A Christian Libertarian wants to live in peace again

Guest Column Guest Column 66 Comments

Share

Guest Commentary
by Eric Andersen

Sigh. 

I wish “same sex” marriage was our problem. It is not. The problem is other Christian believers and I have failed to consistently apply our founding ideals.

The body of Christ, well intentioned we are, inconsistently uphold the principles of “the laws of nature and Nature’s God” at the ballot box. The same sex community may be the fruit but it is not the root. 

“There are thousands hacking at the branches to the one striking at the root.” – Thoreau 

Let’s refocus on our mutual desire – to live in a free and prosperous society. The question before us should be “How shall we regain the character necessary for self-government?” 

The conservative places his/her faith in the law – “Thou shall not.” The conservative “conserves” the status quo – government and current power structures and focuses on “them.” Change happens on a micro level. 

The Christian Libertarian recognizes individual responsibility, ‘Me,’ and the source of character reform – Christ, the church, the family and parent controlled education – all damaged by a growing state. 

After voting for George W. Bush . . . twice,  I walked away from Conservatism. 

The problem, as I see it Biblically, is “the Law” lacks power to reform my heart or my neighbor‘s (see Israel). The Law will never change my neighbor’s homosexuality or my adulterous heart or compensate for years of drift from proper application of rule of law, property rights and limited government violations by well-meaning Christians. 

The Christian Libertarian seeks radical (that which strikes the root) reform and addresses the source – man’s depravity and the need for limited government and strong families. He seeks to accomplish through the individual and love what well intentioned Conservatives seek through force. Intentions do not sanctify behavior.

For example, the Conservative uses small government rhetoric yet is passive with respect to the Federal Reserve — the key source of federal power and family destruction. Ninety-five percent of the dollar’s purchasing power has been destroyed by it..Millions of moms have had to leave home for the workplace because of it. State “education” now plays an ever increasing role in handicapping our children’s character formation.

The gays did not do this to us..We did it to ourselves.

Counterfeiting is a violation of the 8th Commandment. Even the atheist understands counterfeiting is theft and immoral. This happened and perpetuates with the blessing of millions of Christian Conservatives..When was the last time someone heard a Christian Conservative say “End the Fed”?  Bush? Santorum? Rubio? 

What if Conservatives picked up their axe and started hacking at the root and became strict unforgiving and God fearing Constitutionalists? The threat is not homosexuals – it is us, God fearing Christians, who refuse to apply the transcendent ethics of nature and Nature’s God to the civil sphere. Hitler’s problem was not the Jew and ours is not the homosexual. 

Just once I would like to hear a Christian pastor recite 2 Ch 7:14 and ask his congregation to seek forgiveness for supporting lawmakers who violate rule of law and private property rights – the Biblical and Constitutional foundation of our republic. 

Anyone want to unite around that which makes Biblical, Constitutional and economic sense? Jefferson understood that with the foundation of our law being “the laws of nature and Nature’s God,” the atheist and Christ follower could coexist in peace.   

I want to live in peace again. 

My name is Eric Andersen and I am a Christian libertarian.

Share

Comments 66

  1. I’ve read this five times today and all I can say is this– I am proud to a Christian and libertarian. You honor Him, Eric.

  2. Dave, my point is that we, believers, need to take the “plank” out of our own eye. Same sex marriage is the fruit of a bigger problem – a departure from principle (i.e. property rights, limited government)

    I am suggesting Christians address the root – our support of legislators who violate these Constitutional principles and give special privileges for being married, allow the government a say in inheritance issues and allow the government any say in marriage.

  3. Please tell me how this works out from a practical standpoint. What laws do you want off the books. What laws do you want to remain in force. Should there even be any laws? That is, does government even have the right to pass and enforce ANY laws. I’m confused.

  4. Eric, please don’t tell me that you think marrying a close family relative (incest) should be legal, marrying a child, or marrying multiple spouses. Correct me if I’m wrong, but my guess is that you actually do support some common sense restrictions on the legal definition of marriage. Personally, I think those restrictions make sense and I support those laws. What say you?

