The Supreme Court Quietly Gave In To Gay Marriage:

[Fionn mac Cumh]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I didn't say only worry about morality. Neither did I insinuate we shouldn't worry about the economy, but I believe values should be placed in the front. Do you think that we should nationally legalize prostitution (I don't know it may be legal in some places) even though it might be a way that we could produce jobs and help strengthen the economy? I hope not. What about nationally legalizing cocaine or herroine? That would help strengthen our economy wouldn't it.

Having strong moral values will in most times help the economy.

Well here it is, I am a libertarian politically and a christian secondly. I believe both prostitution and drugs should be legalized? Why? I want the govt out of my life as much as possible. I believe the govt has ZERO right to tell me what I can put into my own body. I also believe that if someone wants to pay me for my "TIME", the govt should have no right to make it illegal. I guess what I am saying is, I dont look to anything other than the word of GOD to set/enforce my morality. Why? Cause at the end of the day, if the govt can tell us what to consume, who to marry, ect.... that isnt a free society. Obviously I am talking about consensual adults of course. I am not saying we should be foot loose and free to rape and mess around with young kids.

[Fionn mac Cumh]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Jesting should be funny and the comment was not. I would consider being funny at someone else's expense as bullying. And no that is not alright!

Obviously it struck a nerve. What was the point of the interracial marriage comment?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I didn't say only worry about morality. Neither did I insinuate we shouldn't worry about the economy, but I believe values should be placed in the front. Do you think that we should nationally legalize prostitution (I don't know it may be legal in some places) even though it might be a way that we could produce jobs and help strengthen the economy? I hope not. What about nationally legalizing cocaine or herroine? That would help strengthen our economy wouldn't it.

Having strong moral values will in most times help the economy.

Prostitution is legal in several places such as what we see in the state of Nevada.

We are a Constitutional Republic. Constitutionally, prostitution is a state level issue. If states wish to legalize it to some extent, that is a matter for individual states to decide.

Many would argue that our legal system should push for moral values and more religious involvement in the legislation process. But that presents a problem. If government isn't "secularized" what do we do when a sizeable body of constituents with religious moral values other than our own begin involving themselves in our legislative process? For example, Islam is the fastest growing religion in America. If we open the door for religious ideologies to drive social policy, we've opened the door for a future generation of Islamists to begin bringing Sharia law into our system. The time to prevent this is NOW... BEFORE it becomes a problem. How do we prevent this? By keeping the government "secular". By ensuring that the system is designed to recognize and protect the liberties of all people regardless of race, gender, religion, political affiliation, or sexual orientation. Law should be predicated upon the protection of the life, liberty, and property of every citizen. If we don't protect the notion of "liberty and justice for all"... we will face what Europe is now facing with regards to the advancement of Islamic law in their systems.

Now, what does this mean?

This means that we have to respect the liberty of every citizen to live in any manner they choose unless it endangers the life, liberty, or property of another. If we don't do this... we will remain divided. And divided we will fall. We can be unified on the principle of liberty. I don't support gay marriage. However, I firmly believe in human liberty. I believe that human liberty is sacred... even if people desire to use their liberty to commit sin. I would never challenge the right to free speech, the free press, or free expression on the grounds of the very moral cause of trying to eliminate XXX-adult entertainment. Why? Because once these freedoms are curtailed for this reason, they will be curtailed for another and then another and then another. Before you know it... anyone can be silenced depending on who is in charge of legislation and the court system.

We have to decide. Do we want a government to adopt and impose socio-religious moral policies (knowing that another group might take the helm) or do we stand solidly on the principle of individual liberty???

If you want America to remain free... defend the principle of individual liberty. Even the liberties of those you might seriously disagree with. There's a quote that expresses this concept quite well...

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. ~ Martin Niemöller (1892–1984). A prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.

The Declaration of Independence states...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So, as our American culture has evolved... we see people seeking many different things as it relates to their lives, their liberties, and their happiness. Unless these things infringe on the right to life, liberty, and property of another... there is really no real legal grounds to prohibit it.

One is either a defender and friend to human liberty or they are not. We talk a lot about the "cost of liberty" and how "freedom isn't free". One of the costs of liberty is having to accept and tolerate the choices of others that we strongly disagree with. But too many believe that the GOVERNMENT should be either a Nanny State to provide welfare... or a Big Brother State to regulate behavior. Both extremes are alien to the liberty our Founding Fathers envisioned.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Fionn mac Cumh

Well here it is, I am a libertarian politically and a christian secondly. I believe both prostitution and drugs should be legalized? Why? I want the govt out of my life as much as possible. I believe the govt has ZERO right to tell me what I can put into my own body. I also believe that if someone wants to pay me for my "TIME", the govt should have no right to make it illegal. I guess what I am saying is, I dont look to anything other than the word of GOD to set/enforce my morality. Why? Cause at the end of the day, if the govt can tell us what to consume, who to marry, ect.... that isnt a free society. Obviously I am talking about consensual adults of course. I am not saying we should be foot loose and free to rape and mess around with young kids.

