Saturday, December 17, 2005

Who's right on Gay Marriage?

Say the words gay marriage and everybody has an opinion. Liberals and dippers see it is a human rights issue and conservatives model it as democratic problem. But in truth both are wrong as gay marriage, as usual, has been miscategorized by both sides of the political elite.

Liberals claim that the gay marriage is a question of human rights-- that denying gay people access to a sanctioned marriage is in effect denying them their rights to exist as free entities. This is wrong. For being gay to be synonymous with a lack of fundamental rights then there would have to be examples of state coercion against their basic freedoms of which there is not . Gay people are free to associate with, how and who they want and they state is powerless to say otherwise. Gay people are free to live and work and learn where they want without interference. Gay people are free from being censored in this country. They are free to speak, publish, debate and express what they want in this country. Granting marriage to the gay community is not an issue of the limitation of the basic fundamental rights of homosexuals is any way.

Conservatives on the other hand see gay marriage as a democratic issue which is equally naïve. They believe that there should be debate and then a vote held-- whether the vote is held in the House of Commons or it is a national referendum is unimportant. More importantly though just as the individual’s right to his basic freedoms-- association, movement and expression-- should never be limited by the arbitrary whims of government neither should they be limited by the arbitrary whims of the majority. For example if vegetarians constituted the majority-- something which may happen someday-- should they have the right to make meat consumption illegal? Should an underachieving majority have the right confiscate the earned wealth of their most virtuous producers-- see socialism. No to both of these things. The doctrine of individual rights declares that man should be equally free from the arbitrary coercion of government and the public alike.

Now the Liberals are close when they recognize gay marriage as a rights issue, but wrong when they think it is a gay right’s issue. Traditionally marriage is a privilege that is bestowed by the church and the church has the right to grant or deny that privilege to whomever they want. Complicating the issue is the state‘s involvement in a religious or social issue. But the state is only acknowledging the religious foundation not determining it. When they state seeks to alter the definition they are in fact violating the church’s fundamental right to be free and self determining. The state has no legal right to the definition of marriage and any attempt to control or coerce the definition from the church is statist and immoral. Gay marriage is in fact a human right’s issue for the religious community.

The government should recognize gay unions on equal status as married couple (personally I believe there should be no state sponsored advantage to either, but since there is it should equal). Gay communities should be free to call the union whatever they want and essentially marriage would be open to them if the church granted them the right to use the term “marriage” but until that time there should be no such thing as gay marriage.

As a child that my father always told me that if you see a large crowd of people moving one way then it is probably best to start moving in the other direction.

9 Comments:

At 1:34 PM, Blogger ferrethouse said...

Fourth question: Is the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman constitutional?

Supreme Court's answer: The Court exercises its discretion not to answer this question.

END OF STORY. THE COURT DID NOT SAY THAT THE TRADITIONAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE WAS UNCONTITUTIONAL!!!

 
At 2:12 PM, Blogger Darek/Darciu/Dariusz said...

"Gay people are free to associate with, how and who they want and they state is powerless to say otherwise. Gay people are free to live and work and learn where they want without interference. Gay people are free from being censored in this country. They are free to speak, publish, debate and express what they want in this country. Granting marriage to the gay community is not an issue of the limitation of the basic fundamental rights of homosexuals is any way"

You just laid a list of rights gays have and then gloss over the right they dont have. Saying it's not a right, does not make it not a right. You're avoiding the situation.

"For example if vegetarians constituted the majority-- something which may happen someday-- should they have the right to make meat consumption illegal?"

No because being vegetarian is a choice, being gay is not. The fact that debate remains on whether gays should have the right to marry is what's unconstitutionial and demeaning.

"Traditionally marriage is a privilege that is bestowed by the church and the church has the right to grant or deny that privilege to whomever they want."

The Catholic Church made marriage a sacrement in 800 AD. Before that it was a state run ceremony. The RC Church did this to cement the link of a king and queen from a different nation; they couldn't afford a political link of two nations falling apart because two people didnt want to live with one another, if that link was cemented by God however...

"The state has no legal right to the definition of marriage and any attempt to control or coerce the definition from the church is statist and immoral. Gay marriage is in fact a human right’s issue for the religious community."

When it comes to taxes and how much money the government can receive, then marriage is strictly a matter of the government. If religion is supportive of gays, then it can voice it's concern about the violation of gay rights -when it speaks negatively, it should stick to what it believes it knows best - God.

 
At 5:04 PM, Blogger Myrddin Wyllt said...

Enough with the Pc BS, Ass dippin is un-healthy period!
$%^& smokers & drinkers, the fags are killing people.
Fags brought aids to Canada, Fags spread aids in Canada, where is the f654in mystery?
From fag to bi-sexual to straight, it's the 456789 homos that spread aids.
Fu78in apoligists.

 
At 6:57 PM, Blogger angryroughneck said...

Darek-- If you demand that gay marriage is legislated then are you not invalidating the church's right to free association.

"If religion is supportive of gays, then it can voice it's concern about the violation of gay rights -when it speaks negatively, it should stick to what it believes it knows best - God."

Now this is an example of censorship. This is an example of invalidating the church's right of free expression for the supposed cause of protecting rights... isn't it?

 
At 8:02 PM, Blogger angryroughneck said...

Myrddin
What does the spread of aids have to do with gay marriage? Your arbitrary hatred is regressive and short sighted.

 
At 7:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If being gay is not a choice then what is it?

 
At 12:22 AM, Anonymous Khashayar said...

cool blog! liked the name of it though

 
At 7:07 PM, Blogger Joe Green said...

I think that gays should first become atheists, then join Ayn Rand's Reformed Libertarian Church of Objectivism before they get "married".

Lets put all the misfits like Alan Greenspan, Prof. Freedman, Hayek, Joseph Papp and Ayn Rand in one place; people whose ideas are as queer as their "sacraments" and "values". One good feature of nature is that Objectivists do not reproduce Objectivist offspring.

 
At 9:43 PM, Blogger angryroughneck said...

I think Myrddin and Joe Green had a spat.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home