Tolerance: the Left doesn’t practice what it preaches

An example of sign vandalism provided by Protect Marriage Maryland.

If you thought the debate over same-sex marriage was going to be genteel and conducted by adults, don’t say you weren’t warned of what was to come.

This was sent by Protect Marriage Maryland as an example of some of the sign vandalism and theft which has occurred since churches and supporters of traditional marriage around the state began putting up signs urging people to “protect marriage” over the first few months of the year in response to the bill signed by Governor O’Malley legalizing same-sex marriage in 2013. Of course, PMM is among the groups seeking to place the issue on November’s ballot.

And with a number of events where people are expected to gather before the initial May 31 signature gathering deadline (including next weekend’s Pork in the Park celebration and the Salisbury Festival the following weekend) we could see efforts made at intimidating those who would seek or give their signatures to petition the bill to referendum. The template is already there based on some of the events surrounding last year’s petition drive to put in-state tuition for illegal aliens on the ballot, not to mention the controversy which swirled around California’s gay marriage referendum and its aftermath. The price of deviating from political correctness can be steep.

Yet I’ve often wondered why those who believe gay marriage must become the law of the state are so afraid. They trumpet polls which state their side is winning, and while it takes the signatures of  just 3 percent of those who voted in the last gubernatorial election to place a referendum on the ballot, it was nearly a 20 year hiatus since the last time Maryland had seen a successful push for allowing voters to decide. If they are so right there shouldn’t be a need to deface signs and perhaps intimidate petition signature gatherers and contributors to the pro-marriage effort, should there?

I happen to believe in traditional marriage and I’ve already signed the petition to place the issue on the ballot. Hopefully somewhere around 150,000 to 200,000 Marylanders will do the same, and while they’re at it place our gerrymandered Congressional districts to referendum as well. (Somehow I don’t think anyone will be putting out signs exhorting us to save the Congressional districts, though.) Perhaps I will take a little flak for doing so, but I happen to believe that changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples will eventually lead to it including adult-child weddings and unions between multiple partners of one or both genders. Once one threshold is crossed, those who will take a mile when given an inch won’t be satisfied with the one notch in the bedpost they’ve achieved.

And spare me the equation of the relatively recent legalization of interracial marriage and same-sex marriage. Once civil rights advocates got their desire to eliminate racial barriers to marital bliss, they were completely satisfied. Yet getting all the legal benefits and protections of marriage through the adoption of civil unions isn’t good enough for the radical queer movement – it has to be considered the equal of marriage between one man and one woman, or nothing.

Finally, it’s worth reading this gay man’s theory that being gay is more of a fad than anything, done for shock value. If what he’s saying is true – and admittedly this is very anecdotal, single-source evidence – then perhaps we should rethink the idea of changing a century or more of law (not to mention many generations of custom) for the flavor of the day.

Remember, the maturity level of some gay marriage proponents is measured by the behavior they exhibit. Is defacing a sign an indicator that the merits of same-sex nuptials can be rationally argued? I don’t think so.

Author: Michael

It's me from my laptop computer.

8 thoughts on “Tolerance: the Left doesn’t practice what it preaches”

  1. “Tolerance: the Left doesn’t practice what it preaches”

    Huh? Who claimed they were tolerant?

    When it comes to racism, homophobia, misogyny,… I can be very intolerant. And if religion is used as an excuse for any of those things, I can become extremely intolerant.

  2. You are right, Michael. The REAL objection is the slippery slope argument (allowing marriage between two consenting adults will invariably lead to men marrying horses). So let’s go back to when that slope started! Allowing interracial marriage led to all this trouble, so let’s go back and outlaw that again (it’s really a states’ rights issue when you think about it properly). But that slippery slope started with this whole “equal rights” mess. Let’s get rid of that, too. Once we started putting an idea of equal rights for all U.S citizens, people started getting uppity. So . . . where did that slope start? Oh, that’s right: “life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.” Boy, that was a terrible idea! This country needs to get back to its original ideals, by golly, before those radicals starting putting dangerous ideas into people’s minds. After all, the Constitution clearly says there should be discrimination against gay people, and it also says that some folks should pay just as much into a system that actively discriminates against them. The Constitution also clearly says the government should actively promote heterosexual marriage (I’m sure you know this as the strict Constitutionalist that you are). An ideal country would carefully weave religiously based moralism into the government, and government officials would zealously enforce these rules. You know, for the protection of everyone! And since there really is only one true religion, that’s the one we will enforce. That way, no slippery slopes! Sounds like a super place to live, and I am sure you will be happy to live under that scenario. I mean, you are ready to subject your personal life to the scrutiny of the government, right? Your civic rights will be tied to your personal life. Hope that is ok. You have nothing to worry about and will be equal, as long as you married a virgin and were yourself a virgin at marriage. Anything short of that, though, will result in a lesser civic status for you. No worries.

  3. Don’t you love it when the comment provides plenty of rope to hang one’s self with?

    How about if we dissolve into anarchy instead? I think you’d be pleased as punch when anything goes.

  4. Right. The only two choices are anarchy or theocracy. Gay marriage=anarchy! Slopes are all slippery! Change is always bad! E

  5. Let’s cut the crap. You have every right to be wrong, and I think you are. Until you can prove to me that being gay is not a choice (as skin color wouldn’t be a choice for interracial marriage) I’m going to contend that all we are doing with gay marriage is endorsing aberrant, counter-productive behavior. There is no equation between legalizing gay marriage now and legalizing interracial marriage a half-century ago, regardless of how much you may try to tell people otherwise.

    Rejecting gay marriage does NOT equate to a theocracy – you have our country confused with ones that actually execute people for being gay. But because being gay is a choice, part of the bargain is not being able to marry your partner. I don’t have a big issue against civil unions, but I’d like to preserve marriage as much as possible.

  6. Michael,

    Take a second and think about that position you’re advocating.

    A fundamental principle of limited government is that when considering a potential policy, there is always a presumption in favor of individual liberty and that government must have a strongly compelling interest otherwise in order to justify abridging or denying that freedom.

    By insisting that others must prove homosexuality to be a choice before we can consider allowing same-sex civil marriage you are turning that on its head, making the presumption in favor of statism and demanding that the proponents of liberty establish the reason government shouldn’t be limiting their freedom.

    Additionally, you’re making a classic statist mistake in assuming that allowing same-sex marriage is the same as endorsing it. You’re a free-market guy and I know that you would laugh at claims that allowing the legal buying and selling of marijuana constitutes endorsing its use, why should it be any different in the marketplace of ideas.

  7. I’ve taken a lot of seconds to think about the position I’m advocating, and realize that it’s not necessarily a libertarian position.

    But there are times we have to think of the greater good as well. Libertarianism distilled to its absolute purest form would be anarchy, so even the most strident has to agree there should be some rules to preserve a societal order. While it’s not necessarily germane to the issue at hand, an example I use is that if you believe a human life begins at conception, the mother’s choice to abort is violating the right to life of the unborn child.

    It is my belief that, unlike interracial marriage, allowing marriage between same-sex couples (who can’t naturally have children without the help of an outside party, as opposed to those few luckless examples of opposite-sex couples who can’t have children for medical reasons) goes against the natural order our Creator intended. Furthermore, it opens the door for more perversion of the concept of marriage – I suspect next in line will be recognition of polygamy and then the wish to marry children, both of which are somewhat common in Islamic culture. But even if you don’t bring religion into this, I believe the goalposts will continue to be moved.

    That is the strongly compelling interest I see. I will admit it’s more gut instinct than logic but choices have consequences. And while the choice of growing and possessing marijuana has consequences far in excess of the damage done, I think there would be irreversible damage done to the culture if gay marriage continues to stand. I may not be around to see that, but I believe it will come.

Comments are closed.