Tuesday, April 07, 2009

Vermont does it the right way 

Vermont has legalized gay marriage the right way, by vote of the state legislature. That is how it should be done, by elected officials accountable at the polls and not by judges who have decided that the time has come. If we learned one thing from Roe, it is that people do not easily come to terms with contentious social issues if they are handled outside the normal operation of representative government.


By Blogger Donald Douglas, at Tue Apr 07, 03:06:00 PM:

You're right, although I don't think Vermont is representative of the cultural norms of the nation, and the liberal media will continue with the "gay marriage is inevitable" meme.  

By Anonymous MarkJ, at Tue Apr 07, 03:57:00 PM:

Swell. The good news is that gays who get married in Vermont will also soon learn the joys of "workin' two shifts and eatin' baloney" to pay child- and spouse-support, vicious and never-ending custody battles, and extortionary property settlements.

Be careful what you ask for, troops, because you're going to get it whether you think it's "equitable" or not. Think about this: the only people who should really be popping corks in celebration of this news are wedding planners, tax accountants...and divorce lawyers.  

By Anonymous tyree, at Tue Apr 07, 04:30:00 PM:

Gay unions will happen, gay "marriage" never will. When you change the definition of a word it's old meaning disappears, sometimes forever.  

By Blogger Christopher Chambers, at Tue Apr 07, 04:32:00 PM:

Well, if that were true, my relatives would still be depreciated on someone's 1040...or I'd have been beaten for kissing my white colleague just a moment ago...or would I even have a colleague? lol
Look at the whole history of jurisprudence leading up to the Civil War, where the South politically and legislatively stifled states rights and federalism (ironic, eh?) with denials of slave petition, gag rules on debate and those lovely Fugitive Slave Acts.

Or skip forward to Brown v. Board. Think of the cases leading UP to it, whittling away at legislative so called "separate but equal," exposing the fallacy. I'd love to get a time machine and take all of you back and see what you'd be saying/doing. Hmmm. Would be an eye opener.

If the state won't treat its citizens with common decency and humanity, then yes, I guess you have to sue. Besides, I thought your ilk hated these namby pamby hippie Blue states like Vermont anyway...now you hold them up as a paragon? I guess that's smoke and tit for tat for justifying the existence of lunatic morons like Rep. Michelle Bachmann heh.

The issue's simple. Marriage is a governmental creature. Forget God. You need a licence from a govt official (the blue haired ol' lady in the clerks office) to get married. You need licence from the government to even PERFORM a wedding. You cannot deny a law abiding taxpaying citizen of your jurisdiction that right and badge of citizenship--even humanity--unless you got an overriding big mo-fo reason for doing so and you have to back it up with facts, important interests. It's called Equal Protection. What thousands died for in the Civil War, which brings me back to my first point.

Besides, what is your dog in this fight? Seriously, if two gay men or two lesbians want to get married, so? I say let everyone be subject to the question: "There's only $35.90 in the joint account--have you been using this for strippers again?" hahaha
If your issue is with how these basic rights were achieved--in a court action--well, double shame on you. It means in my time machine you'd have been one of the cowards who assailed Brown. And you don't want to go down that road.

You might end up in one of the "re-education camps" once the President initiates "Operation Honky Drop Kick"

Oh No...I spilled the beans. Crrrrraaaaaapppp. Forget I said it...

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tue Apr 07, 04:47:00 PM:

On TH's original post I agree completely with his formulation that the legislature is the right forum to do these difficult social things, and I congratulate Vermont.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tue Apr 07, 04:52:00 PM:

Tigerhawk - I agree completely.

Christopher - You are hijacking the thread, but fine, I will address one of you comments. I DO think that Brown v. BOE was a mistake, and I will demonstrate my reason by asking you a question. Would you rather have the schools as they are, that is, de facto separate and obviously not equal, or would you rather have the schools legally separate and actually equal (in terms of funding, oversight, quality of facilities, quality of instructors, etc)?