  5. I think it is hypocritical to speak out against a “same sex” marriage threat to the family while simultaneously being silent/supportive of that which is causing greater damage – policies that violate property rights in violation of Scripture and the U.S. Constitution. From a practical standpoint? A federal legislator must stay within his jurisdiction – Article 1, Section 8. It’s that simple. I think that is thier oath.

  6. Karen, you are raising “character” questions that were not a issue one hundred years ago when there wasn’t a Federal Reserve, an income tax, state education, tax benefits or an inheritance tax.

    If Christians are going to support these ideas they forfeit the right to complain about the consequence to families. This problem will not be fixed by another law. Sorry.

  7. Karen, you’re raising “character” questions that were not a issue one hundred years ago when there wasn’t a Federal Reserve, an income tax, state education, tax benefits or an inheritance tax.

    If Christians are going to support these ideas they forfeit the right to complain about the consequences. This is not going to be fixed by another law. Sorry.

  8. I think it is hypocritical of us to speak out against a “same sex” marriage and the threat to the family while simultaneously being silent/supportive of that which is causing greater damage – policies that violate property rights in violation of Scripture and the U.S. Constitution.

    From a practical standpoint? I advocate a federal legislator stay within his jurisdiction – Article 1, Section 8 and keep his oath.

  9. Thanks for clarifying, Eric. We agree on one thing: what you advocate is radical. As to the rest, we’ll have to disagree. Same-sex marriage is an issue because its advocates are pushing to make it happen by legislation and litigation. Period. I don’t believe for a minute that it has anything to do with conservatives allegedly abandoning small government principles by supporting probate laws, legal regulation of marriage, or policies that privilege traditional marriage. Those are long-standing and mainstream American policies.

  10. Dave,

    Some other long-standing and mainstream American policies:

    1. Slavery
    2. Segregation
    3. Denial of the right to vote for women
    4. Denial of the right to vote for anyone under the age of 21

    “Mainstream” is not forever.

  11. Dave – That fact that what I share is radical says more about us and how far we have moved from the ideals our nation was founded on and how progressive the current political discussion has become in both parties.

    “I don’t believe for a minute that it has anything to do with conservatives abandoning small government principles…”

    Can you share the name of a conservative congressman who has authored any bills to eliminate the limited government violations I presented? If you can give me a name I would like to review his voting record.

  12. Really, “hypocrisy questioned,” whoever you are, really? Probate law, government regulation of marriage, and privileging traditional marriage are akin to slavery, segregation, and denying the right to vote to women or people under 21? Really?

  13. Memo to the left: Do you think by calling me an idiot and a racist, then this will motivate me into changing my mind into agreeing with you?

  14. Dave,

    My point was simply that just because something is “long-standing and mainstream doesn’t make it right and doesn’t mean it shouldn’t and won’t be changed. But since you brought it up, I would equate denying same-sex couples the right to marry with other civil rights battles. Most analagous would be the right to inter-racial marriage which was denied using essentially the same arguments being used by those opposed to same-sex marriage.

  15. Slavery was never “mainstream” in our country. Half the country rejected it, and it took a war to abolish it.

    Besides, ssm proponents are going to be viewed as the true segregationalists and the new slave holders. Why is this? It’s because of their embrace of baby farming among in third world countries, surrogate for hire, contracting for parts of children to make a whole child (sperm and egg purchase).

    Being gay does not equate to race. Gay sexual activity is a choice. Skin color is not.

  16. I’d like to live in peace too. If we lived in 1910, then I would totally agree that laws like DOMA and Prop 8 were unnecessary.

    But we don’t live in 1910. We live now.

    The governmental overreach into the definition of marriage and family is indeed a symptom and not the root. I agree there too. And I agree that gays are not the problem.

    I actually agree with this post a lot. And yea, let’s try to reduce the size and scope of the government. Absolutely.

    If we do not force the government to respect the natural institution of marriage, we will allow them to implement their so-called “inclusive” definition of marriage that actually excludes children at the policy level. When children are no longer part of marriage, which institution will they be part of? Welfare? And this change going to help us limit the scope of the government?

