The First Amendment is more than a legal guarantee. It is a culture — a key American value — which holds that in a decent and free society, law-abiding citizens should not face reprisals for speaking up with civility for the moral good as they see it.
Sen. Chuck Grassley’s remarkable opening statement in today’s Senate hearing on a bill to repeal DOMA called attention to a very serious and growing intolerance directed at Americans who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife:
The minority very much hoped to call a witness today at this hearing to testify in support of DOMA. I am sure she would have done an excellent job.
She declined, however, citing as one reason the threats and intimidation that have been leveled against not only her but her family as a result of her public support for DOMA. She will continue to write on this subject, but will no longer speak publicly about it. This chilling of First Amendment rights is unacceptable.
When Chris Johnson, a reporter from the Washington Blade, called and asked if that woman was me, I was at first amused. No, of course not. I am not refusing to make public appearances. I was not invited this time.
But I could sympathize. I just returned from interviewing a Toronto sportscaster who was fired for tweeting that he believed “in the true and authentic meaning of marriage.” Next week, I will go to North Carolina to interview another man whose contract was terminated when the HR head of his company found out he had written against gay marriage.
The death threats and hateful mail New York state senator Rev. Ruben Diaz says he has received are not unusual. Whole professions are in the process of being closed to anyone who espouses — and acts — on the view that marriage is the union of husband and wife.
Fox News is not covering this. Conservative media outlets, except for a few beacons such as NR, are virtually silent.
The underlying truth that “pro-equality” Republicans need to understand is this: They are aiding and abetting a political movement that, at this point in history, seeks to make traditional Christian views on sex and marriage unacceptable in the public square — just as racist views on interracial marriage are unacceptable — by heaping scorn and hatred on any American who does something to support marriage as one man and one woman.
The marriage debate is about redefining not only marriage, but the relationship between Judeo-Christian values and the American tradition.
I just wonder what these “pro-equality” conservatives think will be left to conserve after that.
Here is how we can quickly combat the whole race/gay analogy bit since it often seems to come up. I am a man. I think we should all be appalled if I made a statement like, "I could never marry someone who is black." I do not believe society will ever be appalled if I said, "I could never marry another man."
Now we see why racism does not equal opposition to same sex marriage.
No doubt, proponents can see and hope for some similarities. But the two are foundationally different.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHuh?
"I do not believe society will ever be appalled "
Is that the standard? In 1870 not many whites would have been appalled by the statement "I could never marry someone who is black."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo in 2070, you want people to be appalled by the statement "I could never marry a person of the same sex"?
Is the goal here to be completely open-minded about this subject? I've made my mind up about marrying a person of the same sex: It ain't for me and it never will be. So I suppose that makes me a bigot?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo. I am suggesting that what people are currently "appalled by" is not a good measure of morality.
"It ain't for me and it never will be. So I suppose that makes me a bigot?"
I'd say good for you. It's fine it's not for you. Why do you need to enforce your personal choices and or morality onto others?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRight of Center:
I look forward to your whole-hearted defense of polyamorous, incestuous, interspecies-ous, and all other permutations of marriage in the not-too-distant future, as people become increasingly no longer "appalled by" such arrangements. For if one must not now enforce one's personal choices and/or morality onto others, one must not do it then.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFine, but what you actually did do was to question whether people ought to be appalled if a man said he could never marry another man.
I do wish you would read more carefully before responding. You do this kind of thing on thread after thread. I’m feeling generous, so I will conclude that you are purposely mucking up the arguments rather than answering them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis aggressive assault by pro-homosexual forces is as horrid as it was, up until recently, unexpected. And now it's come down to this: people who believe that children do best with a mother and a father are being mocked, threatened and bullied. Who would have thunk??
Maggie, we thank you very much for your hard work and fearlessness. God bless!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"They are aiding and abetting a political movement that, at this point in history, seeks to make traditional Christian views on sex and marriage unacceptable in the public square — just as racist views on interracial marriage are unacceptable — by heaping scorn and hatred on any American who does something to support marriage as one man and one woman."
Wrong. Pro-equality conservatives wish to make ENFORCED Christian views on traditional sex and marriage as unacceptable in the public square as are miscegenation laws. This, of course, should not involve personal threats or intimidation and everyone should be free to practice their religion on themselves. But not on others.
If same sex marriage or mixed race marriage is not your bag, fine, don't engage in those things. But a truly conservative position let Gays and Lesbians (like mixed race couples) "pursue their happiness" by getting married on an equal basis.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDare I assume that "free to practice their religion" includes having the First Amendment right to decline to participate in gay weddings if doing so would conflict with their sincere religious beliefs? Current "anti-discrimation" laws in several jurisdictions make such freedom of conscience decisions illegal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would think so. I would guess many equality-minded conservatives would be against such. Which is why its odd that conservatives use such terms like "aiding and abetting" language for other conservatives, painting them as "enemies" where there is lots of common ground.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am curios about these "anti discrimination" laws that are forcing you to attend gay marriages. Can you please provide a link to one of such laws?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWedding photographers have been sued for refusing to participate in gay weddings. Privately owned inns have been sued for refusing to host gay weddings. So yes, Amecha, there are laws forcing people to attend gay weddings.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd these are not first amendment issues, but 14th amendment (equal protection) issues.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShe said "participate in," not attend. However, caterers and photographers would indeed have to attend, and innkeepers would have to provide the facilities, so they would have to do more than attend. It's already been forced on some of these. Look it up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI suspect the writer is refering to lawsuits that attempt to force churchs to marry gay couples based on anti-descrimination laws. If you spend a bit of time on Google you will find a few instances. The thing is the lawsuits themselves can be sufficiently expensive that the churches will capitulate without ever establishing law. Further, local governing boards (e.g., The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights) may simply rule against the churches before it ever comes before a judge.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhere do you stand on group marriage? Threesomes, foursomes, etc.?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think if plural marriage advocates obtain political support to change the laws of their state by the will of the people as expressed in their legislature, then it's fine by me.
I don't think there is a Constitutional right to plural marriage, or gay marriage or heterosexual marriage.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat wasn't the question. You are advocating for homosexual "marriage," not merely arguing that people ought to be allowed to vote it in. You may not think homosexual "marriage" is Constitutionally required, but you think it is necessary for "equality." So do you regard ployamory, etc., in the same way?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMarriage is not strictly (or even primarily) a personal matter. Much of its meaning derives from the status of marriage as a social insitution. When fundamental change in a core social institution is proposed, all members of the society -- even religious conservatives -- are entitled to be heard in the public square.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"even religious conservatives -- are entitled to be heard in the public square." I totally agree. And without name calling and with due respect. I couldn't agree more. I also think it's a two way street. Or I would hope so. So I don't see how using terms like "aiding and abetting" (the enemy) for conservatives is helpful. Or maintaining that advocates of gay marriage cannot be considered true conservatives. In fact, I'd say that kind of rhetoric in the context of this post is hypocritical.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse