Founder of the radically right wing and rabidly stupid political website/blog World Net Dailyhas posted a call for full-on theocracy. He doesn’t sugar coat it. I think if you want the real ideology of the Right and Left now, you goto WND and the Daily Kos. These are two insanely dangerous factions of political ideologues. Unfortunately, they also have mouth pieces in the mainstream media at FOX and MSNBC.
I just read that article. Where does he call for an absolute theocracy?
He writes:
"The issue Christians and Jews should be focused upon is whether it can ever be acceptable for the government to condone sin – or, worse yet, encourage it by making it a ‘right.’
I don’t believe government can do that without dire consequences."
I would think Objectivists whole-heatedly agree that government has no place in creating “rights”.
From the perspective of NOT advocating government action here, the article is in line with reason (granted, likely by accident, since the foundation is religion). But as I read that article, I don’t see any calls for the creation of more government. It seems to be arguing against government getting into the creation of “special rights”.
I suppose one could extrapolate by the author’s use of the term “condone” that he could be implicitly suggesting an activist and/or theocratic government. But I don’t get that from this particular article (I’ve never heard of this guy prior, btw). He does mention the American founders and how they understood man’s rights as being from God err. nature. 
The conclusion being that individual rights are not granted by or taken away by a government.
When I read things like this I often need to mentally replace “God” with “Existence/Reality” and “sin” with “irrationality”. Then, with those replacements, I am able to judge the validity of their argument’s outcomes based on that originally flawed mystical premise. Half the time (like I think here) it makes OK sense… the other half, it is a jumbled mess.
I agree that there is danger in accepting a mystical premise from the start. I just don’t see this particular article as a good example of why. (Find me one advocating the federal marriage ‘protection’ amendment, and I will agree with you)
I just read that article.
Really? The same one that starts with “Homosexual behavior has been successfully marketed as a “rights” issue.”?
It IS a rights issue. And it’s not about the government creating rights, it’s about protecting the individual rights of everyone. Which governments all over the nation are failing to do for gays simply because of people like this author.
The man is a bigot.
I just read that article. Where does he call for an absolute theocracy?
He writes:
"The issue Christians and Jews should be focused upon is whether it can ever be acceptable for the government to condone sin – or, worse yet, encourage it by making it a ‘right.’
I don’t believe government can do that without dire consequences."
I would think Objectivists whole-heatedly agree that government has no place in creating “rights”.
From the perspective of NOT advocating government action here, the article is in line with reason (granted, likely by accident, since the foundation is religion).
He is saying that religious freedom means that gays can be denied the right to marry, because it is a government created right. Objectivists would strongly isagree both with the statement that religious freedom involves the rightto make political decisions when you’re the majority, and that gays’ right to marry is somehow created by the government.
Why you would think that Objectivists would agree with word-games is beyond me. Objectivism is very clear on what freedom and rights mean.
When I read things like this I often need to mentally replace “God” with “Existence/Reality” and “sin” with “irrationality”.
If you did make those replacements, the argument would be just as much a call for dictatorship. This time, a dictatorship in which ideas the author prescribes as moral or rational are imposed on every individual, instead of what the Bible prescribes. In fact, the government has no business deciding what’s rational for individuals, its job is to protect their rights.
Really? The same one that starts with “Homosexual behavior has been successfully marketed as a “rights” issue.”?
It IS a rights issue. And it’s not about the government creating rights, it’s about protecting the individual rights of everyone. Which governments all over the nation are failing to do for gays simply because of people like this author.
The man is a bigot.
He may be a bigot… I’ve never heard of him before.
What “rights” are you proposing be protected? The right to a government bestowed marriage right? Wrong direction.
I would guess that this author probably supports an amendment banning gay marriage, which of course I would not ever support. He just doesn’t speak of that in this article.
He is saying that religious freedom means that gays can be denied the right to marry, because it is a government created right. Objectivists would strongly isagree both with the statement that religious freedom involves the rightto make political decisions when you’re the majority, and that gays’ right to marry is somehow created by the government.
Why you would think that Objectivists would agree with word-games is beyond me. Objectivism is very clear on what freedom and rights mean.
Word games? It seems that you are making the leaps here, not me. Please point out where he is calling for any laws in this article. I admit, I may have missed it.
Shouldn’t marriage be something that is sanctioned outside of government anyway? What business does the government have in it at all?
