Last December, Matthew J. Frank wrote an article for the Washington Post where he criticized liberals for their incessant use of the "hate card", which is nothing more than a canard to avoid open discussion. After receiving volumes of hate mail, Mr. Frank revisits this subject.
But the danger to this course of conduct runs deeper, for not only is marriage at stake, but freedom of speech and thought, for ought we not be allowed to speak as we think? Therefore all religious expression is in peril. In July, 2010, a Boston Federal District Judge Joseph Tauro, ruled against the Defense Of Marriage Act by stating that the difference between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples is a “distinction without meaning.” A San Francisco Federal District Judge, Vaughn Walker, did the same thing by declaring that California's Prop 8 outlawing homosexual marriage was based only on tradition and without legal merit.In the contemporary debate on the future of marriage, there appears to be, amid many uncertainties, one sure thing. Those who publicly defend traditional marriage can count on being denounced as haters, bigots, or irrational theocrats—and perhaps all of these at once.
So the beliefs of federal judges sans any rationale was enough to counter the will of an entire State and the will of Congress. We are now subjects, not citizens for our will can no longer be reflected through our elected representatives at any level of government.
Last February the Obama fell into lock-step with these cretins by refusing to enforce the provisions of DOMA prohibiting same sex marriages.
As human beings we are all faith-based creatures. Atheism is the exception, not the rule and yet we are to be ruled by the exception.
We see what is happpening in England and throughout all of Europe where unpopular opinions are labelled as hate speech and the speakers are interned as criminals. In England, Christian couples who are explicit in their faith are now demmed unacceptable as prospective parents by adoption agencies. This was upheld by English courts. It will eventually happen here.
... “The simple reality of life is that all of us, irrespective of our views about God, base our lives on beliefs—on things that we cannot prove to be true, but believe to be trustworthy and reliable.” Understood in this way, “faith” is indispensable to all of us, whether we are recognizably “religious” or not. Belief is “not blind,” says McGrath, “it just tries to make the best sense of things on the basis of the limited evidence available.” It is perhaps a touchingly blind faith in the sufficiency of narrow scientific reasoning that fails to recognize this obvious fact of the human condition.
Now return to the way in which opposition to same-sex marriage is increasingly treated in this country. As we have seen in rulings like that of Judge Walker in California—or the Iowa Supreme Court in 2009—the argument made against the defenders of conjugal marriage is that they want to enact a religious agenda as public policy. As religious people, we are assured, they’re entitled to think “privately” whatever they please about such matters—but not to enact their view as law because, as a religious view, it is somehow by definition “irrational.” Even the possibility that their view of morality could be rational, and be rationally accessible to people not sharing their religion, is dismissed out of hand. The moral is collapsed into the religious; the religious is declared to be the irrational; and the irrational is declared to have no place in public policy.We have allowed the perverts to put us on the defensive. The questions is not "Why are we denying equals rights to homosexuals." The question is this: