The Government Forcing Morality?

[Coloradomtnman]

On another thread I read the following:

With your permission Avatar4321.

I don't see how empowering government to control and legitimize homosexual behavior and relationships is a good thing.

I don't see how Prop. 8 isn't doing exactly that (beside legitimizing).

And yours, asterism.

The government should not legislate morality and we should not outsource morality to the government. ...I see this as a moral issue and I don't think using the force of government in moral issues is conservative.

Using the government to force moral issues IS conservative, in my opinion. Look at abortion. If the word conservative hadn't appeared in asterism's quote, one would think it was a liberal's posting they were reading.

I don't see how this is the government forcing anything on anyone. It seems more like the government staying out of it. The government didn't defend Prop. 8. Proponents of Prop. 8 legislation defended it in court.

The people of California said they don't want official same-sex marriage allowed in their state. It was challenged. It's in court. I believe eventually it will go to the SCOTUS. If they strike down Prop. 8 as unconstitutional, then the same-sex marriage will be allowed to happen and not forced on anyone. It the SCOTUS upholds Prop. 8 then the government will force homosexuals to not get married. So, on whom is the government forcing anything? Proponents whose marriages will not be affected or homosexuals whose marriages will be so affected as to become non-existant and impossible? Something tells me that it will be found unconstitutional. Something about that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" thing. If it is, then the government simply steps out of the picture. People of the same sex can get married. No government interference. Anyone who doesn't want to isn't forced to marry someone of the same sex, just like, currently, anyone who doesn't want to isn't forced to marry at all.

Conservatives talk often of wanting "smaller government" but then want to outlaw abortions, same-sex marriage, marijuana (at least keep it illegal depdending on where you live), and other social issues.

I don't get it.

Conservatives want small government except when it comes to our personal lives?

 

[VaYank5150]

On another thread I read the following:

With your permission Avatar4321.

I don't see how empowering government to control and legitimize homosexual behavior and relationships is a good thing.

I don't see how Prop. 8 isn't doing exactly that (beside legitimizing).

And yours, asterism.

The government should not legislate morality and we should not outsource morality to the government. ...I see this as a moral issue and I don't think using the force of government in moral issues is conservative.

Using the government to force moral issues IS conservative, in my opinion. Look at abortion. If the word conservative hadn't appeared in asterism's quote, one would think it was a liberal's posting they were reading.

I don't see how this is the government forcing anything on anyone. It seems more like the government staying out of it. The government didn't defend Prop. 8. Proponents of Prop. 8 legislation defended it in court.

The people of California said they don't want official same-sex marriage allowed in their state. It was challenged. It's in court. I believe eventually it will go to the SCOTUS. If they strike down Prop. 8 as unconstitutional, then the same-sex marriage will be allowed to happen and not forced on anyone. It the SCOTUS upholds Prop. 8 then the government will force homosexuals to not get married. So, on whom is the government forcing anything? Proponents whose marriages will not be affected or homosexuals whose marriages will be so affected as to become non-existant and impossible? Something tells me that it will be found unconstitutional. Something about that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" thing. If it is, then the government simply steps out of the picture. People of the same sex can get married. No government interference. Anyone who doesn't want to isn't forced to marry someone of the same sex, just like, currently, anyone who doesn't want to isn't forced to marry at all.

Conservatives talk often of wanting "smaller government" but then want to outlaw abortions, same-sex marriage, marijuana (at least keep it illegal depdending on where you live), and other social issues.

I don't get it.

Conservatives want small government except when it comes to our personal lives?

Well that, and lucrative defense contracts.

 

[DiamondDave]

IMHO

Having something against the law or not giving special treatment to a group, is not the same as supporting big government...

Smaller government would more correctly match the notion of ridding ourselves of the 'oh so necessary' agencies like Administration for Native Americans, Agency for International Development, Arctic Research Commission, Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD), Merit Systems Protection Board, Multifamily Housing Office, Social Security Administration (SSA), Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, etc

 

[asterism]

On another thread I read the following:

With your permission Avatar4321.

