Recently, I responded to a friend's post on Facebook. The topic was gay marriage--specifically the 9th circuit's decision on CA's amendment being unconstitutional. Many of my friends on FB and their friends expressed joy at the decision. One posted this quote from the decision.
"A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION."
In my post, I noted that had serious reservations about gay marriage, though I acknowledged it really didn't affect me directly. I also noted that I fully supported gays living their lives together in loving relationships, and supported rights that civil unions provided. I noted that 9th circuit was one of the most liberal in the nation. The response was predictable. People came out of the woodwork with the typical arguments: First, it was interracial marriage all over again. Then, it was "why do you want to stop people from having equal rights?" Then it was questions comparing the gay marriage amendment to prohibition. Finally, someone went all Godwin's Law and compared those who oppose gay marriage to those that wanted the Jews dead or gone.
To be clear on this issue, my position is that CA's amendment is not federally unconstitutional. There is not established federal law that prevents a state from deciding issues like this. In fact, federal clearly defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Now, let's look at that quote again: "A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION."
This struck me in its hypocrisy. Hadn't the justices just decided something based on a private moral view? The fact is they feel gay marriage should be legal, and then concocted a legal justification for their decision. Thinking further, I began to look back at some of the comments in the thread. Clearly, these people all favor gay marriage. But could they not see the problem with the decision, even if it aided them?
That's when it occurred to me. They didn't care, because their cause is all that mattered. THEIR private moral view was that gay marriage was right, and that was the end of it. If someone disagreed for any reason, that person had to be attacked. That person would be called a bigot (even if in not so many words). That person would be told he was imposing his private moral views and religious on others. That person would be told that he was against "giving everyone the rights they deserve." He might even be called anti-American, or what not. This certainly applied to me. My argument is simple: I don't support calling gay unions marriages. "Marriage" is a societal institution between a man and a woman, and has been in most cultures for thousands of years. Changing the definition could lead to even more changes later, which could end up destroying the meaning of the institution eventually. Change it for gays, and there is no legal or moral ground to deny ANY future changes, particularly the wish to mary more than one person.
Finally I realized this problem was not limited to this issue. It seems as liberals consider their position to be the default moral position in any situation. War is wrong. Why? Because, we said so. The rich should pay more in taxes? Disagree? You hate the poor. It doesn't matter what data you show to demonstrate it's a bad idea, because their inherent moral superiority takes over. Pick any issue you like, from gay marriage, to to taxes, to healthcare. Any disagreement for any reason will result in a verbal assault. The -isms (as trump likes to note) will fly. The mainstream media supports this. And yet the irony is striking. Liberals tend to oppose-or at least do not embrace-traditional moral and family values. From sexual freedom, to same sex parent households, to cradle to grave government...liberals tend to push traditional values aside. Yet they are somehow the ones who lecture the rest the nation on making moral judgments.
In short, the liberal position is the one that is portrayed as being inherently morally superior. I would like to know why, in your opinion, this is.
"A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION."
In my post, I noted that had serious reservations about gay marriage, though I acknowledged it really didn't affect me directly. I also noted that I fully supported gays living their lives together in loving relationships, and supported rights that civil unions provided. I noted that 9th circuit was one of the most liberal in the nation. The response was predictable. People came out of the woodwork with the typical arguments: First, it was interracial marriage all over again. Then, it was "why do you want to stop people from having equal rights?" Then it was questions comparing the gay marriage amendment to prohibition. Finally, someone went all Godwin's Law and compared those who oppose gay marriage to those that wanted the Jews dead or gone.
To be clear on this issue, my position is that CA's amendment is not federally unconstitutional. There is not established federal law that prevents a state from deciding issues like this. In fact, federal clearly defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Now, let's look at that quote again: "A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION."
This struck me in its hypocrisy. Hadn't the justices just decided something based on a private moral view? The fact is they feel gay marriage should be legal, and then concocted a legal justification for their decision. Thinking further, I began to look back at some of the comments in the thread. Clearly, these people all favor gay marriage. But could they not see the problem with the decision, even if it aided them?
That's when it occurred to me. They didn't care, because their cause is all that mattered. THEIR private moral view was that gay marriage was right, and that was the end of it. If someone disagreed for any reason, that person had to be attacked. That person would be called a bigot (even if in not so many words). That person would be told he was imposing his private moral views and religious on others. That person would be told that he was against "giving everyone the rights they deserve." He might even be called anti-American, or what not. This certainly applied to me. My argument is simple: I don't support calling gay unions marriages. "Marriage" is a societal institution between a man and a woman, and has been in most cultures for thousands of years. Changing the definition could lead to even more changes later, which could end up destroying the meaning of the institution eventually. Change it for gays, and there is no legal or moral ground to deny ANY future changes, particularly the wish to mary more than one person.
Finally I realized this problem was not limited to this issue. It seems as liberals consider their position to be the default moral position in any situation. War is wrong. Why? Because, we said so. The rich should pay more in taxes? Disagree? You hate the poor. It doesn't matter what data you show to demonstrate it's a bad idea, because their inherent moral superiority takes over. Pick any issue you like, from gay marriage, to to taxes, to healthcare. Any disagreement for any reason will result in a verbal assault. The -isms (as trump likes to note) will fly. The mainstream media supports this. And yet the irony is striking. Liberals tend to oppose-or at least do not embrace-traditional moral and family values. From sexual freedom, to same sex parent households, to cradle to grave government...liberals tend to push traditional values aside. Yet they are somehow the ones who lecture the rest the nation on making moral judgments.
In short, the liberal position is the one that is portrayed as being inherently morally superior. I would like to know why, in your opinion, this is.
To save time, assume I know everything.
To save time, assume I know everything.
I'm outta here. This place is officially a farce. 
