In the comments for a letter to the editor lecturing Herald-Times readers about what they should drive, I said "It's none of your business what someone else drives." Leftists really hate it when I say "mind your own business" in response to a call for some sort of nanny state regulation. But there were a few responses to my statement by advocates of homosexual marriage that offer an opportunity for a clarification.
studentparent wrote: "It's none of your business who someone else marries."
rm wrote: "Given that Tibbs feels this way, though, it's hard to imagine why he thinks it's his business who someone else marries."
Mary Lane wrote: "Just like it's nobody's business who you choose to marry. That's in the Bible."
Mary Lane's response is laughable. If anyone believes that the Apostle Paul was arguing for same-sex marriage, they are completely ignorant of the Apostle Paul's other writings about homosexuality. Of course, "Mary Lane" doesn't believe that as she knows perfectly well what the Bible (including the New Testament) has to say about homosexuality. She is simply being dishonest. It is impossible to have a reasonable discussion with someone who is so shamelessly dishonest.
Now, to the issue of "It's none of your business" who people marry. Same sex couples can get married right now in every single state of the union, without exception, if they find a "church" that is in rebellion against God's Word and will perform a union that is contrary to scripture. This is not illegal and almost no one is calling for that to be banned. This has been the case for decades, and no one is being denied equal rights under the law - homosexuals have the same protections under the Bill of Rights as everyone else.
What same-sex couples cannot do is have the government recognize their union, and that should not be the case. For one thing, as I have pointed out before, this has serious and frightening implications for religious liberty. This is because marriage as a social contract recognized by law has wide ranging legal ramifications. I would be interested in seeing advocates of homosexual marriage honestly answer the following concerns, rather than dismiss them as "paranoia" or simply refusing to acknowledge them at all.
Does anyone think employers (including parachurch organizations) will be allowed to discriminate against same sex married couples in providing health insurance and other benefits to married couples?
What about housing, especially regarding private landlords? Will Christian landlords be forced to rent to a same-sex couple?
Does anyone really think there will be two tiers of marriage, one for same-sex couples and one for everyone else? Or is it more likely that all marriages will be treated the same under the law - including requiring everyone to treat same-sex marriages equally?
I could go on and on, as that is just the proverbial tip of the iceberg regarding the legal ramifications of having the state officially recognize a same-sex union as a marriage. Furthermore, how much will providing equal access to health insurance and other benefits for homosexual public employees cost taxpayers? You can bet it will not be cheap.
Let's be honest here. This debate has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone is legally permitted to choose to spend their lives with someone of the same sex in a "marriage" relationship. This debate has absolutely nothing to to with tolerance, at least not in the way "tolerance" is being defined. This debate has absolutely nothing to do with keeping government out of people's bedrooms. This is about acceptance of same-sex unions, and having government force acceptance of same-sex unions on those who disagree. It is not the opponents of same-sex marriage that are intolerant. It is exactly the opposite.
A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.
This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.
Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.
All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.