I don't see how empowering government to control and legitimize homosexual behavior and relationships is a good thing.

I don't see how Prop. 8 isn't doing exactly that (beside legitimizing).

And yours, asterism.

The government should not legislate morality and we should not outsource morality to the government. ...I see this as a moral issue and I don't think using the force of government in moral issues is conservative.

Using the government to force moral issues IS conservative, in my opinion. Look at abortion. If the word conservative hadn't appeared in asterism's quote, one would think it was a liberal's posting they were reading.

I don't see how this is the government forcing anything on anyone. It seems more like the government staying out of it. The government didn't defend Prop. 8. Proponents of Prop. 8 legislation defended it in court.

The people of California said they don't want official same-sex marriage allowed in their state. It was challenged. It's in court. I believe eventually it will go to the SCOTUS. If they strike down Prop. 8 as unconstitutional, then the same-sex marriage will be allowed to happen and not forced on anyone. It the SCOTUS upholds Prop. 8 then the government will force homosexuals to not get married. So, on whom is the government forcing anything? Proponents whose marriages will not be affected or homosexuals whose marriages will be so affected as to become non-existant and impossible? Something tells me that it will be found unconstitutional. Something about that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" thing. If it is, then the government simply steps out of the picture. People of the same sex can get married. No government interference. Anyone who doesn't want to isn't forced to marry someone of the same sex, just like, currently, anyone who doesn't want to isn't forced to marry at all.

Conservatives talk often of wanting "smaller government" but then want to outlaw abortions, same-sex marriage, marijuana (at least keep it illegal depdending on where you live), and other social issues.

I don't get it.

Conservatives want small government except when it comes to our personal lives?

The reason I oppose legal abortions is because I think all humans have Constitutional rights. Morality has nothing to do with it. If we allow the government to decide and enforce moral issues we then cede control of morality to it.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

The reason I oppose legal abortions is because I think all humans have Constitutional rights. Morality has nothing to do with it. If we allow the government to decide and enforce moral issues we then cede control of morality to it.

But wouldn't opposition to theft, murder, fraud, etc. fall under the government forcing morality onto us? Or do you think the government enforces its laws because of our Consitutional rights?

 

[asterism]

The reason I oppose legal abortions is because I think all humans have Constitutional rights. Morality has nothing to do with it. If we allow the government to decide and enforce moral issues we then cede control of morality to it.

But wouldn't opposition to theft, murder, fraud, etc. fall under the government forcing morality onto us? Or do you think the government enforces its laws because of our Consitutional rights?

The latter.

 

[rightwinger]

All Prop 8 does is show the Government has preference of some relationships over others

 

[Truthmatters]

there is now over 50% of Rs who support gay marriage.

You dweebs can now shitcan this false outrage over people marrying who they love no matter what parts they have.


Its a dead duck and every day that passes more ancient voters pass into the next world who were trained from childhood to hate "the gay".

You will need to find another trumped up issue to beat to death.

 

[daveman]

I am a Democrat because I believe that we should take our noses out of other people's bedrooms. I say we move the noses to their banks and storage sheds and scout troops, and so forth.

 

[Truthmatters]

You are in the minority even in the R party if you hate "the Gay".

Keep beating your head against the wall for all the good it does you.

 

[WillowTree]

I support gay marriage. I think it's the best way to cut down on abortion.

 

[Si modo]

Hi C-man. In this respect I think it is useful to provide specifics on the term, conservative. I am a conservative, but a political conservative. I am a liberal on social issues. Morality should never be legislated by the government. Some may say, and you touched on this, that because some basics of our Constitution are similar to the Commandments (no murder, no theft, etc.); that we already legislate morality; but these are fundamentals upon which most humans, regardless of religious afilliation, would agree.

So, as a social liberal, I really don't care whom one chooses to love and neither should the government, nor should laws allow for some sort of abuse/taking-advantage-of-protections by groups.

In the long run, I think government should stay out of marriage (hetero- or homosexual) completely.

