally posted by igloo

It is chilling that those who want to preserve our unique system and the unparalleled freedom it guarantees are viewed as a threat to that freedom, when, in fact, they are its sacred guardians.

Gays seeking freedom to marry are a threat to freedom?

[normalnoises]

Igloo's sources hate freedom. I wonder about him?

[normalnoises]

Originally posted by igloo

'Gay marriage' is not about 'rights'

David Limbaugh (archive)

February 27, 2004 | Print | Send

Proponents of traditional values are making a tactical error in allowing the homosexual lobby to frame the issue of same-sex marriage merely as one of equal rights for gays. Much more is at stake.

Let me raise a few questions. Do you believe that marriage is properly an institution between a man and a woman? Do you believe marriage, so defined, is an indispensable building block of our society? If you answered yes to these questions, do you believe that there is something wrong with you for wanting to preserve an institution that you believe is essential for society? Are you a homophobe? Are you full of hate?

The gay lobby, in its tireless determination, has succeeded in framing the same-sex marriage issue as one of equal rights instead of the right of a society to preserve its foundational institutions. They have painted those who nobly want to preserve these institutions as hateful, homophobic bigots.

But opposition to same-sex marriage not about "rights," and it's not about hate or bigotry. No one is preventing homosexuals from living with one another. All homosexuals have a "right" to get married and to have that marriage sanctioned by the state. But in order to do that they must marry someone of the opposite sex -- that's what marriage means and has always meant. When they insist that society be forced to redefine marriage to sanction same-sex unions, they are attempting to establish new and special rights.

What's worse is that if we view this from the narrow perspective of "gay rights," we are overlooking that these "rights" will not be created in a vacuum, without consequences to our society. It's not as simple as saying that homosexuals will have the right to live together and receive the "legal incidents" of marriage.

If they coerce society into placing its imprimatur on same-sex marriage, they will have eroded one of the fundamental supports of our society. But in our postmodern licentious, amoral culture, we are so hung up on radical individualism we no longer seem to comprehend that society has a vital interest in establishing rules grounded in morality and enforced by law.

This is the larger issue underlying the marriage turf battle. Does our society even have a mandate anymore to base its laws on moral absolutes? Or does our myopic zeal for pluralism, "tolerance," "multiculturalism," "secularism," and moral relativism require that we abandon the moral pillars upon which our system is built?

I know it is chic to subscribe to the mindless notion that we can't legislate morality or that we can't even base our laws on our moral and religious beliefs, but that thinking is as destructive as it is nonsensical. We have always based our laws on our moral beliefs and must continue to for them to have any legitimacy.

It is completely possible to base a nation's constitutional system on specific religious beliefs and simultaneously guarantee the rights of its citizens to exercise other religious beliefs. That's precisely what our predominantly Christian Framers did. They built a system on Judeo-Christian roots, which they believed would guarantee, not threaten, political and religious freedom. America's history conclusively vindicates them.

They designed a governmental system grounded in the laws of nature established by the God they believe created them in His image and Who was therefore the source of their inalienable rights. A society so founded has an interest in preserving the moral foundation established by this God and observing His laws of nature. And the protection of this interest is wholly consistent with, indeed essential to, guaranteeing an ordered society with maximum political and religious liberties.

We are so spoiled with our freedoms that we never stop to think that they are based on a moral foundation, which, if uprooted, will uproot our liberties as well. You don't have to be an ardent churchgoer to grasp that we cannot continue in our rebellious and narcissistic quest for unrestrained liberty with impunity. If we persist in demanding freedom without responsibility; if we recklessly reject self-control and moral parameters; if we defy the laws of nature established by an omniscient God, we can expect chaos and the eventual erosion of liberty.

It is chilling that those who want to preserve our unique system and the unparalleled freedom it guarantees are viewed as a threat to that freedom, when, in fact, they are its sacred guardians.

Simular to: Equal rights to blacks are not equal rights.

[kramadas]

“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”

For those who think that civil unions and marriage confers the same benefits.

Take out that clause and I don't care if that bill passes or not.