I think that America would be a much different, and better, place to live with a strong black middle and upper class and Brown unquestionably aborted this process and made whites absolve themselves of guilt and responsibility. Meanwhile, an ever greater number of african americans have fallen ever farther into the abyss of poverty.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tue Apr 07, 05:53:00 PM:

Voters in 30 states have approved amendments to their state constitutions banning gay marriage, and Iowa is likely to do the same. An astute, unbiased and rational legal observer (which leaves out Christopher Chamber, who doesn't score two out of three on that criterion) would call this an "emerging national consensus." Except for Vermont, where gay marriage has been legalized, it has been legalized by judicial fiat. Gay 'unions' in the form of civil unions or domestic partnerships or some other legal remedy may become widely accepted, but as for changing the definition of marriage --- it ain't gonna happen, baby.


By Blogger Roy Lofquist, at Tue Apr 07, 06:44:00 PM:

My comment on Dissenting Justice blog:

Vermont, yes. Iowa, no.

Russell Kirk:

"It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions."

The legislature serves at the pleasure of the people. If a law proves to have unintended consequences then it is easily changed.

When a court rules on controversial matters it is very difficult for the people to make corrections.

The court's deference to stare decisis sometimes permits clever advocates to narrow issues in such a way that the court must make a logical yet wrong ruling. A list of citations overwhelms the common law which is the basis of the social contract.  

By Blogger Elise, at Tue Apr 07, 07:02:00 PM:

I don't think the analogy between the Black civil rights movement and the gay marriage movement really works. First, African-Americans did not have access to many of the normal levers of democracy: their ability to vote was restricted (or non-existent) in many states and they had little input into the national dialogue via news media.

Second, I think one could argue that most of the rights "granted" to Blacks in court decisions like Brown v Board of Ed already existed via the Reconstruction Amendments. The Supreme Court involved itself to apply Constitutional law already existing rather than to create new law. That is not the case with gay marriage law.

The gay marriage issue is more like 1970s feminism in that the people struggling for an expansion of rights can vote and have access to the media to make their case. I also suspect - although I have not followed the gay marriage cases closely - that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is dragged out on both sides of both issues.

I know that the term "marriage" is a big deal for both sides but I am simply unable to understand why. The legal aspects of marriage are those handled by the States; the religious, emotional, symbolic aspects are those handled by churches, synagogues, JPs, whoever. I'd be fine with the States handling "civil marriages" or "civil unions" or "commitment for the sake of getting Social Security" or whatever we can all agree to call it while the current usual suspects handle "marriage" in the sense of a sacred or symbol-laden union.

I do think, however, that TH is absolutely right about the mechanism by which this happens: if Roe v Wade should have taught us all anything, it's that when a court establishes a "right" that is not widely supported, the fight is not over. In most ways, it's just beginning - and getting worse.  

By Anonymous WLindsayWheeler, at Tue Apr 07, 07:27:00 PM:

Wrong on all accounts, Tigerhawk. This is the fallacy that there is something called "Separation of Church and State" and this and other incidents prove "Separation" as a fallacy.

Here, in Michigan, the legalization of marijuana and stem-cell research was done by state-wide referendum. What's the difference between a referendum and representatives in a state house?----Nothing.

What is weird is that "the common people", the vulgar class is voting on Moral issues in which it has NO training, NO education and no perogative to do!!!! This is really f**king amazing! Even if the vulgar class votes one of its own to be a legislator, and many of them were car dealers, doctors, lawyers, business men, what in their makeup shows them to be ethics teachers or teachers on morality? ---Absolutely F**k Nothing.

So what you really have is ignoramuses making decisions in which they have NO expertise, no training, and no right to make! When a King in the Old Order made a decision regarding morals----he went to the Church. Religious authority whether it be Pagan or Christian was always turned to or heeded by secular authority. Secular authority has NO jurisdiction, no authority in religious/spiritual/metaphysical questions.

No legislative body anywhere has the "right" to decide for and against "gay" marriages Like no referendum can decide on stem cell research. Democracy can not decide morality. Only something with religious authority can do that.

Americanism is a heresy. And no Roe v Wade is not a judicial question nor a legislative question but a Religious question. Only Religion answers that question.

The People, the Vulgar class is not God. And having the Vulgar class think they can make those type of questions makes them into a god. Vox populi, Vox dei. My answer---Balderdash!  

