Tag Archives: Gay Rights

Where The Right To Freely Associate Ends

Liberty

In light of the recent “Freedom of Religion” laws being passed I have strongly advocated for the fact that we, as free and sovereign individuals, are free to associate, or not, with whomever we want.  And for how ever long we want.

In fact I have largely gone further than these laws and have claimed that we don’t have to invoke some ‘Freedom of Religion’ nonsense, we simply should be allowed to decide with whom we do business.

Where this ends is at [least] two places:

1.  When you are a government

2.  When you are an employee of a firm that extends association

First the second – consider a grocery store selling reasonable and common products hires you to check customers out in line.   You, as an employee, are not at liberty to both KEEP your job and refuse to service pork.

Second the first – As a government, you are not free to restrict access to public goods based on your discretion.

Senate leader Phil Berger filed a bill Wednesday morning that would allow magistrates to opt-out of same-sex weddings and allow assistant and deputy registers of deeds to not issue licenses based on “sincerely held religious objections.”

“I had, in my county, a situation where a magistrate felt like he had to resign in order to honor his religious beliefs,” Berger said, defending the bill. “A lot of folks, including myself, feel that shouldn’t be the case and that extending the rights of some should not infringe on the long held beliefs of others.”

The good Mr. Berger is wrong here; the magistrate is free to withdraw from performing this service, but he then disqualifies from holding office or his job.

 

Liberty – Indiana – Discrimination

Freedom of Religion

There has been much ado over the recent bill signed into law in Indiana.  It would appear that the good state has legislated that a business may discriminate based on the owner’s religious bias.  The immediate thought comes to mind of the baker unwilling to create a wedding cake for a gay couple.

My immediate thought is that the law is silly.  There is no need to spell out and create a special exception for religious freedom.  After all, we are all free people and, as such, are free to associate with whomever we please.

But I must admit to the shock I am seeing from people over this bill.  As if it was news that we discriminate in our individual lives.

We discriminate on where we live, where we send our kids to school, who we hire as a babysitter.  Shit, we discriminate on who we date.  But when it comes to who we sell a cake too….back up!

We are a free people.  Free to do as we like with whom we like; as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others.  And no person has a right to a wedding cake.

Period.

Governor Brewer – Veto That Bill! *

Jan Brewer

Arizona SB 1062 – Religious Freedom

You have to be living under a rock if you haven’t heard of the bill that passed the state legislator in Arizona.  SB 1062 would allow businesses to refuse services to gay and lesbian customers based on their religious faith.

I think that Governor Brewer should veto this law because it singles out people who might be homosexual in an unfair manner.

Continue reading

More On Gay Marriage

Gay Rights

I was listening to Diane Rehm this morning, I just can’t stomach Glen Beck.  The topic was gay marriage and her panel consisted a mix of supporters and opponents to laws being passed around the country in support of equal rights.

A caller called in from Michigan and spoke of her personal experience.  Her children have several friends who have 1 or more gay parents.  As often occurs, the parents of children friends begin to become friends.  Soon the families were having dinner here and there, the kids would have sleepovers and all the normal things that happen with kids.

Good story.

But then she went on to explain that as a Christian she does feel that marriage is between one man and one woman – and therefore doesn’t support gay marriage.  Further she went on – whenever she mentions her stance in company, at least someone will claim she’s a bigot and a hater.

She wanted to hear advice on how to handle her dilemma.

My response would be simple and straightforward.

“Lady, do you believe it is a sin to take the name of the Lord in vain?”

She’ll answer, “Why yes, of course it is.”

“Well, do you think that we should pass a law making that illegal?  Further, just because you might think that such language is a sin, do you think that people who DO use such language are going to hell?  Or, further – do you hate them?”

Look, I am fully supportive of the legal right of free people to live how they want to.  When it comes down to “Is it a sin?”

Well, I don’t really know or care.  There are a TON of things that I DO think are sins and people all over creation have no issue with them.

  • Divorce
  • Premarital sex
  • Lying

Anyway – this whole debate seems to simple to resolve.  You can still think a thing is “wrong” and yet have it be legal.

Sheesh.

Liberal Activists – Class Act

Horses Ass

I’ve long been a supporter of gay rights.  The contract between two individuals should be sex-blind to the state.  Two men, a woman and a man or two woman, no matter.

And I’ve been a long time opponent of the liberal left.  These people, the extreme left, have no moral compass, no rule and guide of faith that gives them direction in how to function in society.

The following is an interesting composite of my experience.  Some of my most favorite times were in Seattle.  I learned a ton while there.  And I’m sympathetic to the pro-gay movement.  Yet I resist the methods used by the left.  Abuse, assault and crime in the highest order.

This is why I combat the left:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCfvkPBrDh8

That fat bastard is seen as a hero to the cause in his circle.  To anyone with even a minimum of manners he’s a brute, a bully and a criminal better served in prison than left alone in decent society.

Such is our militant liberal left.

Gay Marriage And States Rights

Gay Marriage

Watching the story surrounding the arguments before the Supreme Court is fascinating.  I love hearing the back and forth not only among the partisans but the “experts” as well.

Some thoughts.

I love President Obama being called out:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and some of the other more conservative justices expressed irritation that the case was before them at all and said President Obama’s stance – to enforce the law but not defend it – contradicted itself.