    Yes, we need to work to limit the scope of the government. But to allow the Progressives to take over the definition of marriage will increase the breakdown of the family because it removes children from marriage at the policy level. I don’t understand how Christians or fiscal conservatives can sit on the sidelines and let that happen.

  17. He’s not siding with the Progressives. He’s not siding with conservatives.

    Too many times we allow a few to draw a line in the sand and force the country to pick a side. It causes people to wear pro and against blinders. There are solutions that respect the rights and traditions of everyone. The only problem is it requires people to worry more about their own life, decisions, and biology than that of those whose has no impact on them.

    What if no church is forced to perform marriages they disagree with AND married same sex couples get the same protections under the law as married couples? What if the bond between parent and child is legally strengthened AND the state marriage paperwork is changed to say “spouse”?

    Is it that it can’t be that way or is it that some don’t want it that way? Are we looking for solutions or advancing agendas? I realize that the libertarian type solutions aren’t being discussed widely, but I don’t think that’s a reason to have to pick one of the sides that are widely being discussed. Reject them both.

    What if there is no forced same sex ceremonies in churches that disagree AND married same sex co

  18. What are some of these libertarian solutions? If they keep children part of marriage then I’m would like to hear them.

  19. And as far as advancing an agenda….. that’s not the conservatives or the Christians. They are trying to keep (conserve) the puplic institution of marriage from crumbling. It’s the Progressives that are advancing an agenda. Christians know that marriage between a man and a woman is a representation of Christ and the Church, the Holy Family, and the Trinity. It serves as salt, if you will. And if salt loses it’s saltiness, it’s not good for anything except to be thrown out.

  20. While I am open to hearing how children can be part of marriage, while simultaneously including inherently infertile couples, works, I am highly skeptical that such a solution exists.

    The French have been marching in the streets, to the tune of 1,000,000 people, because of this exact issue: we simply cannot include gays into the definition of marriage without doing irreparable harm to the instittion. And we know that the French are not homophobic, so they are not advancing some kind of anti gay agenda. even gay french intellectuals are speaking out about it. They understand the issues surrounding children’s rights extremely well.

  21. We had some web hosting issues this morning. It has been resolved, but about four comments appear to have been lost in the process. Apologies all around. Please repost. Thanks.

  22. Moonshadow,

    The majority of surrogate mothers are carrying for heterosexual couples. The majority of en vitro fertilizations are done to help heterosexual couples have a child. The majority of third world adoptions are done by heterosexual couples.

    In light of the above, do you wish to reconsider your statement that those who bring children into loving families using a method other than the missionary position are modern-day segregationists and slave owners?

  23. Michael,

    We may not often agree, but you couldn’t be more right this time. No one I know is proposing that churches (or synagogues or mosques) be legally required to perform same-sex marriages. There is no legal requirement now for churches to marry couples from a different faith or even perform inter-racial marriages if it is against their beliefs. The argument that churches will be forced to bless same-sex marriages is the reddest of the red herrings.

    What is being asked for is quite simple: Legal recognition of same-sex marriage (with all the rights, responsibilities and protections that go with that recognition) equal to that of heterosexual marriage.

  24. “What are some of these libertarian solutions? If they keep children part of marriage then I’m would like to hear them.”

    Simple. You get the government completely out of the adoption process as well. Let private agencies handle it completely. Birth mothers can certainly decide which type of family environment they want for their children. Let the agencies compete in the marketplace of ideas.

    Same-sex activists do a great job at stirring up emotions in people who have little to nothing “on-the-line”. Let’s see how the ideas play out when a mother has to make decisions about her child’s life

  25. We are already seeing something like this in the baby farming movement. Money and the marketplace of ideas is motivating people to buy/sell children and parts of children (dna). I believe history is going to view this movement very unfavorably, as it resembles another institution we all oppose.

  26. The marketplace of ideas is responsible for the Catholic adoption services that served communities extremely well for a long time. With states taking over the definition of marriage, these services have been closing, as they refuse to go against their beliefs and were not granted exemptions.

    The marketplace of ideas is a wonderful thing, on that point we agree. But I am not persuaded that it is appropriate when it comes to the needs of helpless children and babies, who are also full fledged citizens. Those citizens need institutional structures.

  27. Hypocrisy, if you conduct business in the state of CA, state law says you cannot discriminate against some because they are gay. That means churches who perform marriages, fertility doctors, bed & breakfast owners, adoption services.
    If the pro-same sex marriage side (for lack of a better term) truly wants to protect their rights and not force them to do something they disagree with, why not lead with that foot rather than compare the anti-same sex marriage folks (for lack of a better term) with slave owners? But not just you…the entire side?

  28. Michael,

    I can’t find any law that says the Catholic Church has to perform a ceremony for two people of the Jewish faith, two Muslims or a same-sex couple. I know the Mormon church certainly won’t perform a ceremony unless both parties are in good standing with the church.
    I also can’t find examples of gay rights activists demanding the right to church weddings.

    Sorry, but these are just scare tactics, like claiming that polygamy or marrying children or animals would be next if same-sex marriage became legal.

  29. Here’s the law: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil_Rights_Act

    Here’s a lawsuit: http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=98181

    I chose an article that mentioned religion on purpose. But I had to dig. Your response above was phrased carefully. Clearly more lawsuits are coming.
    But…if you and the pro-same sex marriage side are sincere, why not codify certain protections for people who disagree with same sex marriage? Protecting rights is a proper use of law and government, I think we agree on that.

  30. Michael,

    I would have absolutely no problem with a law that specifically stated that churches and other religious entities had the absolute right to refuse to conduct a wedding ritual for anyone, including same-sex couples.

    I clearly don’t speak for the gay community, but I don’t know of anyone who would object to such a law. That being said, this is still a red herring and there are no laws that say otherwise.

    The Unruh Civil Rights Act you cite states that “This law applies to all businesses such as hotels and motels, restaurants, theaters, hospitals, barber and beauty shops, housing accommodations, and retail establishments. There is no mention of churches.

    In fact, if you look under the section on legal interpretation, you will read “California courts recently held that a private school’s admissions office was not covered by the Act, because it was not a business. (A school had expelled two students who were perceived as bisexual.) ”

    The lawsuit you cite also has nothing to do with a church – it was about treatment at a health clinic.

    On this we may disagree, but I do agree with the court when they said “when a doctor has a specialty and provides a particular service to others, then the doctor cannot pick and choose who will receive the service or who will not based on who the patient’s identity.” Would you be ok with a Jewish doctor refusing to treat a Muslim or a White doctor refusing to provide fertility treatments for a Latino couple because he was afraid of the country’s shifting demographics?

    Even if we disagree on the lawsuit you cited, we can still agree that it had nothing to do with a Church being required to conduct a same-sex marriage.

  31. Well, you’re getting a little more open and honest about this, Hypocrisy. The herring isn’t looking as red and the other side isn’t looking so much like “slave owners”.

    So, other than doctors (and not even just doctors in some kind of emergency life-saving situation, but any elective procedure that directly conflicts with their religion) who else do you want to see forced by government into your opinion?

    And this is my point. Both sides want government to force their beliefs on others. Not my side.

  32. I was of the understanding the marriage licenses had their origin in the state’s attempt to prohibit interracial marriages. Isn’t the state’s entry into marriage the cause of our conflict? We are turning to them to solve this?

    I think the folks in this string are smarter than that.

    Do we really want the state, or whoever is currently controlling it, to have that power? Why not eliminate the tax benefits and property redistribution? Why not let individuals define it in private contracts under the terms they choose?

  33. Michael,

    I make every effort to be open and honest about all my comments and since we were talking about the fear that a church will be legally required to marry a same-sex couple then that herring is still very red.

    If you want to talk about medical ethics and the role religious belief should play in actions a doctor should or shouldn’t be required to take, that is a completely different topic and I will turn the question back on you. Should any business (not just doctors) be allowed to refuse service to any person for any reason? In other words, should we go back to the days when businesses refused to serve ethnic minorities or do you only believe that is homosexuals who should legally be allowed to have service denied?

    As for your last comment, the “pro same-sex marriage side” is not trying to force their belief on anyone. No one is advocating for the elimination of heterosexual marriage and no one is saying that you even have to stop believing that same-sex marriage is immoral.

    As a conservative, I would think that you would be in favor of individual freedom and that the opinions of others shouldn’t infringe on that freedom.

  34. Eric,

    Are you suggesting that there should be absolutely no laws regarding marriage?

    What happens when a marriage dissolves? If one spouse works and the other doesn’t? To the children? To the assets? If there was no contract before the marriage?

    I think you know that there needs to be some rights and responsibilities that come with marriage and some protections in the case of divorce or separation, but I think this line of argument is just another way to justify denying equality for same-sex couples.

  35. “…do you wish to reconsider your statement that those who bring children into loving families using a method other than the missionary position are modern-day segregationists and slave owners?”

    Nope. I’ll only add that those people will be lumped in with the ssm crowd, who will be the ones responsible for institutionalizing the practice due to inherently non procreative ssm.

    You see, ssm is a contradiction. On the one hand, ssm supporters argue that marriage is not procreative. On the other hand, they argue that they have a right to children due to being married. I often see remarks about gays wanting to get married and start a family, so I take it to mean that they believe that they are entitled to children because of the marriage.

    However, if being gay is biological, then being a gay parent is ideological. Participating in baby farms, while being an immoral practice for anybody, is especially problematic for gays, who have no moral claim to being a parent, having forfeited such a claim in favor of their preferred sexual activities. Because straight sex can lead to babies, straight couples have not forfeited that claim.

    Baby farms are immoral for anybody, but it is a different matter when one deliberately engages in sexual practices that CAN NEVER lead to children, yet make a moral claim to having children as a family.

    I am speaking purely from a philosophical viewpoint of course, not a legal one. I am also not making any assertion one way or the other regarding the effectiveness of gay parenting, nor am I making a judgment about gay sexual activity.

  36. “No one is advocating for the elimination of heterosexual marriage”

    This is true, yet it is being eliminated as a distinct policy. That’s what happens when marriage policy becomes gender neutral.

  37. “I was of the understanding the marriage licenses had their origin in the state’s attempt to prohibit interracial marriages. ”

    I am not sure of the origin. I did some research on this a couple years ago and discovered that the state was issuing marriage licenses even back to the 1600s on this continent. And it was because couples were moving further and further into the wilderness, without churches around. I don’t remember all the details, but if I ever find that reference I will share it with everybody because it would be interesting to know.

  38. Moonshadow,,

    You lost me. Allowing same-sex marriage has no effect whatsoever on my heterosexual marriage just like allowing Jackie Robinson to play Major League Baseball didn’t ruin the game for the White players.

  39. “Allowing same-sex marriage has no effect whatsoever on my heterosexual marriage”

    I stand by my statement. As a policy, m/w marriage ceases to exist when we make marriage gender neutral.

  40. Moonshadow,

    As has often been the case when listening to many a Republican comment about social issues, you have left me speechless.

    Have a good evening.

  41. Okay, HQ, got it. “My point was simply that just because something is “long-standing and mainstream doesn’t make it right and doesn’t mean it shouldn’t and won’t be changed.” That’s true but it’s not really much of a point because sometimes things are long-standing and mainstream because they are right and sometimes they are mainstream and long-standing even though they aren’t right. I think the examples you chose to cite show your real point was to smear and it’s interesting that you hide behind a pseudonym.

  42. For the record, As a Christian libertarian I am not an advocate of same sex marriage and I believe the most free and prosperous society is the one which most closely adheres to “the laws of nature an Nature’s God”.

    That being said, as a Christian I find the use of force/coercion incompatible unless the rights of another are being encroached so I leave it to my neighbor to make his own decisions about how to live and attempt to influence him by friendship and example.

  43. Hypocrisy, that being said and touching on Moonshadow’s comment –

    For most of Western history marriage was a private contract between two families. For 16 centuries, Christianity also defined the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s wishes. If two people claimed they had exchanged marital vows — even out alone by the haystack — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.

    In 1215, the church decreed that a “licit” marriage must take place in church. But people who married illicitly had the same rights and obligations as a couple married in church: their children were legitimate; the wife had the same inheritance rights; the couple was subject to the same prohibitions against divorce.