By Blogger Roy Lofquist, at Tue Apr 07, 08:08:00 PM:

Dear commoncents,

I happen to be one of the "vulgar" common people, a member of the hoi polloi if you will. It is we who wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal". We also have the second amendment which guards us from such as you.


By Blogger Roy Lofquist, at Tue Apr 07, 08:10:00 PM:

Dear commoncents,

My apologies, sir. I meant to address WLindsayWheeler.


By Blogger radar, at Tue Apr 07, 08:50:00 PM:

Regarding same sex marriage/unions/partnerships, it seems to me that when the judiciary puts forth a constitutional argument (e.g. based on equality under the law via strict/intermediate/rational basis scrutiny) the right complains about an activist judiciary.

When the judiciary defers to the legislature, the left complains about the lack of adhearence to constitutional principles of equality, individual rights, and church/state separation.

I find the argument based on equality under the law most persuasive but also understand that it seems to be in conflict with many people's gut feeling about same sex marriage. So much so that many have attempted to change state constitutions to explicitly allow inequality with regard to marriage.

I find it puzzling that conservatives, who typically are wary of government power and nanny-statetism argue strongly that the scope and nature of 'marriage' should be controlled via the government rather than being left to the dominion of the church.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tue Apr 07, 09:39:00 PM:

From Link:

We can have an America that doesn't undermine tradition but allows individuals to do almost anything they f*cking want. Instead we have a contest between left and right over who get to enforce their vision of group think.

Brown v Board was about state power. When the state is acting it has to treat its citizens equally ... basic fairness.

Until Lawrence v Texas (2003) overturned Bowers v Hardwick (1986), the Supreme Court was upholding sodomy laws that banned gay sex ... but also -- at least in theory -- laws on the books that banned oral sex by married couples. Why a majority of voters -- or Antonin Scalia -- should be able to ban sex acts between consenting adults is beyond me.

You should also be able to grow hemp on your own property and smoke it ... even if grown in the basement with grow lights. I bet Tom Jefferson would agree.

Further, the federal government should have no right to tell a farmer to not produce eggs on his own property for personal consumption on grounds it somehow impacts interstate commerce.

So if you want to have anal sex with your special friend -- of whatever gender -- while sucking on a bong as big as a sewer pipe -- while rubbing egg yolks all over each other ... all home grown of course ... go right ahead. The state should have no right to interfere.

But don't expect all of us to "accept" it. That's part of freedom too. With gay marriage, gays are pushing for "acceptance" ... not just "tolerance."

In today's America, gays can create their own communities and sanctify personal arrangements any way they want. That's a freedom they wouldn't have in most of the world. So let's give them a generation to see where it goes.

What we don't want is an America where a hypothetical devout Christian couple running a bed and breakfast can't turn away the gay "married" couple.

But it's more than that ... Greg Giraldo -- the comedian -- riffs on this. Straight males are getting jealous. At the heart of this -- slobs like me are bio and culturally wired to support their families. It's not an option. It's not a lifestyle choice to try out for awhile. But as Greg says ... except for taking it in the ass, gay guys seem to be getting the better deal these days ... everything for them is an "option" ... no inherited responsibilities.  

By Anonymous WLindsayWheeler, at Tue Apr 07, 09:46:00 PM:

Mr. Lofquist, wrote: 'It is we who wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal".'

It is not "we", Mr. Lofquist. Remember, that a third fought for the revolution, a third sat on their butts and a third fought on the Conservative side---that being the Loyalists. The Loyalists and the people that sat on the sidelines did not collaborate on the Declaration of Independence. So take the "we" out. Don't mix the Loyalists in with that "we".

So there is NO "WE". Thomas Jefferson was no conservative but a populist progressive and a heretical Christian to boot. That statement is not Christian nor of the natural law, nor traditional Western Culture.

It is Masonic teaching--not traditional orthodox Christianity. America is the product of Freemasonry and levelling Protestantism. It is these two groups that taught "egalitarianism". Egalitarianism is not biblical nor of the Natural Law. Nature doesn't teach egalitarianism but Hierarchy.

All men are NOT created equal. That is a fallacy. It is erroneous. It is heresy.