[marksimons]

is David Limbaugh any relation to Rush?

oh.

he is:

"David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics who writes engaging columns from a fresh, conservative point of view."

heheh

[druwishprincez]

This whole fucking issue pisses me off. Theyre treating gay couples as sub citizens. Whether or not marriage is "defined" as a union of a man and a woman, the fact of the matter is, is that all a marriage really is, is a union of two people who share mutual love for eachother. So whats different about a man and another man loving eachtoher from a man loving a woman or vice versa? So because they love someone of the same sex they shouldnt be allowed to be recognized as married or get the same benefits of an opposite sexed marriage? You cant help who you fall in love with...its as simple as that. And to deny them the same rights because they dont follow the christian beliefs that only a man and a woman should get married is ludacris.

[siceone]

cause the definition of marriage is the union between a man and a woman you can't just go changing the defeinition of words

[normalnoises]

But the first and fourteenth amendments can.

[siceone]

Im sorry but being black is notthe same as being gay

[marksimons]

Originally posted by siceone

Im sorry but being black is notthe same as being gay

heheh...

that's a good quote...

there are differences between being black and being gay, in terms of a lot of things, but what about the way straight white society treats both groups? I'm sure there are similarities, perhaps more than differences. the issues they face may be different, but the attitudes they encounter might not be.

[normalnoises]

Let me to a little play on words here and tell me if this isn't just sickening:

'Interracial marriage' is not about 'rights'

By David Limblost

"Proponents of traditional values are making a tactical error in allowing the black lobby to frame the issue of interracial marriage merely as one of equal rights for blacks. Much more is at stake.

Let me raise a few questions. Do you believe that marriage is properly an institution between a man and a woman? Do you believe marriage, so defined, is an indispensable building block of our society? If you answered yes to these questions, do you believe that there is something wrong with you for wanting to preserve an institution that you believe is essential for society? Are you a racist? Are you full of hate?

The black lobby, in its tireless determination, has succeeded in framing the interracial marriage issue as one of equal rights instead of the right of a society to preserve its foundational institutions. They have painted those who nobly want to preserve these institutions as hateful, racist bigots.

But opposition to interracial marriage not about "rights," and it's not about hate or bigotry. No one is preventing blacks from living with one another. All blacks have a "right" to get married and to have that marriage sanctioned by the state. But in order to do that they must marry someone of the same race -- that's what marriage means and has always meant. When they insist that society be forced to redefine marriage to sanction interracial unions, they are attempting to establish new and special rights.

What's worse is that if we view this from the narrow perspective of "black rights," we are overlooking that these "rights" will not be created in a vacuum, without consequences to our society. It's not as simple as saying that blacks will have the right to live together and receive the "legal incidents" of marriage.

If they coerce society into placing its imprimatur on interracial marriage, they will have eroded one of the fundamental supports of our society. But in our postmodern licentious, amoral culture, we are so hung up on radical individualism we no longer seem to comprehend that society has a vital interest in establishing rules grounded in morality and enforced by law.

This is the larger issue underlying the marriage turf battle. Does our society even have a mandate anymore to base its laws on moral absolutes? Or does our myopic zeal for pluralism, "tolerance," "multiculturalism," "secularism," and moral relativism require that we abandon the moral pillars upon which our system is built?

I know it is chic to subscribe to the mindless notion that we can't legislate morality or that we can't even base our laws on our moral and religious beliefs, but that thinking is as destructive as it is nonsensical. We have always based our laws on our moral beliefs and must continue to for them to have any legitimacy.

It is completely possible to base a nation's constitutional system on specific religious beliefs and simultaneously guarantee the rights of its citizens to exercise other religious beliefs. That's precisely what our predominantly Christian Framers did. They built a system on Judeo-Christian roots, which they believed would guarantee, not threaten, political and religious freedom. America's history conclusively vindicates them.

They designed a governmental system grounded in the laws of nature established by the God they believe created them in His image and Who was therefore the source of their inalienable rights. A society so founded has an interest in preserving the moral foundation established by this God and observing His laws of nature. And the protection of this interest is wholly consistent with, indeed essential to, guaranteeing an ordered society with maximum political and religious liberties.