 

[martybegan]

On another thread I read the following:

With your permission Avatar4321.

I don't see how empowering government to control and legitimize homosexual behavior and relationships is a good thing.

I don't see how Prop. 8 isn't doing exactly that (beside legitimizing).

And yours, asterism.

The government should not legislate morality and we should not outsource morality to the government. ...I see this as a moral issue and I don't think using the force of government in moral issues is conservative.

Using the government to force moral issues IS conservative, in my opinion. Look at abortion. If the word conservative hadn't appeared in asterism's quote, one would think it was a liberal's posting they were reading.

I don't see how this is the government forcing anything on anyone. It seems more like the government staying out of it. The government didn't defend Prop. 8. Proponents of Prop. 8 legislation defended it in court.

The people of California said they don't want official same-sex marriage allowed in their state. It was challenged. It's in court. I believe eventually it will go to the SCOTUS. If they strike down Prop. 8 as unconstitutional, then the same-sex marriage will be allowed to happen and not forced on anyone. It the SCOTUS upholds Prop. 8 then the government will force homosexuals to not get married. So, on whom is the government forcing anything? Proponents whose marriages will not be affected or homosexuals whose marriages will be so affected as to become non-existant and impossible? Something tells me that it will be found unconstitutional. Something about that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" thing. If it is, then the government simply steps out of the picture. People of the same sex can get married. No government interference. Anyone who doesn't want to isn't forced to marry someone of the same sex, just like, currently, anyone who doesn't want to isn't forced to marry at all.

Conservatives talk often of wanting "smaller government" but then want to outlaw abortions, same-sex marriage, marijuana (at least keep it illegal depdending on where you live), and other social issues.

I don't get it.

Conservatives want small government except when it comes to our personal lives?

If one sees the government as an extension of the people (which in our country it is) by making gay marriage legal by judicial fiat one could see it as forcing acceptance of such on the goverment, and by the path I mentioned above, forcing the acceptance of the people.

Now there is nothing wrong with the process itself, this was the method used to break all the Jim Crow laws in the south. The difference is back in the 60's the Jim Crow laws were easily seen as violating the constitution, more exactly the Civil War amendments.

And both sides are good at legislating morality. What are hate crime laws except a way to make a crime worse if it is done for reasons that offend the morality of certain people? What about all those speech codes you see at college campuses? Most of those are proposed by left leaning organizations.

 

[editec]

Neither the polticial conservative nor the political liberals have any overarching theme to what they want, folks.

One will not find any real similarity between their rhetoric and the policies they support.

They want what they want and they try to shoehorn that into their theoretical POV, but as anyone who isn't blinded by partisanship can plainly see, neither of them can manage to live up to their rhetorical POVs.

All the leadership of either party want is power.

They'll say anything and pander to any group that they think will help them get and retain that power.

Neither party stands for anything except the aquisition of political power.

 

[Truthmatters]

The right will have to find a new flame issue to replace this one.

Its now dead as a majority vote getter.

One more reason courting the religious right is a losing prospect for the republicans

 

[daveman]

You are in the minority even in the R party if you hate "the Gay".

Keep beating your head against the wall for all the good it does you.

Is this directed to me?

 

[daveman]

In the long run, I think government should stay out of marriage (hetero- or homosexual) completely.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

On another thread I read the following:

With your permission Avatar4321.

I don't see how empowering government to control and legitimize homosexual behavior and relationships is a good thing.

I don't see how Prop. 8 isn't doing exactly that (beside legitimizing).

And yours, asterism.

The government should not legislate morality and we should not outsource morality to the government. ...I see this as a moral issue and I don't think using the force of government in moral issues is conservative.

Using the government to force moral issues IS conservative, in my opinion. Look at abortion. If the word conservative hadn't appeared in asterism's quote, one would think it was a liberal's posting they were reading.

I don't see how this is the government forcing anything on anyone. It seems more like the government staying out of it. The government didn't defend Prop. 8. Proponents of Prop. 8 legislation defended it in court.