The universe runs on righteousness, Mr. Lofquist, and nature did not fit the vulgar class to decide moral issues. God instituted a Church with Ordained ministers under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Those are HIS ministers---not the hoi polloi. God delegated his authority to Ordained ministers. That is His authority on earth. Not Democracy. Not the Vulgar Class.  

By Blogger Dawnfire82, at Tue Apr 07, 10:01:00 PM:

This smells like a lefty troll...

Kathy, is that you? Have you come back?  

By Anonymous Fnord, at Tue Apr 07, 10:28:00 PM:

Back on the subject and ignoring the stuff regarding wheeler, why shoudl courts be restricted from applying long-extant general principles to newly significant special cases? TH's general inclination toward new things being handled by the legislature seems assume a static document and a static quo, both of which I think are questionable at best.

My own tangent: if the Republican party threw the social conservatives back into the wilderness and stuck to validating ideas based on data and math, it might win a good number of currently-inaccessible converts. Having to defend loving pairs not being able to visit eachother in dire medical straits is just a bad idea to start on, compared to sustainable entitlement programs.  

By Anonymous Tigerhawk Teenager, at Wed Apr 08, 12:06:00 AM:

Lindsay, I'm going to start a theological argument with you. In other words, you're a troll, but I have decided to feed you.

First of all, Christian doctrine is one of the most malleable of all religions. The Bible can be interpreted any way you want, and this is shown by the dual existence of Crusader doctrine and Franciscan doctrine. It is possible to fight for Christianity, and it is possible to promote peace/well being for Christianity and the greater good, whatever it is you believe it to be.

To say that the Vulgar class is less moral than the "Holy" class is the antithesis of all my beliefs. Since I am kind of Quaker, I believe that the light of God is in everyone, and because of this, prejudice of all sorts is wrong. Needless to say, murderers are still evil.

That is why I believe that gay marriage ought to be legalized, because really there's no counter-argument against it that can't be reduced to pure bigotry. I prove so with this:

Standard Rational Argument #1:
"They would marry just to get benefits. I could marry my best friend, for example, for the pure sake of getting government handouts."

Either this means you believe couples should be "screened" before marriage to make sure they marry just for love, or that you don't know that straight couples do that already. If you think such practices are bad, propose a solution, not a problem.

Standard Rational Argument #2:
"Marriage won't mean anything anymore. Anybody can marry whoever they want to. It'll be a slippery slope, too! A man could marry his goat, and we'd allow it!"

Why will your marriage mean less now that somebody else is married? Are you suggesting that with a greater number of people getting married, the lower the "value" of your marriage? If so, doesn't that mean you would rather couples cohabit than marry? Also, are you applying musical elitism to this, i.e., "you liked marriage before it got all POPULAR."?

Standard Rational Argument #3:
"Our government subsidizes marriage with all sorts of benefits because they produce babies, and babies are good. Also, 1950s nuclear families are good, because that's what we were raised in, and we're perfect." (Okay, I very sarcastically portrayed this argument, you got me.)

Well, another big issue for gays is that it is MUCH more difficult to adopt babies for whatever reason, probably because most orphanages are run by devout Christians. This doesn't make sense, because by either making a baby or adopting one, you are bringing another soul into your statistically better educated, healthier, more affluent demographic, and isn't that better than leaving the baby in The Astral Plane or his crappier demographic?

Right. Any more silly questions?  

By Anonymous Tigerhawk Teenager, at Wed Apr 08, 12:23:00 AM:


Basically what you said at 7:27, the Vulgar class should not be allowed to decide what is right and what is wrong because it has "NO training, NO education and no perogative", because they aren't "ethics teachers or teachers on morality."

What you're saying is this: unless you have a Philosophy and Ethics degree or if you're a minister or priest, you have no right to decide what is right and what is wrong.

Given the inherent sinfulness of humanity, priests are no holier than the rest of us, and looking at the Catholic Church as an institution, it's much less holy than the rest of us. Wouldn't you say that given the flawed nature of humankind, what right do any of us have to judge the rest of us?

The answer for you should be that "only God will decide in the end who is good and who is evil." Me, I'm going to continue to believe that the Ten Commandments are basically right give or take a couple, and that as long as you aren't a dick, you'll go to heaven. Morality beyond Universal Human Law is kind of relative.  

By Anonymous WLindsayWheeler, at Wed Apr 08, 12:57:00 AM:

To Tigerhawk teenager.

You want to give me a theology lesson? Yet, you start your lesson with nary a biblical quote. Jesus Christ said to his apostles, "Whatever you bound on earth, is bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth, will be loosed in heaven". Jesus Christ gave his authority to the Apostles ONLY. Next, those Apostles gave their authority to bishops that took over for them; one good example is Titus that St. Paul left on Crete.

One of the earliest Church Fathers, St. Irenaus, taught that the Bishop holds the fullness of the teaching authority.

This is the Apostolic Church. It has authority from God, "To Command and Teach". The Hoi polloi did not receive this authority.

I'm sorry, but Christianity is not malleable there are seven ecumenical councils that define with clarity Christian teaching and practice and anathemize those that practice or hold heterodox beliefs and practices. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church both adhere and witness to this patrimony.

It seems that you are a Protestant, teenager. One thing. The Apostolic Churches run on Holy Tradition which the Bible is just one part of that Tradition and NO it is not up to personal interpretation. The authority to teach is the Bishop which thru the sacrament of ordination receives grace to perform his mission.

Your understanding of Christianity is a product of rebellion hatched in the 1500s and is not Apostolic--meaning from the Apostles. So NO, Christianity is not malleable.

Truth is One Thing. Cicero said, "Truth is not one thing in Athens and another in Rome, it is not one thing yesterday and another thing tomorrow". Truth is the same whether it be the 1st century or the 20th century and Christianity does not change.

You miss my point, teenager. The Vulgar class may or may not be moral that is not the point of contention. Read carefully my posts. The Vulgar class does not have the authority. Authority is delegated, teenager. Authority is from on High. Given and handed out. It is delegated by God to his appointed ministers. It is an office.

An Ecumenical Council already decided against your points. Authority does not rest on "Holy" or who is more holy than someone else. It would be nice if the authority was holy but "holy" doesn't determine authority. You get some things mixed up. Peter was not holy neither was King David but they still had authority.

And my dear sir, "being bigoted" or not is not the basis of morality or ethics. Your use of the word "bigot" by you shows evidence that your Quakerism is nothing more than Cultural Marxism. You sound like a marxist and not a Christian. Google "Cultural Marxism".  

By Anonymous WLindsayWheele, at Wed Apr 08, 01:15:00 AM:

""""Given the inherent sinfulness of humanity, priests are no holier than the rest of us, and looking at the Catholic Church as an institution, it's much less holy than the rest of us. Wouldn't you say that given the flawed nature of humankind, what right do any of us have to judge the rest of us?""""

The Catholic Church has its foibles but you forget a major piece of theology, teenager. I thought you were going to teach me theology but it seems that you have no theology whatsoever.

Is not the Church the Body of Christ? Does not Jesus Christ reside in the Church? Does not the Holy Spirit guide the Church?

It would be nice that holiness in conduct would follow but sometimes it doesn't. That does not undermine the Authority of the Church. When you attack the Church---you attack Jesus Christ himself. You are calling Jesus Christ a liar. Jesus Christ said, "The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church". And you mean to tell me it does?

2000 years of Church teaching, practice and live is not overturned by a few sordid individuals. Truth remains. The Church lives on. "I believe in One, Holy, Catholic Apostolic Church". The Church is One. The Church is 'Holy' because it has divine origins. The Church is 'catholic' universal and the Church is A-P-O-S-T-O-L-I-C meaning 'from the apostles'. No Protestant Church can claim those four attributes of One, Holy, Catholic, or Apostolic. You're conception of Christianity is way off base and is not in any way traditional or orthodox and therefore outside Christendom and the Old Order. I uphold the Old Order. America is a Novus Ordo. Look at the back of the one dollar bill. It is a Masonic saying. You preach a Novus Ordo of man; I uphold the Old Order; the same teachings and practices of 1st century Christianity in line with the Natural Law of the Greco-Roman tradition.  

By Anonymous Robert, at Wed Apr 08, 06:19:00 AM:

Can we not keep the discussion rather more "earth bound?" One can joust about "morality" under God from now, dare one say it, until "eternity." And everyone may cite scripture as one pleases.

What's fundamentally disturbing in its own way, though, is the recent abrupt decision SOMEONE made that somehow we can re-define "marriage" as possibly existing between two people of the same sex.

I know we are "beyond" this bigotry even to deign to consider this. Still, have we actually wondered precisely when we made that definition leap and why? "Marriage" for all time up until at some point in the last few years, as we all well-know, has been inarguably between a man and a woman.

Somehow that inconvenient point seems now regularly papered over in favor of a red herring assertion that since the earth spins, there is therefore no such thing as "night" because somewhere, someplace, it's "day."

Fine, if we are determined to avoid noticing the obvious right in front of our noses, so be it. And not noticing either how, even in "same sex" relationships, there is also a "male" and a "female"? Don't anyone dare so much as mention that as well.

But if we now (through our august representatives) choose to start "voting" to redefine "marriage" as possibly existing between other than a man and a woman, unrelated by close blood, of majority age, are we really prepared for where we are headed next?

We are lifting a lid off a can of huge worms. For if the argument is about "marriage" being "the right" to marry whomever we all wish to, what about the right to engage in polygamy? (Which, as we know, we outlawed when we unjustifiably took away "the right" to be married to more than one person simultaneously.) How about "the right" of a gay man to marry his gay biological brother? To say nothing of heterosexual incest? (Why can't one marry one's brother or sister? Offspring genetic issues? So what, what's that got to do with whom one "loves" and wishes to "marry," right?)

And how about the age of consent? Should we vote to get rid of that too? For is it not "discriminatory" to prevent someone who wants to marry a 12 year old from doing so? And, remember, a 12 year old can face trial for murder, so why, under the law, can't that same "child" make a choice about "marriage"? Preventing such, is that not an infringement of that child's "rights" as well?

Oh, none of that will ever happen? And almost no one thirty years ago would have ever thought we'd be having THIS conversation. State legislatures are likely soon to find themselves very busy. To say nothing of the courts.

There should be no question of being able to, under the law, designate a "legal partner" to whom one can treat as a "spouse." Legal disgraces such as that which arose here in Britain, over the fact that never married sisters who dwelled together all their lives will see the survivor likely lose the family home on the death of one or the other, due to inheritance tax law, have to be stopped. Yet had they been "lesbian partners" they would have been just fine.

But if the base assertion underlying all this is that all should be able to "marry" any other person one wants, because our "rights" are somehow "violated" if we cannot, then there is no arguable line to be defensibly legally drawn anywhere as to whom one cannot marry. If there could be, I don't see it. "Hello. Yes, it's nice to meet you, too. May I introduce you to my husbandgrandson."  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wed Apr 08, 10:44:00 AM:

If the issue is "should gay people marry", you can argue.

What is beyond argument is that, in America, our chosen way of addressing these issues is in the legislature and not the courts. If the politicians of the legislature get it "wrong", however you define that word in this relative instance, you can vote for someone else in the next election who will vote your way. Relying on courts to effect social change is a vile, destructive habit. I applaud Vermont for their effort, and TH too for pointing out this important point.

Those of you who believe gay marriage should not be permitted should be most especially grateful to Vermont for doing this the right way, and you should have the courage to say so. We can't vote out most judges, but we can legislators.  

By Blogger Elise, at Wed Apr 08, 02:36:00 PM:

Robert, I think your slippery slope argument is much, much more of an issue if the courts decide gay marriage than if the voters do. If we get to a point where a majority of voters want to legalize polygamy (more likely just polygyny) or incestuous marriage or pedophile marriage or - with a nod to TH Teen - bestial marriage, society will be in more trouble than anyone could fix. The nice thing about the democratic process is that we don't need lines "to be defensibly legally drawn". The law is legally what the voters and their elected representatives say it is even if what they say it is seems quite illogical.

On the other hand, it is easy for me to believe that once the courts get their sticky little fingers into this issue, the interplay of Equal Protection and religious protection could lead quite readily to both polygyny and child marriage since they will be claimed as key components of major religions (plural).