“I don’t see why he doesn’t have the courage of his convictions” and not enforce the law if he thinks it is unconstitutional, the chief justice said.

This goes to the decision by the President that the law was unconstitutional and that his Justice Department wouldn’t defend the law in court.  However, Obama is still enforcing the law and when the law was struck down by a lower court, Obama appealed it to the Supreme Court.

 Then, I never would have thought I’d see the day when a liberal Justice would appeal to the concept of state’s rights:

“It’s not as though there’s this little federal sphere … you’d be really diminishing what the state has said is marriage,” Ginsburg said.

I think that if Ginsburg rules DOMA unconstitutional because of state’s rights, the left is going to have a hard time fighting state efforts to ban gay marriage.

As for me, I think that gay marriage is protected federally in the same way that interracial marriage is protected federally.

North Carolina – Gay Marriage

Gay Rights

Marriage.  I think the word has two different meanings.  One speaks to the personal and spiritual belief in the institution.  The other is nothing more than a contract between two individuals as recognized by the state.

Independent of one’s view of the spiritual meaning of the act of marriage, it is clear to me that the institution as recognized by the sate should view the union only as a contract; independent of religion or sex.

To that end, a church in North Carolina, after seeing the state vote in favor of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage by 61% of the vote, has decided that it will no longer perform marriage services for anyone until gay marriage is recognized by the state of North Carolina.

John Hinton/Winston-Salem Journal

Green Street United Methodist Church in Winston-Salem says it won’t conduct marriages for heterosexual couples until United Methodist pastors are allowed to officiate at marriages for same-sex couples.

The church’s 18-member leadership council is asking pastors to conduct relationship blessings rather than marriage ceremonies in the sanctuary until the United Methodist Church changes its policies, according to a statement by Equality NC, a statewide organization working to secure equal rights and justice for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender residents.

And the church isn’t just saying that they view the state recognize same sex marriages as legitimate contracts, rather they are going a step further:

In a statement on its website, church officials declared that committed same-sex relationships are “no less sacred” as heterosexual unions.

Good for them!

Personal Conviction

Rob Portman

At then end of the day, in today’s political atmosphere we’ve gotta take what we can get.  And, when the taking is the right thing from the get go, perhaps even the better.  But it would have been nice if we could have come to this conclusion without having to experience what love means first had:

CINCINNATI –  Republican U.S. Sen. Rob Portman said Thursday that he now supports gay marriage because one of his sons is gay.

Ohio’s junior senator made the disclosure during an interview in Washington, The Cincinnati Enquirer reported.

“It’s a change of heart from the position of a father,” he told three reporters during the 45-minute session in his office. “I think we should be allowing gay couples the joy and stability of marriage.”

I’m not so sure that this signals a tipping point in the GOP, after all, Cheney supports gay marriage, but I could be wrong; this could be the beginning of the thaw.

If only Mr. Portman could have arrived at this conclusion under different circumstances.

Liberty And Faith

Pope Francis

I should note that I am not Catholic.  Like all good upper Europeans I am Lutheran, born and bred for generations.  In fact, it was Martin Luther that broke from the Catholic Church all those years ago when he nailed his issues to the church doors.

That being said, read on.

Not hours after being elected to head the Catholic Church, being the first Latino Pope and the first Pope to be elected from the Americas, the Facebook is aflutter with his views on homosexuality:

Let’s not be naive, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.

First I should point out there there was zero -NONE- hope that the new Pope would change course on the Catholic view of homosexuality.  Whatever your view  of homosexuality, folks who are gay or the rights of gay people in a government, to think that the Pope would come out and change direction is a totally pie in the sky hope or expectation.

That being said, I have no issue with people who view the issue of homosexuality as a binary proposition and chose to leave the church over their view.

But this gets to the heart of the matter.

In my understanding of Christianity as a whole, and certainly my personal belief, is that all of humanity is born into sin and cannot escape  our condition as imperfect people.  That our acceptance into heaven, and here I break with Catholics, is based on the Mercy of the Divine and not the merit of the creature.  In the same way I love my new born child, who has no cognitive ability to love at that moment, I accept that my inability to love my Creator in no way affects His love for me.

Gay or straight.

My issue with people who take the position that homosexuality is a sin isn’t so much with their verdict, my personal take is that I have no earthly idea what the Almighty will consider, but with their treatment of the individual.  In the same way that we love, tolerate and pray for all people, I would expect that the church an its followers would extend the same love and compassion to members who might be gay or who might in other ways and manners exhibit sinful behavior.

Lastly, I would like to add that being Catholic is a personal choice.  Their beliefs and tenants are their own.  I may not agree with every group of people in their own private missions, but I don’t begrudge them for having them.

On Liberals, Tolerance, Speech and Hate

Liberty can be messy.  But God forbid we would have it any other way, an excerpt from Jack Chambless:

As usual, liberals tell us that we must be tolerant – even thought we have a right to be intolerant.  Liberals tell us that we should have freedom of speech.  But notice, when someone uses their freedom to speak in such a way that offends liberal theology (and there is a theological element to modern liberalism), they cry out that they have been victims of hate-speech or worse.

The true test of your support of Liberty is if you can accept someone else’ opinion.