United Liberty
Olbermann on Prop. 8
Tue, 11/11/2008 - 11:37am | posted by Brett Bittner
Like Olbermann, I am saddened that Proposition 8 passed in California last week, and I have seen many reasons attributed to be the cause of its passage (large numbers of new black voters, the strong Mormon push, etc). I think it boils down to a tremendously large number of people who will vote for an undefined “change” in Washington, but not in other people’s bedrooms. Proposition 8 was about controlling people’s lives and limiting their freedoms by preventing them from a chance at true happiness. Whatever you believe in the nature vs. nurture argument over homosexuality’s cause, the issue of marriage has been trivialized by many straight couples, while numerous same-sex couples are fighting for their chance to experience the happiness that the true, loving, lasting marriages have the opportunity to feel.
I agree with Olbermann, but he comes across as way too emotional, bitter and a bit ridiculous.
“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson
Olberman is always ridiculous. Here is the answer to his question. The fundamental assumption behind the idea that this is a civil rights issue and that they should have equal treatment under the law is the one that says that homosexuals are born homosexual and they have no choice. This is fundamentally the disagreement, and a big reason why black by and large don’t support the gay marriage agenda. I of course as a libertarian do not agree that this is a civil rights issue because I believe it to be an issue of choice, practicing homosexuals have the same rights under the law as anyone else currently. If they want to be married, stop practicing homosexuality become hetero, find a wife and be married. After all I couldn’t get married until I found a wife either. If your about to say that can’t be done, you should know that you are just plain wrong. Has been done, is being done, will continue to be done. I can attest to the testimony of at least a few friends who are formerly homosexual, today they are married and have kids. There are entire non-profits devoted to helping homosexual come out of the lifestyle who want to. To equate this issue with the Civil-Rights movement of the 60s and Martin Luther King is just not credible. What is going on here is not that homosexuals are not being treated equally under the law, it is instead rather that they did not get to redefine the definition of marriage to suit themselves.
Lorin, I also know men who lived several decades as “straight” and had wives and even children, but “came out of the closet” when they felt their lifestyle was becoming more acceptable. I am agnostic on whether people are homosexual naturally or by choice. I don’t know, and I’d just as soon leave decisions regarding how they live their lives to themselves since it has nothing at all to do with me.
“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson
Of course I agree that wether someone is going to practice homosexuality or not is something they have to decide for themselves, and naturally I am as content as anyone else to let them live their lives as they please. That is not really at issue, what is at issue is should the institution of marriage be redefined to please a particular constituency group. I think the libertarian argument against it is quite simple as I have pointed out, and that is that homosexuality is a choice that people make and therefore not a civil rights issue. Your example of a man who was “straight” then became “gay” only illustrates the point further. People seem to switch teams in both directions, therefore how can homosexuality equate to being black, or being born with Downs. There is no right to marry on the second hand, I would refer you to Rothbard who spoke about so-called “rights” that don’t really exist like a “right” to an education, or a “right” to health care. These are not rights as they require someone else to provide you with them in order for you to have them. Same with marriage you need a person of the opposite sex who is wiling to put up with you, I was lucky enough to find one. The other issue of course is the one of coerced acceptance. As a wedding photographer can I be sued if I refuse to cover a gay “wedding”. The answer is of course yes I can, and it has already happened to one poor guy. What about the property rights of those who are not willing to participate? The truth is that the homosexual agenda is not about live and let live, I wish it were. Its about coercion. Much like the Civil Rights act of 64, it did not just do away with segregation, something that would have been good, it over-reached and coerced integration. As a libertarian we should always be consistent in opposing coercive tactics. Many times these coercive laws come into existence by means of rhetoric that sounds very libertarian, but winds up not being at all.
oh come on Lorin, you have had your fair share, and probably mine too, of women who have “chosen” to be homosexual after being involved with you in relationships. Its OK some are blessed with adaquate junk and some are somewhat lacking. Go back to church and the priest or pasture will tell you God has a plan for you and you will find that greatest love of God and do not need the pleasures of sin.
Lorin,
When did you “decide” to be straight?
You are all wrong, Government shouldn’t be involved in marraige in the first place
You can’t be an advocate for freedom and the constitution while trying to limit someone elses freedom to enter into what essentially amounts to a contract. The government is to protect the sanctity of a contract, not pick and choose which among us are able to enter into one.
what part of having to apply through the government, and ask permission to marry someone, is freedom?
Roxi,
Ideally, your thoughts on getting the government out of our lives is the end goal, but until such a time comes consider these few things:
- A committed homosexual relationship cannot result in eventual citizenship through marriage for a non-citizen.
- When inheriting property via probate, the “immediate family” is given priority over a homosexual partner. In some states, this priority can trump specifically prescribed instructions in a will if there was a same-sex relationship.
- IF domestic partnership benefits are available (usually only in industries with a heavily homosexual workforce), the insurance premiums are paid with “post-tax” dollars, while people in a “traditional” family are allowed to pay with “pre-tax” dollars. Also, Flexible Savings Account funds are not shareable in domestic partnership situations.