Having to defend loving pairs not being able to visit each other in dire medical straits

I have never understood this argument. My now husband and I lived together for several years before marrying. I had both a Medical Power of Attorney and a general Durable PofA that meant when he spoke, he spoke as if he were me (or I). I can believe there are families cruel enough to try to keep gay couples separated in medical crises and I can believe there are hospitals stupid enough or bureaucratic enough to go along but I can't imagine the hospital's idiocy would survive more than 2 or 3 lawsuits.

TH Teen, you don't really address your own argument #2 since you speak only to the dilution of the meaning of marriage part of it and not the goat part of it. "Goat" is, of course, a straw man but the concerns about polygamy, for example, need to be addressed reasonably. In general, I think you'll find that people are more likely to be persuaded if you don't call them "bigoted" and "silly". This is not so much of an issue for you now since you are aligned with your demographic on issues like abortion and gay marriage but it may be more important later on in life. (Take a look at this post by Jane Galt for another way of thinking about those who oppose gay marriage.)

What we don't want is an America where a hypothetical devout Christian couple running a bed and breakfast can't turn away the gay "married" couple.

Actually, I'd love that America. I'd also be fine with a devoutly religious adoption agency turning them away. These are private establishments making private decisions. To me, the argument for gay marriage involves not having the government making these types of decisions with regard to things like Social Security, inheritance, and children.

Finally, Scalia did not ban sex acts between consenting adults. A state legislature did and he declined to overrule them. I'm with Althouse on this one. There are few things more terrifying than tossing aside the rule of law in a democratic society in order to have judges whose ideas we "like" make decisions for other people's own good because - sure as the sun rises in the East - tomorrow there will be judges whose ideas I don't like making decisions for my own good.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wed Apr 08, 03:50:00 PM:

Freemasons? Americanism? The Tradition? It looks to me, Tigerhawk Teenager, that you're dealing with a Traditionalist Catholic. The Holy Father himself usually can't bring these guys in line, so I'd just leave him alone with his House of Bourbon coloring book.  

By Anonymous WLindsayWheeler, at Wed Apr 08, 07:03:00 PM:

Fr. Seraphim Rose, an Eastern Orthodox Traditionalist priest, wrote a great book on Nihilism. One facet of Nihilism is the Destruction of the Old Order:

[quote]""The destruction of the Old Order, however, and the organization of the "new earth" are not the only items in the historical program of Nihilism; they are not, perhaps, even its most important items.""[/quote]

And again he points out the difference between the Old Order and the Novus Ordo; to wit: (even though he writes about Orthodox Christian government, the same can be said as well about Roman Catholic government)

[quote]"""In the Christian order politics too was founded upon absolute truth. We have already seen, in the preceding chapter, that the principal providential form government took in union with Christian Truth was the Orthodox Christian Empire, wherein sovereignty was vested in a Monarch, and authority proceeded from him downwards through a hierarchical social structure. We shall see in the next chapter, on the other hand, how a politics that rejects Christian Truth must acknowledge "the people" as sovereign and understand authority as proceeding from below upwards, in a formally "egalitarian" society. It is clear that one is the perfect inversion of the other; for they are opposed in their conceptions both of the source and of the end of government. Orthodox Christian Monarchy is government divinely established, and directed, ultimately, to the other world, government with the teaching of Christian Truth and the salvation of souls as its profoundest purpose; Nihilist rule--whose most fitting name, as we shall see, is Anarchy---is government established by men, and directed solely to this world, government which has no higher aim than earthly happiness. """[/quote]

The destruction of the Old Order is nihilism. And this goes to the heart of the Original Post---that the Vulgar class in either judicial or legislative institutions can rewrite the Moral Law. That is the Nihilist program. America is a nihilist conception.

You can find his book online Nihilism, the Root of Revolution in the Modern Age

If you are going to understand the modern world, you need to read that book and understand the sophistry behind modern ideologies and Americanism.  

By Anonymous WLindsayWheeler, at Wed Apr 08, 07:26:00 PM:

Western Culture and Civilization started with the Ancient Greeks, more specifically, the Doric Greeks. Plutarch, a priest at their temple at Delphi, records their sentiments and understanding man's place in the cosmos.