The people of California said they don't want official same-sex marriage allowed in their state. It was challenged. It's in court. I believe eventually it will go to the SCOTUS. If they strike down Prop. 8 as unconstitutional, then the same-sex marriage will be allowed to happen and not forced on anyone. It the SCOTUS upholds Prop. 8 then the government will force homosexuals to not get married. So, on whom is the government forcing anything? Proponents whose marriages will not be affected or homosexuals whose marriages will be so affected as to become non-existant and impossible? Something tells me that it will be found unconstitutional. Something about that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" thing. If it is, then the government simply steps out of the picture. People of the same sex can get married. No government interference. Anyone who doesn't want to isn't forced to marry someone of the same sex, just like, currently, anyone who doesn't want to isn't forced to marry at all.

Conservatives talk often of wanting "smaller government" but then want to outlaw abortions, same-sex marriage, marijuana (at least keep it illegal depdending on where you live), and other social issues.

I don't get it.

Conservatives want small government except when it comes to our personal lives?

Couple of problems I see here.

I love it when someone pops up with the idea that the government cannot, and should not, legislate morality. What else does the government do? The very existence of government thrives on legislating morality.

Let us take an example everyone should be familiar with and see what the government does to legislate morality.

And God spoke all these words, saying: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

1. You shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
5. Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

Let us look at how these actually play out in laws we all accept.

1. Treason.
2. Counterfeiting
3. That is a freebie here in the US, but not everywhere. Lots of countries lock you up for speaking out against the government.
4. OK, you got me on this one, I cannot think of an example.
5. I wonder how long it will be before they start taxing people to put their parents in nursing homes.
6. Murder is obvious.
7. Adultery is still a crime in most states, especially if you have a vindictive ex.
8. Theft, another easy one.
9. Perjury
10. Tricky one again, but I will toss out privacy as an example here.

Since the government obviously has an interest in legislating morality it becomes a question of which morality gets legislated. All the high sounding arguments to the contrary, every time does anything it negatively impacts someone. What we should strive for is making the government impact as small as possible.

Allowing SSM has a negative impact on a larger percentage of the population than prohibiting it, but blocking it has a greater negative effect because the people who are negatively affected are denied a benefit available to others. The ideal solution to this is to remove government entirely from marriage. This would eliminate taxes and fees that the government collects as a result of recognizing marriages. That is not going to happen at this stage of the game, so we have to do something else.

Civil unions could be legally defined as the equivalent of marriage, and be available to everyone. If people want the legal benefits of marriage they would have to register their civil union with the state, and if they do not, they will not. This would have to be phased in, but it would work, if we were reasonable enough. Again, I do not see this happening because people are too hung up on the word and want marriage.

That means that, eventually, we will allow SSM. It is inevitable, and everyone who can think knows it. That leaves the question of how to get there.

Getting there through the courts is not the right way, and is not the method intended by the founders. Using the courts to force the issue is a progressive tactic, and it is one that rankles the spirit of every American who believes in freedom. It should only come about through voting, or through the actions of our representative government. If this makes me a conservative, then I will gladly accept that label, because this is what is right. It is how we went from slavery to freedom, from women not being able to vote to them running for president.

Progressives want to force their morality down the throats of everyone, then they sit back and claim anyone who opposes their methods is a conservative who wants to impose their morality on everyone. The part that amazes me is that some of them do not even see the hypocrisy of their tactics.

 

[martybegan]

On another thread I read the following:

With your permission Avatar4321.

I don't see how empowering government to control and legitimize homosexual behavior and relationships is a good thing.

I don't see how Prop. 8 isn't doing exactly that (beside legitimizing).

And yours, asterism.



Using the government to force moral issues IS conservative, in my opinion. Look at abortion. If the word conservative hadn't appeared in asterism's quote, one would think it was a liberal's posting they were reading.

I don't see how this is the government forcing anything on anyone. It seems more like the government staying out of it. The government didn't defend Prop. 8. Proponents of Prop. 8 legislation defended it in court.

