Church Says It Won't Break Laws, But Condemns Those Who Follow Them

Westboro Baptist Church likes to protest at funerals. Pretty disgusting, huh? And what are they protesting? They're protesting against homosexuality. So you'd think they're protesting at the funerals of gay men who've died from AIDS, right? Pretty insensitive, right? No, Westboro Baptist, a small church in Kansas, travels around the country to protest at the funerals of American servicemembers killed in combat.

At least they're going to the funerals of gay servicemembers, right? No! This church is hijacking the funerals of proud servicemembers in order to promote their anti-gay agenda. Specifically, they're praising God for killing servicemembers for defending a country that allows homosexuality. Because you can legally have sex with another man, these people think God is killing our soldiers with IEDs as punishment.

I could talk about how it's not actually illegal to be gay in most countries, and how tenuous the relationship between a bomb placed in Iraq is to God's feelings on two men in San Francisco, but I won't insult anyone's intelligence by pointing out the obvious. Nor will I point out that the United Stated Armed Forces have got to be one of the most homosexual-intolerant institutions in the country.

Instead, I'll just point out a simple piece of advice. If the fact that people are free to live how they want bothers you, move out of our country. Many fine countries have far fewer freedoms and more governmental controls on personal behavior. May I recommend Saudi Arabia or Iran?

Labels: church, homosexuality, iraq

Permalink

The Point Of Freedom Is To Deny It To Those You Hate

Has anyone been following the Gay Marriage Ban that has been progressing through Virginia? It looks like it will be put before voters in a referendum in November. Just to clarify, Virginia already bans same-sex marriages; this bill is intended to prevent couples married in other states from having any legal status in Virginia.

Supporters say they aren't trying to discriminate against homosexuals, but rather preserve marriage. I don't understand that. I'm not homosexual, and I'm married. Were homosexuals allowed to be married, I don't see how my family would fall apart. Nothing would change for anyone, except homosexuals. Why should I be against them enjoying the same legal benefits that I enjoy?

Del. Kathy J. Byron (R-Lynchburg) is one of the amendments main drivers. Tell me, does this sound like someone who has a good handle on their own lifestyle choices: "Marriage is much more than just two people sharing a committed relationship. By changing the definition of marriage, the family, too, would be redefined, ultimately destroying the traditional family. And if the traditional structure of family no longer matters, what is marriage for?" She is assuming that allowing two women to marry will mean that no women will marry or raise families. Wrong, Kathy, some of us are pretty confident that the human race will survive if people are allowed to choose who they have sex with.

The main opposition, strangely enough, isn't coming from those who support gay marriages. The opposition is coming from legislators afraid that straight couples in non-traditional relationships may be impacted. They worry the bill, which disallows any rights to unmarried non-family members, would impact unmarried couples right to make health care decisions, and even reduce protection to unmarried victims of domestic violence.

What's wrong with this picture? Opponents of the bill are saying they like the general idea, but they worry that straight people might be affected? Is there no one left who believes that each American should be free to pursue his own happiness, in his own way, without government interference? When can we finally kick Uncle Sam out of our bedrooms?

Phinky made an excellent point on Ignorant Hussy. In the aptly-named Loving v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court struck down a Virginia law prohibiting interracial couples who married in other states from living as husband and wife in Virginia. If I may quote from the decision:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

If you don't see a relationship between this bit of history and the current debate, perhaps you should read up on the arguments used to support bans on interracial marriages in the last century.

Labels: homosexuality, personal freedoms

Permalink