[quote]"""We are not in the world in order to give the laws, but...in order to obey the commands of the gods.""[/quote]

That is the essence of Western Culture. God gives the Laws, we obey. You can't go into nature and do what you please. No farmer does what he pleases, but must obey the Laws of Nature called the Natural Law. The whole Cosmos obeys this Natural law. You can not more change that, than you can change the color of your skin.

You can't change the Moral Law to fit the ideology of egalitarianism. It is God who sets the agenda---not man. If you would be wise, it is better to follow Plutarch's reflection.

Instead of reading books, attempt to live in nature. Learn to live in nature. If you attempt to change her laws---she kills you. The Rule of Law is learned in nature---not by reading a book. You can no more change the moral law than a farmer can change the Natural Law. Both are iron bound.

America is dead and dying. Communist Russia lasted only 80 years. Why? The Soviet Union was nihilist. The French Revolution was nihilist. How many French Republics have there been? Five. Nihilism always commits suicide and America is following the path of nihilism.

"We are not in the world in order to give the laws, but...in order to obey the commands of the gods"  

By Anonymous Tigerhawk Teenager, at Thu Apr 09, 12:30:00 AM:

Please, spare me. This is just mental masturbation for you. Plus, you're confusing hedonism with nihilism.

And well, technically, the "Vulgar class" isn't rewriting God's Truth or title-case Moral Law, they're rewriting what THEY consider to be wrong into something they think is good. Why do you care if it turns out they're wrong? They'll burn in hell, anyway. If they're right, though, it casts doubt on everything you believe in, and that scares you.

I bet you've never asked youself: "what if I'm wrong?" before in your life, because if you have, then you wouldn't be quite this irrational and stubborn.

Of course, there is the chance you're just screwing with me and everyone else on this blog and you're laughing with derision at the idea that you got lots of people that you don't know angry on the Internet (which is SOOO hard to do). If you post arrogant bullshit again, I'm going to delete it, because either you're intentionally being an ass, or you're just an idiotic, irrational, insane hillbilly.  

By Anonymous WLindsayWheeler, at Thu Apr 09, 06:01:00 PM:

I don't play games. Jesus said, "Let your 'yes' be 'yes' and your 'no' be 'no', so as a Christian we are not to use false language. I never use false language. And secondly, why would I be using my real name, if I was playing jokes? And after quoting a saintly Orthodox priest in which my previous quotes exactly matches his and then you call me an ignorant hillbilly, you are seriously mistaken.

No one likes the Truth. And your response of hate is exactly the attitude that put Socrates and Jesus to death. You can't engage the conservation and so you call an older man an "hillbilly"? You don't like the truth and so you need to shoot the messenger?

You don't like the critique of America? Tough gazzots. Wake up and smell the coffee. I don't live a lie and don't want to live a lie and I finally realized that everything that I was taught is a lie. My Christian duty is to stand up for the Truth and it seems you hate Truth.

If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen----don't enter. If you can't engage and hear, then, don't start. You don't like what I have to say, fine, but because you can't defend your position, and I can defend mine, doesn't make me a hillbilly.  

By Blogger Aegon01, at Thu Apr 09, 11:19:00 PM:

I tried to delete your comment, but Blogger was being weird.

Anyway, we've went far off topic. You're arrogant and illogical.

You're arrogant because you think you're in possession of the one and only Truth, in title-case. Nobody but the Gods or God Himself actually knows the Truth. Humanity has several working theories on what the Truth might be, and to claim that yours is accurate or mostly accurate is absurd, not because it's necessarily UNTRUE, but because of the extremely high probability that someone else's is more true.

You're illogical because you try to prove your infallibility with material from within, which just doesn't work. You can't prove philosophy or religion using other parts of it. You can't just say, for a hypothetical example, "this is the truth because Jesus allegedly said it" and then prove it with another statement from Christian thought. Instead of inventing new postulates, how about some logical theorems, eh? Or is the application of human reason to such a fragile artifact of the Middle Ages so damaging to the idea that it disintegrates immediately?

There's nothing I am trying to prove, other than the idea that life is a bit more complicated than good and evil or black and white, precisely because we still disagree about what might please or displease an omnipotent, omniscient, INVISIBLE man who might not even care one way or the other what such insignificant specks such as us choose to do.  

Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?