As Olbermann pointed out in the video, in 1967 there were 16 states that did not allow interracial couples to marry. Also, in 1967 there were states that did not recognize married black couples.
The religious zealots in America are preventing a group of people the same rights they have. No one is saying that you have to accept interracial marriage in 2008, and the issue of same-sex marriage is no different. They are not changing anything about your lifestyle. They are merely fighting for the chance at wedded bliss, like is available for the other 96% of the American population.
Again to equate race with homosexual behavior doesn’t follow. These are two different things as I have pointed out.
Further calling people “religious zealots” whom you do not know, not that there aren’t some, reveals some of your own bigotry.
Brett,
When I became a committed Christian.
Lorin,
I cannot discuss logically with an irrational, illogical religious argument.
Thanks for revealing your own bias. Not all libertarians are atheistic but come to the liberty view not despite their religion but because of it. BTW, I have logical, and rational reasons to belief in my faith, stop the arrogance that is typical of atheists and agnostics.
Besides you asked a simple question and I gave a simple answer. What is not logical about the fact that since I follow Jesus I am not a homosexual, since that would not be inconsistent with being a follower of Christ? After all, don’t you have a worldview, and don’t you behave in a way more or less consistent with it? Of course you do, as do we all. So since I conform my life to that of one who is a follower of Jesus, that means a lot of things for me, but the relevant one here is that I do not commit homosexual acts, and since I do not how could I be considered a homosexual ? It would of course defy logic to say otherwise, not that I think your saying that, but I merely point out that when you ask when did I decide to be straight, and I say when I became a committed Christian is a completely rational and logical response to your question.
So, before you became a Christian, you were homosexual?
Unless your answer is, “Yes,” then your argument is preposterous.
Crystal,
Wether you think my answer must be yes or not is less important than the fact that before I committed my life to Christ, the truth is I could have gone either way. Once I became a follower of Jesus then I have brought all parts of my life into submission to His will not my own. The point being if I had not become a Christian, a follower of Jesus, then I don’t know what I would have done anymore than anyone else does.
Lorin,
In reference to your original comment, I’ve known more people to “go gay” after having been “straight” for a period of time. I have never had one of those people tell me that they were ever actually “straight”, but that they were hiding their true selves in order to adhere to what their religion or society prefers.
To imply that you might’ve been homosexual but you let Jesus guide you is not a valid argument for a “choice”. A choice is decided by YOU. Not Jesus.
I have to wonder whether, as a Christian, you are prepared to accept that your religion tells you not to pass judgment on others and accept that God will do with them as HE chooses…isn’t THAT His will?
If you’re a person of faith, why fight this? Why not leave it in God’s hands?
Don’t you think it is rather presumptuous for you to tell me what my faith tells me I should do ?
Also because you have knowm more people to “go gay” than not may just mean you run in different circles than I do and means little. The fact that they now, as a practicing homosexual say they were always a homosexual only leads me to think that they are confused. This is of course all anecdotal anyway.
The point being that homosexuality is something you do, not something you are, and I am clearly not the only one who thinks so. Because someone has same sex attractions does not make them, in an of itself, a homosexual, anymore than being a clepto who never steals makes him a thief.
Third, Christianity does not tell me not to pass judgement, in fact quite the opposite. We are to divine what is right and wrong, and to say so is not in fact judgement. It amazes me what passes for judgement these days. If you state your opinion or state what is Biblical about a topic you being “judgmental”. Of course true judgementalism is far harsher than that. A real judgmentalist wouId kill those who disagree or at least throw you in jail. I suggest strongly that you not criticize others for being judgmental when they are simply stating their opinion and arguments, which you of course are also doing. After all is it judgemental to call someone judgemental?
Also I never implied that I was homosexual, I simply said that without Jesus I don’t know where my life might have wound up. Thats a far cry from saying I might have been a homosexual.
LOL!
“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson
Lorin, you’re pretty much proving the point I’ve always made, which is that there is no case against gay marriage that isn’t rooted in religion. I’d prefer us not to be a theocracy.
“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson
Roxi,
I agree with you that the government shouldn’t be involved in the marriage business. Ever since we put the state in charge of the thing, it has done what it always does and ruined it. It should be a family arrangement, and the church can be involved to confirm marriages if families decide to make the marriage licit. This is of course the traditional arrangement.
I do have to disagree with you however on one point, marriage is not merely a contract in fact I would argue that it is not a contract at all, but a covenant. The difference between those things being enough material to write a doctoral dissertation so have fun with that. But that said, equating a marriage to a simple contract is reductionistic in my view.
Lorin,
It is merely your opinion that there is a covenant.
As I stated that it was my opinion. However, that it is my opinion does not negate the possibility that it is in fact true.
Brett seems to be scared of debating with a Christian. I applaud you Lorin for your stand.
I doubt that he is scared, but he seems to be one of those “there is no logic, or rationality to religion” types. I differ from that view obviously, and I think I made a perfectly rational argument for Prop. 8, and one that is consistent with liberty, and with faith. But many atheists seem to think that they have a monopoly on logic and reason, I hope Brett is not one of those.
