How would the legalization of same-sex marriage affect your liberty?

Let me just quickly review how traditional marriage supporters are being treated in the prop 8 trial by Judge Walker. ECM sent me this article from National Review.


Take, for example, Walker’s resort to procedural shenanigans and outright illegality in support of his fervent desire to broadcast the trial, in utter disregard of (if not affirmatively welcoming) the harassment and abuse that pro-Prop 8 witnesses would reasonably anticipate.

[…]Take the incredibly intrusive discovery, grossly underprotective of First Amendment associational rights, that Walker authorized into the internal communications of the Prop 8 sponsors…

[…]Take Walker’s insane and unworkable inquiry into the subjective motivations of the more than seven million Californians who voted in support of Prop 8.

But the thing I want to focus on is the way that same-sex marriage would reduce the liberties of people who believe in traditional marriage, because this is something that is never discussed.

Consider this article from Jewish scholar Dennis Prager about the effects on your liberties that would occur if same-sex marriage became the law of the land.


Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying their prince charming — to do so would be declared “heterosexist,” morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. Little girls will be asked by other girls and by teachers if they want one day to marry a man or a woman.

The sexual confusion that same-sex marriage will create among young people is not fully measurable. Suffice it to say that, contrary to the sexual know-nothings who believe that sexual orientation is fixed from birth and permanent, the fact is that sexual orientation is more of a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. Much of humanity — especially females — can enjoy homosexual sex. It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction — until now, accomplished through marriage. But that of course is “heterosexism,” a bigoted preference for man-woman erotic love, and therefore to be extirpated from society.

Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.

Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man’s finger — if they show only women fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.

Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become.

Traditional Jews and Christians — i.e. those who believe in a divine scripture — will be marginalized. Already Catholic groups in Massachusetts have abandoned adoption work since they will only allow a child to be adopted by a married couple as the Bible defines it — a man and a woman.

Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and a woman will be morally regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate crime.

You can already see it happening in many places. Just this week Dr. J blogged about how Princeton University promotes or sponsors LGBT speakers who advocate for open marriage, but they won”t promote or support a student group that favors abstinence.

Comments will be strictly moderated in keeping with Obama’s hate crimes law.

Related posts

Canadian persecution of Christians

9 thoughts on “How would the legalization of same-sex marriage affect your liberty?”

  1. What about religious small business owners? This is a subject that never gets spoken about. But if I own a business, and I extend health care coverage to employee’s spouses and families, same-sex marriage would force me into one of two options:

    a) Dropping coverage for employees (either all together or only giving it to employees).
    b) Funding health care for same sex married couples as well as traditional married couples(I couldn’t legally do the latter without the former if same sex marriage were legalized).

    So I would either have to limit my ability to compete for job prospects, or endorse something I find immoral and reprehensible.

    Liberty and freedom for all? Not.


  2. The way I put it is that the more legal recognition the gay activists aquire, the more conflict will result. There is no way their invented rights will not clash with already established and Constitutionally protected rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion (as well as the freedom to express one’s religion in one’s everyday life), the right of free association (to choose with whom one wishes to associate) as well as the right of one to run one’s business as one sees fit.


    1. Very good points. Especially the last. My wife is a wedding photographer. As a Christian she would turn down any and all same-sex marriage ceremonies. That has proven to be a sue-able offense in other states.

      This kind of thing must stop.


  3. “Much of humanity — especially females — can enjoy homosexual sex. It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction — until now, accomplished through marriage.”

    Excuse me but did anyone else read this? The real agenda behind banning gay marriage is to protect male sexual access to females? Somehow that idea is so eye-popping it may actually be true.

    Male homosexuality is a different thing than female homosexuality. Far more women than me are bisexual, and part of the reason for that is that women tend to be more in the middle of all bell curves. With IQ for example, more women are in the average range with fewer outliers. Men on the other hand are statistically more likely to be geniuses or um what’s the politically correct term for a person of below average intelligence?

    But let’s get back to the point here. The idea is if homosexuality became socially acceptable – and legalizing gay marriage would be a huge step toward that – more women who were borderline on the sexual spectrum would choose homosexuality or bisexuality. And that would mean less women for heterosexual men to have sex with.

    You know what? I get it. That kind of intellectual honesty is something I can respect. It’s a much better argument than “what about the children?!!!!!!”.


    1. “…The real agenda behind banning gay marriage is to protect male sexual access to females”

      Thanks for missing the point. Banning gay marriage isn’t about rejecting homosexuality. Being gay is ok. Its about homosexual sex as marriage. Plus the quote you talked about might as well include polygamy or incest sex. Which, by the way, was common practice in ancient times, such as with Egyptian royalty. Marriage was made for children not adults, and is best left to heterosexual couples. Old societies accepted incest marriage and biblical times accepted polygamy. But not one society ever had gay marriage.

      for me, this was worth reading


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s