We are so spoiled with our freedoms that we never stop to think that they are based on a moral foundation, which, if uprooted, will uproot our liberties as well. You don't have to be an ardent churchgoer to grasp that we cannot continue in our rebellious and narcissistic quest for unrestrained liberty with impunity. If we persist in demanding freedom without responsibility; if we recklessly reject self-control and moral parameters; if we defy the laws of nature established by an omniscient God, we can expect chaos and the eventual erosion of liberty.

It is chilling that those who want to preserve our unique system and the unparalleled freedom it guarantees are viewed as a threat to that freedom, when, in fact, they are its sacred guardians."

[jamiroguy1]

Originally posted by normalnoises

Let me to a little play on words here and tell me if this isn't just sickening:

'Interracial marriage' is not about 'rights'

By David Limblost

"Proponents of traditional values are making a tactical error in allowing the black lobby to frame the issue of interracial marriage merely as one of equal rights for blacks. Much more is at stake.

Let me raise a few questions. Do you believe that marriage is properly an institution between a man and a woman? Do you believe marriage, so defined, is an indispensable building block of our society? If you answered yes to these questions, do you believe that there is something wrong with you for wanting to preserve an institution that you believe is essential for society? Are you a racist? Are you full of hate?

The black lobby, in its tireless determination, has succeeded in framing the interracial marriage issue as one of equal rights instead of the right of a society to preserve its foundational institutions. They have painted those who nobly want to preserve these institutions as hateful, racist bigots.

But opposition to interracial marriage not about "rights," and it's not about hate or bigotry. No one is preventing blacks from living with one another. All blacks have a "right" to get married and to have that marriage sanctioned by the state. But in order to do that they must marry someone of the same race -- that's what marriage means and has always meant. When they insist that society be forced to redefine marriage to sanction interracial unions, they are attempting to establish new and special rights.

What's worse is that if we view this from the narrow perspective of "black rights," we are overlooking that these "rights" will not be created in a vacuum, without consequences to our society. It's not as simple as saying that blacks will have the right to live together and receive the "legal incidents" of marriage.

If they coerce society into placing its imprimatur on interracial marriage, they will have eroded one of the fundamental supports of our society. But in our postmodern licentious, amoral culture, we are so hung up on radical individualism we no longer seem to comprehend that society has a vital interest in establishing rules grounded in morality and enforced by law.

This is the larger issue underlying the marriage turf battle. Does our society even have a mandate anymore to base its laws on moral absolutes? Or does our myopic zeal for pluralism, "tolerance," "multiculturalism," "secularism," and moral relativism require that we abandon the moral pillars upon which our system is built?

I know it is chic to subscribe to the mindless notion that we can't legislate morality or that we can't even base our laws on our moral and religious beliefs, but that thinking is as destructive as it is nonsensical. We have always based our laws on our moral beliefs and must continue to for them to have any legitimacy.

It is completely possible to base a nation's constitutional system on specific religious beliefs and simultaneously guarantee the rights of its citizens to exercise other religious beliefs. That's precisely what our predominantly Christian Framers did. They built a system on Judeo-Christian roots, which they believed would guarantee, not threaten, political and religious freedom. America's history conclusively vindicates them.

They designed a governmental system grounded in the laws of nature established by the God they believe created them in His image and Who was therefore the source of their inalienable rights. A society so founded has an interest in preserving the moral foundation established by this God and observing His laws of nature. And the protection of this interest is wholly consistent with, indeed essential to, guaranteeing an ordered society with maximum political and religious liberties.

We are so spoiled with our freedoms that we never stop to think that they are based on a moral foundation, which, if uprooted, will uproot our liberties as well. You don't have to be an ardent churchgoer to grasp that we cannot continue in our rebellious and narcissistic quest for unrestrained liberty with impunity. If we persist in demanding freedom without responsibility; if we recklessly reject self-control and moral parameters; if we defy the laws of nature established by an omniscient God, we can expect chaos and the eventual erosion of liberty.

It is chilling that those who want to preserve our unique system and the unparalleled freedom it guarantees are viewed as a threat to that freedom, when, in fact, they are its sacred guardians."

lol Bravo! Something I've been saying all along...If you replace all the language dealing with gay people to black people it sounds like an arguement to oppress african american's civil rights during that era. Same arguement agaist freedom and rights just a different group to oppress.