    Not until the 16th century did European states begin to require that marriages be performed under legal auspices. In part, this was an attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed their match.

    The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.

    By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos. Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a “mental defect.” Eighteen states set barriers to remarriage after divorce.

    There’s a little history. I believe the state’s jurisdiciton begins when fraud is committed or a contract is broken. The courts have years of precedent working that out.

  44. Dave,

    Actually you were the one who tried to make the point that marriage must remain between one man and one woman because it is “long-standing and traditional.” I only claimed that was not a sufficient reason and then gave examples of long-standing traditions that we can all agree we are now better off without.

    As to your other assertion that I am simply trying to smear, that is not the case. If you had read my comment in response to Bob Siegel’s earlier column on this issue, you would know that I am not saying that you or anyone else is a segregationist or are opposed to women having the right to vote. What I am doing is pointing out that the arguments made to defend those traditions are the same as those being used to oppose same-sex marriage. I re-printed my comment below.

    “Of course sexuality is different from race/color and race/color is different from gender. Every civil rights battle has been unique. What has been the same is the arguments made by those who wish the status quo would never change. They always fall into one of three categories:

    1. It is against my religion.
    2. It is in conflict with our traditions.
    3. I am entitled to my opinion and you shouldn’t force me to accept that (homosexuals, women, other races) are equal.”

  45. Moonshadow,

    I simply pointed out that your comment struck me as similar to that made by many an elected Republican. If you consider that an ad hominem attack, so be it. I know it is certainly no worse than your comment and I quote “Besides, ssm proponents are going to be viewed as the true segregationalists and the new slave holders.”

  46. I have only publicly seen one other person make arguments like I do re: who the real segregationalists are on the ssm issue, and he is not an elected Republican. Can you provide details, who/when, etc?

  47. I confess that when I make statements like that, I do feel emotion behind them, I do get angry at ssm supporters, and I do think some of them are lacking in character and others are simply ignorant.

    This does not make the statement an ad hominem, because I backup the statement with arguments. I make the arguments without attacking the people’s character, I attack their philosophy because their philosophy leads them to their choices. Their philosophy may be an indication of their character, but I don’t attack people’s character directly. For me, calling somebody a segregationalist is not a direct attack on their character. It is an attack on their worldview/philosophy. I know there were slave owners who were good to their slaves, who in their hearts were good people. That did not mean that owning slaves was good. It means they accepted a bad philosophy and were swept away by the wider society who accepted the philosophy underlying the practice.

    An ad hominem is an attempt to end or deflect a conversation by pointing out a flaw in the opponent’s character. I make the statement to begin a conversation about ssm, not to end or deflect it away from ssm.

  48. Moonshadow,

    I simply had no response to your comment that “m/w marriage ceases to exist when we make marriage gender neutral.” I had no response because I know that my marriage will be just as strong and just as special and important to me even after same-sex marriage becomes legal.

    As for your comments about slavery and the evils of same-sex marriage proponents, I guess I could compare them to the comments made by Michelle Bachman when discussing “the gay lifestyle.” She said:

    “It leads to the personal enslavement of individuals. Because if you’re involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it’s bondage.”

    “It’s a very sad life. It’s part of Satan.”

  49. She’s saying that gays are slaves to their sexual desires. That is not a claim I have ever made.

    She’s not equating gay parenting to being a slave owner. She’s definitely not drawing out the logic of gay marriage/gay parenting and how it has a similar characteristic to slave ownership.

  50. One last thing:

    I wasn’t making a claim about how you would feel when marriage policy no longer recognizes you as a groom and your wife as a bride. I was simply stating that brides and grooms will no longer exist at the policy level, or if they do, they are rendered “gender neutral.” Depends on how each state makes the change, but in all states that is the upshot. M/W marriage ceases to exist as a policy.

  51. Hypocrisy,
    “Should any business (not just doctors) be allowed to refuse service to any person for any reason? In other words, should we go back to the days when businesses refused to serve ethnic minorities or do you only believe that is homosexuals who should legally be allowed to have service denied?”