Most don't really understand what liberty is. They've lived their lives enjoying their own liberties so much... they don't even realize that it's possible to infringe on the liberties of others or to empower government to take all of our liberties.

Left-Wing Liberals want a Nanny State that regulates how wealth is distributed and provides welfare in some degree to everyone.

Right-Wing Conservatives want a Big Brother State to regulate everyone's private behaviors and choices.

Both are the right and left hands of tyranny. And people don't see it. Together, both sides are destroying our Republic. We have to put a leash on all this governmental regulation and pull back the jaws of government before we wake up and find that we've created a monstrosity that endangers the freedoms of every single American citizen.

I can accept a person's right to marry whomever they choose... without agreeing with who they might choose to marry. I don't feel the need to arm the GOVERNMENT with the authority to regulate such personal decisions and private associations.

[Aquila]

For those that believe that GOVERNMENT should morally regulate marriage...

Do you believe that the GOVERNMENT should stop issuing marriage licenses to couples who are marrying into a second marriage? The Catholic Church and many Protestant churches interpret Scripture's teaching on remarriage to mean that any second marriage is adultery. Do we prohibit people from legally seeking a second marriage to establish a moral society and to protect the integrity of marriage???

Yes or no???

I'm interested in hearing some of your responses.

[Fionn mac Cumh]

I am very curious as to how people will respond Aquila. Divorce is rampant among straight couples. Why no outrage over that? Why no cry to protect the sanctity of marriage over that?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Fionn mac Cumh

I am very curious as to how people will respond Aquila. Divorce is rampant among straight couples. Why no outrage over that? Why no cry to protect the sanctity of marriage over that?

Those who would use GOVERNMENT to enforce their values always provide very sound philosophical reasons as to why it might be necessary. However, when actual implementation of said values is presented, the position falls like a house of cards. When specifics are discussed they begin squabbling over whose morality will be imposed and to what degree. For example, do we prohibit remarriage and deny marriage licenses to divorced individuals as Catholic and many Protestant values would require? Or do we allow remarriage only if the previous divorce was on the grounds of adultery? How do we prove adultery upon denial and lack of evidence? Do we consider the Pauline Privilege of abandonment? How do we prove the spouse was an unbeliever if they profess to be a believer? Or do we ignore these values and single some other social sin to regulate while leaving this one (which affects far more people) unaddressed?

After a while... it gets real stupid. Government isn't equipped to be a good Big Brother that regulates our private choices unless those choices specifically endanger the life, liberty, or property of another. Government is best when it governs least and protects and advances human liberty.

[Aquila]

I believe that 9 out of 10 times... GOVERNMENT is the problem... not the answer.

[Fionn mac Cumh]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Those who would use GOVERNMENT to enforce their values always provide very sound philosophical reasons as to why it might be necessary. However, when actual implementation of said values is presented, the position falls like a house of cards. When specifics are discussed they begin squabbling over whose morality will be imposed and to what degree. For example, do we prohibit remarriage and deny marriage licenses to divorced individuals as Catholic and many Protestant values would require? Or do we allow remarriage only if the previous divorce was on the grounds of adultery? How do we prove adultery upon denial and lack of evidence? Do we consider the Pauline Privilege of abandonment? How do we prove the spouse was an unbeliever if they profess to be a believer? Or do we ignore these values and single some other social sin to regulate while leaving this one (which affects far more people) unaddressed?

After a while... it gets real stupid. Government isn't equipped to be a good Big Brother that regulates our private choices unless those choices specifically endanger the life, liberty, or property of another. Government is best when it governs least and protects and advances human liberty.

This should be the end of it. But my guess is it wont be. Also, lets say we start enforcing Christian values on all, where do we stop? Should we also let the govt enforce Islamic beliefs? We are a nation of no religion. Its funny how small govt constitution thumpers forget that the minute it comes to same sex marriage.

[good samaritan]

How is gay marriages going to affect the liberty of christian preachers who refuse to perform a gay marriage. What is going to happen if someone walks in during a church service while I am teaching against the sin of homosexuality. How is that going to affect my liberty. By giving liberty to one you are really taking it away from another. What about all the christian justice of the peace officers who have to sign their name authorizing a gay marriage? You think when they keep going to their boss and saying I can't do this do you think it is going to affect their employment.

Don't keep christian values out of the government keep government out of christian values. I don't hate homosexuals, but I don't want to make it easier for them to infringe on my values and my family. When schools teach about reproduction and sex ed. how is that going to go when we equate homo and hetero unions? Are my children going to have listen to how it is normal to be gay in school?