Lorin,
I find it humorous that you immediately assume that I am an atheist. While I DO believe that organized religion is illogical, as there are NO provable facts to support the tenets of ANY religion, I am NOT an atheist. I do not KNOW whether there is a God, and I do question the motives of the “devoutly religious” as they are among the most immoral people I have ever met. I live my life by a morality of my choosing after having studied several religions which I did not find solace in. That morality is one of live and let live, but every religion forces their beliefs and morality onto others, rather than allowing them to find a life and set of beliefs of their choosing. To meddle in someone’s personal affairs because they conflict with a morality adopted through “faith,” is preposterous. No one person’s set of beliefs is going to exactly match another’s, so why agitate?
I am sure that my life is “sinful” to many “Christians,” especially in the Bible Belt, where I live. While I am not gay, I do have a domestic partner that resides with me, as she has for almost five years.
I also do not believe that I have a “monopoly on logic and reason” either, but I think about a situation before I feel or allow someone who has translated the words of someone I have never met and will never meet to make my decisions for me. I am best described as an individualist, as I believe in the power of the individual and his or her choices, rather than the groups they identify with. If everyone submitted themselves to a group identity, which all religions do, there would be no original thought, as everything would be decided for them by translators of Buddha, Christ, Mohammed, and the like.
If you will read it again you would notice that I said “atheists and agnostics” I did not know which you were, but clearly one or the other, and now you have come out as an Agnostic. I commend you as I think the agnostic position to be the more intellectually honest one.
On religions forcing there beliefs by force. Let me say a few things. As a Christian and a Libertarian I deplore any such activity. While Christians have at times in history resorted to force to spread Christianity, and this is regrettable, however for the most part this is not so. Also, more importantly, and Christian that forces their faith on someone is not following their faith. Christ himself told his disciples to simply leave some people alone and move on when they encountered some people who would not listen to what they had to say. I would suggest that the morality to live and let live that you espouse is actually one that Christ first espoused, but it is not at the same time relativistic about morality as you are. It takes a stand, states what it believes and lets people make up their own minds. That is not force, never has been, never will be. And to compare Christianity with Islam is like comparing Baseball to Basketball, yes they are both sports, but fundamentally different.
Again, let me say that the live and let live argument keeps getting made here, as if I don’t agree with that. In fact I do as I have stated. But this is not about live and let live. This is about the redefinition of an institution to fit the whims of a minority among us. Marriage can’t be changed by judicial fiat, or by a vote. It is solidly defined by human experience and divine decree. This is also a libertarian point, that governments to not define and redefine things by fiat, they try but they shouldn’t.
On the issue of sin, I think you have a misunderstanding of Christianity here. I find many of those who are not Christians think this way and it goes something like this, ‘those Christians think they are good, and they think we are bad’ If thats what you think about what Christians think you are misunderstanding, and if there are Christians who think of themselves that way they are prideful and sinning for thinking it. The Gospel is clear, ‘There are none righteous’. There are no heroes, we all wear black hats, we are all fallen. There is only one that is good, and it ain’t me.
Anonymous,
Actually, I am not scared of debating anyone, nor was I aware that this was, in fact, a debate. People who identify themselves as a “Muslim” or “Hindi” or “Buddhist” or especially “Christian” hide behind what was told to them that they should believe faithfully without any actual thought or evidence to support their argument.
A debate on this topic would be as fruitless as one about abortion with a Catholic, or about the imbibing of alcohol or the act of dancing with a southern Baptist.
Another arrogant statement Brett. Religious people are not thinkers eh ? Only you are. I see, well then explain how we got the Protestant Reformation ?
Is this a record for number of comments on a UL video?
“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson
It might be. Maybe I need to post more videos that irritate the religious right.
I am not a religious rightist. I am a Christian Libertarian. You are free to disagree of course, as you have but I have presented an argument for Prop. 8 that is consistent with Liberty.
No, it is not consistent with liberty. No bill, proposition, initiative or ruling that takes away the personal right to pursue your own happiness, as long as it is not to the detriment of others, is consistent with the principles of liberty. Prop. 8 is consistent with the Bible, however, and that may be enough. The Holy Book is apparently the guiding basis for legality nowadays.
“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson
Lorin, I have never heard someone write so much with little meaning. Do you work for the government? Your “argument” is the classic case of fallacies.
Why dont you as a Christian (not as a Libertarian) accept others?
Lorin, I have never heard someone write so much with little meaning. Do you work for the government? Your “argument” is the classic case of fallacies.
Why dont you as a Christian (not as a Libertarian) accept others?
How are we defining the pursuit of happiness here? Is it the right to live your life they way you want to live it? Or does it also involve the right to have access to government programs or other private benefits?
I hear the arguments in support of same sex marriage, and, frankly, as many have already stated, it’d be better if the government wasn’t even in the marriage business, but I’m not sure I see the logical end to the supporting arguments. Do I have the right to purse affirmative action benefits, welfare benefits, or any other government program under the banner of “pusuit of happiness” or “equal protection”? Probably not.
Just looking for where the line is drawn in this line of argument.
Post new comment