The people of California said they don't want official same-sex marriage allowed in their state. It was challenged. It's in court. I believe eventually it will go to the SCOTUS. If they strike down Prop. 8 as unconstitutional, then the same-sex marriage will be allowed to happen and not forced on anyone. It the SCOTUS upholds Prop. 8 then the government will force homosexuals to not get married. So, on whom is the government forcing anything? Proponents whose marriages will not be affected or homosexuals whose marriages will be so affected as to become non-existant and impossible? Something tells me that it will be found unconstitutional. Something about that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" thing. If it is, then the government simply steps out of the picture. People of the same sex can get married. No government interference. Anyone who doesn't want to isn't forced to marry someone of the same sex, just like, currently, anyone who doesn't want to isn't forced to marry at all.

Conservatives talk often of wanting "smaller government" but then want to outlaw abortions, same-sex marriage, marijuana (at least keep it illegal depdending on where you live), and other social issues.

I don't get it.

Conservatives want small government except when it comes to our personal lives?

Couple of problems I see here.

I love it when someone pops up with the idea that the government cannot, and should not, legislate morality. What else does the government do? The very existence of government thrives on legislating morality.

Let us take an example everyone should be familiar with and see what the government does to legislate morality.

And God spoke all these words, saying: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

1. You shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
5. Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

Let us look at how these actually play out in laws we all accept.

1. Treason.
2. Counterfeiting
3. That is a freebie here in the US, but not everywhere. Lots of countries lock you up for speaking out against the government.
4. OK, you got me on this one, I cannot think of an example.
5. I wonder how long it will be before they start taxing people to put their parents in nursing homes.
6. Murder is obvious.
7. Adultery is still a crime in most states, especially if you have a vindictive ex.
8. Theft, another easy one.
9. Perjury
10. Tricky one again, but I will toss out privacy as an example here.

Since the government obviously has an interest in legislating morality it becomes a question of which morality gets legislated. All the high sounding arguments to the contrary, every time does anything it negatively impacts someone. What we should strive for is making the government impact as small as possible.

Allowing SSM has a negative impact on a larger percentage of the population than prohibiting it, but blocking it has a greater negative effect because the people who are negatively affected are denied a benefit available to others. The ideal solution to this is to remove government entirely from marriage. This would eliminate taxes and fees that the government collects as a result of recognizing marriages. That is not going to happen at this stage of the game, so we have to do something else.

Civil unions could be legally defined as the equivalent of marriage, and be available to everyone. If people want the legal benefits of marriage they would have to register their civil union with the state, and if they do not, they will not. This would have to be phased in, but it would work, if we were reasonable enough. Again, I do not see this happening because people are too hung up on the word and want marriage.

That means that, eventually, we will allow SSM. It is inevitable, and everyone who can think knows it. That leaves the question of how to get there.

Getting there through the courts is not the right way, and is not the method intended by the founders. Using the courts to force the issue is a progressive tactic, and it is one that rankles the spirit of every American who believes in freedom. It should only come about through voting, or through the actions of our representative government. If this makes me a conservative, then I will gladly accept that label, because this is what is right. It is how we went from slavery to freedom, from women not being able to vote to them running for president.

Progressives want to force their morality down the throats of everyone, then they sit back and claim anyone who opposes their methods is a conservative who wants to impose their morality on everyone. The part that amazes me is that some of them do not even see the hypocrisy of their tactics.

Very well thought out post. One thing that will be brought up about your concern over going through the courts is the civil rights movement for blacks in the 50's and 60's. As I stated before this is not a good comparison, as those decisons were ones that affirmed the original intent of what the authors of the amendments wanted. All those Jim crow laws were unconstituitonal from the get go, it was just previous courts NOT following what was written down.

 

[asterism]

On another thread I read the following:

With your permission Avatar4321.



I don't see how Prop. 8 isn't doing exactly that (beside legitimizing).

And yours, asterism.