    This is a misleading. I am guessing on purpose in order to capture the emotional connection with what Democrats did to African Americans in the south for a hundred+ years. I am not suggesting that a doctor be allowed to refuse serving someone because they are a color or religion that they simply dislike. I am saying that in order to do business in California a doctor should not be required to perform a specific procedure to which they are morally opposed.

    A doctor who (due to his religious beliefs) is opposed to inseminating a same sex couple, shouldn’t be forced to perform the procedure by law. This doctor was not opposed to counseling the couple (which he did) because counseling is not against his religious beliefs. Performing the actual procedure is in direct conflict with his religious beliefs. I cannot think of many examples of this, frankly. Religious leaders, fertility doctors…but it’d be nice to see the same sex marriage side consider this person’s perspective rather than sue him.

    Which is my bigger point… the demands of the pro-same sex marriage side aren’t as clean cut as you suggest. The anti-same sex marriage side has legitimate concerns. That’s not to say that either side is without its bigots, but let’s address the legitimate concerns of both sides and admonish the bigots and controllers on the two most popular sides. Which aren’t the only two sides of this debate. This business from both the pro and anti side that their side is the victim and they simply want to help people is just not true. Both are trying very hard to affect the lives of everyone in this state and country and some in both groups have nefarious intentions.

  52. Michael,

    Those racist Democrats you refer to all re-registered as Republicans the day after Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law. They and their heirs are still Republicans today.

  53. http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/183344.html

    Civil Rights Act…

    House of Representatives:
    Democrats for: 152
    Democrats against: 96
    Republicans for: 138
    Republicans against: 34

    Senate:
    Democrats for: 46
    Democrats against: 21
    Republicans for: 27
    Republicans against: 6

    Many sources cite numbers provided by an issue of Congressional Quarterly. For example, on the web site of the 5th Legislative District Republican Party for the State of Washington, they state:

    “The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 recorded that in the Senate, only 69 percent of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82 percent of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the act. […] In the House of Representatives, 61 percent of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 Southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80 percent (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.”

    Also, an article on Salon.com states:
    “According to Congressional Quarterly, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed the House 290-130, and Republican support for the bill was much stronger than Democratic: 61 percent (152-96) of the Democrats supported the legislation while 80 percent (138-34) of the Republicans backed it. These numbers were similar in the Senate — 69 percent of Democrats (46-21), backed the bill along with 82 percent of Republicans (27-6).”

    Here is the Salon.com article:
    “Democratic bigots” by Jake Tapper, July 17, 2000.
    http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/07/17/rights/

    An excellent article on the CongressLink web site provides a history of the drafting of the bill and the debates within the two houses of Congress. According to the article, this is how the House of Representatives voted:
    “Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. It is interesting to note that Democrats from northern states voted overwhelmingly for the bill, 141 to 4, while Democrats from southern states voted overwhelmingly against the bill, 92 to 11.”

    The article later states how the Senate voted:
    “[…] the Senate passed the bill by a 73 to 27 roll call vote. Six Republicans and 21 Democrats held firm and voted against passage.”

  54. This one is also interesting…

    http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1300/who-opposed-civil-rights-act-1964

    The enormous desire to memorialize the senseless murder of John F. Kennedy, plus Johnson’s determination to demonstrate his power and purge his own racist past by getting a substantive civil rights bill through the Senate, proved a formidable combination. The long filibuster of 1964 was only delaying the inevitable. That all the participants knew this only goes to show how deep their racism was. It’s one thing to engage in a filibuster if there is even a glimmer of hope that something might be salvaged as a result. But serious commitment is required to take such action when one knows that ultimate failure is the only conceivable outcome. This fact should be kept in mind when thinking about people like Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, whose individual filibuster of the 1964 civil rights bill is the second longest in history, taking up eighty-six pages of fine print in the Congressional Record. Only a true believer would ever undertake such a futile effort.

    Even so, one final element was essential to passage of the civil rights bill—the strong support of Republicans. Although Democrats had a historically large majority in the House of Representatives with 259 members to 176 Republicans, almost as many Republicans voted for the civil rights bill as Democrats. The final vote was 290 for the bill and 130 against. Of the “yea” votes, 152 were Democrats and 138 were Republicans. Of the “nay” votes, three-fourths were Democrats. In short, the bill could not have passed without Republican support. As Time Magazine observed, “In one of the most lopsidedly Democratic Houses since the days of F.D.R., Republicans were vital to the passage of a bill for which the Democratic administration means to take full political credit this year.”