Using the government to force moral issues IS conservative, in my opinion. Look at abortion. If the word conservative hadn't appeared in asterism's quote, one would think it was a liberal's posting they were reading.

I don't see how this is the government forcing anything on anyone. It seems more like the government staying out of it. The government didn't defend Prop. 8. Proponents of Prop. 8 legislation defended it in court.

The people of California said they don't want official same-sex marriage allowed in their state. It was challenged. It's in court. I believe eventually it will go to the SCOTUS. If they strike down Prop. 8 as unconstitutional, then the same-sex marriage will be allowed to happen and not forced on anyone. It the SCOTUS upholds Prop. 8 then the government will force homosexuals to not get married. So, on whom is the government forcing anything? Proponents whose marriages will not be affected or homosexuals whose marriages will be so affected as to become non-existant and impossible? Something tells me that it will be found unconstitutional. Something about that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" thing. If it is, then the government simply steps out of the picture. People of the same sex can get married. No government interference. Anyone who doesn't want to isn't forced to marry someone of the same sex, just like, currently, anyone who doesn't want to isn't forced to marry at all.

Conservatives talk often of wanting "smaller government" but then want to outlaw abortions, same-sex marriage, marijuana (at least keep it illegal depdending on where you live), and other social issues.

I don't get it.

Conservatives want small government except when it comes to our personal lives?

Couple of problems I see here.

I love it when someone pops up with the idea that the government cannot, and should not, legislate morality. What else does the government do? The very existence of government thrives on legislating morality.

Let us take an example everyone should be familiar with and see what the government does to legislate morality.

And God spoke all these words, saying: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

1. You shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
5. Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

Let us look at how these actually play out in laws we all accept.

1. Treason.
2. Counterfeiting
3. That is a freebie here in the US, but not everywhere. Lots of countries lock you up for speaking out against the government.
4. OK, you got me on this one, I cannot think of an example.
5. I wonder how long it will be before they start taxing people to put their parents in nursing homes.
6. Murder is obvious.
7. Adultery is still a crime in most states, especially if you have a vindictive ex.
8. Theft, another easy one.
9. Perjury
10. Tricky one again, but I will toss out privacy as an example here.

Since the government obviously has an interest in legislating morality it becomes a question of which morality gets legislated. All the high sounding arguments to the contrary, every time does anything it negatively impacts someone. What we should strive for is making the government impact as small as possible.

Allowing SSM has a negative impact on a larger percentage of the population than prohibiting it, but blocking it has a greater negative effect because the people who are negatively affected are denied a benefit available to others. The ideal solution to this is to remove government entirely from marriage. This would eliminate taxes and fees that the government collects as a result of recognizing marriages. That is not going to happen at this stage of the game, so we have to do something else.

Civil unions could be legally defined as the equivalent of marriage, and be available to everyone. If people want the legal benefits of marriage they would have to register their civil union with the state, and if they do not, they will not. This would have to be phased in, but it would work, if we were reasonable enough. Again, I do not see this happening because people are too hung up on the word and want marriage.

That means that, eventually, we will allow SSM. It is inevitable, and everyone who can think knows it. That leaves the question of how to get there.

Getting there through the courts is not the right way, and is not the method intended by the founders. Using the courts to force the issue is a progressive tactic, and it is one that rankles the spirit of every American who believes in freedom. It should only come about through voting, or through the actions of our representative government. If this makes me a conservative, then I will gladly accept that label, because this is what is right. It is how we went from slavery to freedom, from women not being able to vote to them running for president.

Progressives want to force their morality down the throats of everyone, then they sit back and claim anyone who opposes their methods is a conservative who wants to impose their morality on everyone. The part that amazes me is that some of them do not even see the hypocrisy of their tactics.

Very well thought out post. One thing that will be brought up about your concern over going through the courts is the civil rights movement for blacks in the 50's and 60's. As I stated before this is not a good comparison, as those decisons were ones that affirmed the original intent of what the authors of the amendments wanted. All those Jim crow laws were unconstituitonal from the get go, it was just previous courts NOT following what was written down.

I agree.