    A similar story is told in the Senate. On the critical vote to end the filibuster by Southern Democrats, 71 senators voted to invoke cloture. With 67 votes needed, 44 Democrats and 27 Republicans joined together to bring the bill to a final vote. Of those voting “nay,” 80 percent were Democrats, including Robert C. Byrd and former Vice President Al Gore’s father, who was then a senator from Tennessee. Again, it is clear that the civil rights bill would have failed without Republican votes. Close observers of the Senate deliberations recognized that the Republican leader, Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois, had done yeoman work in responding to the objections of individual Republicans and holding almost all of them together in support of the bill. “More than any other single individual,” the New York Times acknowledged, “he was responsible for getting the civil rights bill through the Senate.”

  55. haha nice try, HC. Some things never change, and Dems being segretationalists is one of them.

    Dems found blacks unappealing.
    Gay men find women unappealing.
    Lesbians find men unappealing.

    The new segregation, courtesy of ssm and art, says that a gay or lesbian adult has the right to segregate a child from his mother or father, simply due to the fact that this adult found the opposite sex unappealing. If he chooses to allow the child’s other parent into his life, he can make that choice. But because ssm guarantees that he does not have to respect the child’s natural right to the other sex, he does not have to make this choice if he does not want to.

    It’s not coincidence that most gays are Dems.

  56. SSM is the lever and kids are the fulcrum. Gay adults will apply pressure to the lever in order to legally force the opposite sex parent away themselves and their children, disregarding the child’s natural rights in the process.

  57. Can anyone cite claim that several Dems reregistered following the CRA of 64? Can’t find much of anything on it. One mentions that of the Dixiecrat Senators, only two joined the Republican Party, all of the rest stayed in the Democratic Party including Orval Fabus, Benjamin Travis Laney, John Stennis, James Eastland, Allen Ellender, Russell Long, John Sparkman, John McClellan, Richard Russell, Herman Talmadge, George Wallace, Lester Maddox, John Rarick, Robert Byrd, Al Gore, Sr, and Bull Connor.

  58. T.A.,

    Very interesting reading and thanks for making my point:

    “It is interesting to note that Democrats from northern states voted overwhelmingly for the bill, 141 to 4, while Democrats from southern states voted overwhelmingly against the bill, 92 to 11.”

    Southern state Democrats (and I don’t just mean the elected ones), after being betrayed by fellow southerner and fellow Democrat Lyndon Johnson, became southern state Republicans. They and their heirs and are still Republicans today.

  59. So, HQ, now it’s “and I don’t just mean the elected ones.” You can’t prove your claim, either with electeds or non-electeds. All you have proven is you are a BS artist and a spinmeister extraordinaire.

  60. From Wikipedia:

    “The term Solid South describes the electoral support of the Southern United States for Democratic Party candidates from 1877 (the end of Reconstruction) to 1964 (the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). During this time, the vast majority of local and state officeholders in the South were Democrats, as were federal politicians the region sent to Washington, D.C.. The virtual non-existence of the Republican Party in the region meant that a candidate’s victory in Democratic primary elections was tantamount to election to the office itself.

    The Democratic dominance of the South originated in many white Southerners’ animosity towards the Republican Party’s stance in favor of political rights for blacks during Reconstruction and Republican economic policies such as the high tariff and the support for continuing the gold standard, both of which were seen as benefiting Northern industrial interests at the expense of the agrarian South in the 19th century. It was maintained by the Democratic Party’s willingness to back Jim Crow laws and racial segregation.”

    The south was and is racist. It was predominantly Democratic because of their hate for Lincoln and it became predominantly Republican because of their hate for Johnson.

  61. Also from Wikipedia:

    “Though the “Solid South” had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party’s defense of slavery before the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.”

  62. This southern dems were racist thing…I just wrote about it this weekend. I’m sending it in to Rostra soon. Hypocrisy’s statement couldn’t be a better segue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.