You’re arguing for going in the wrong direction. It would be like saying that you think that white men need to be added to the “protected groups” in hate crimes legislation. When, in reality, there need be no special protections for “groups” in the first place.
This article is a pretty good summary of how both sides are making the wrong arguments: http://reason.org/news/show/gay-marriage-on-californias-no-1
I oppose “gay rights” myself as an immoral intervention of the government into the private lives of individuals. I support individual rights for everyone. But that article is written from a typical mystical religious viewpoint. 
Word games? It seems that you are making the leaps here, not me. Please point out where he is calling for any laws in this article. I admit, I may have missed it.
You didn’t miss the point where he’s calling for new laws, you missed what he is saying entirely: he’s obviously not calling for any laws, he is calling for an existing law that is discriminatory against gays to be left unchanged.
Shouldn’t marriage be something that is sanctioned outside of government anyway?
I don’t know what that means. The government is wrong to assign special privileges (such as welfare) to married people, if that’s what you meant to say. But if you mean that the government should not enforce the contract of marriage at all, then you’re wrong.
What business does the government have in it at all?
Properly, only contract enforcement. They should definitely not require that the two parties to this pre-defined, optional contract be of two different genders, as they do now, and as the person you are defending is arguing they should continue to do, because God said so.
You’re arguing for going in the wrong direction. It would be like saying that you think that white men need to be added to the “protected groups” in hate crimes legislation. When, in reality, there need be no special protections for “groups” in the first place.
Just because you don’t know that marriage is a very old contract, to be enforced by the government, and didn’t bother to google it to find out, doesn’t mean you can now let your imagination run wild and write a whole analogy laden paragraph on what my argument really is. The man you are defending is arguing in the wrong direction, I have simply been explaining why that is.
If you want to hear my argument on the issue of marriage itself, here it is: Right now, there is a special protection for religious groups, who would be offended if the contract of marriage, which they describe as “holy”, would be possible between two individuals of the same sex, as it should be. I am arguing that the law be changed, and all irrational requirements within this contract be removed from all legislation, including the one allowing a man to only marry a woman, and vice versa (and any potential references to God, religion, family values etc.).
What you seem to be arguing for is that the contract of marriage itself be eliminated from the books, and never be enforced by any Court again. My question is now, do you wish the same thing happened to all contracts in general, or just to this particular type of contract, and why?
You’re projecting views on to me based on what I can only assume are your emotions about this issue.
You didn’t miss the point where he’s calling for new laws, you missed what he is saying entirely: he’s obviously not calling for any laws, he is calling for an existing law that is discriminatory against gays to be left unchanged.
Good. So agreed that he did NOT call for new laws.
I did miss the part where he said to keep discriminatory laws in this article. Can you show me that part? I’ll hapily disagree with him on any statement where he supports discrimination in law. The gist I got in this piece was that gays should not have “special rights”… and there is nothing wrong with that particular point.
The government is wrong to assign special privileges (such as welfare) to married people, if that’s what you meant to say. But if you mean that the government should not enforce the contract of marriage at all, then you’re wrong.
I’m not sure why you would think that I don’t support legal enforcement of contract. That’s an odd leap to make. The government is there to enforce contracts made between consenting parties. No dispute here.
Properly, only contract enforcement. They should definitely not require that the two parties to this pre-defined, optional contract be of two different genders, as they do now, and as the person you are defending is arguing they should continue to do, because God said so.
Hey, that is my point! The government should not be defining contract terms, that is up to the people involved in consenting to, and creating a contract.
The argument in this article is against further definitions of terms in contracts. Like I keep saying, he’s on very shaky ground, but that argument is correct. He may also be one to argue to keep his protections in place (hypocritically, of course), but he was NOT arguing that point in this article. I even went back and read through it again (as painful a read as it is… I skipped all the scripture stuff this time though).
Just because you don’t know that marriage is a very old contract, to be enforced by the government, and didn’t bother to google it to find out, doesn’t mean you can now let your imagination run wild and write a whole analogy laden paragraph on what my argument really is. The man you are defending is arguing in the wrong direction, I have simply been explaining why that is.
lol… You’re off the rails here. Thanks for explaining to me that marriage is a contract, but there is no rational way you could believe that is in question here.
I’m not defending the man (as I’ve pointed out a few times). I’m simply countering the accusation that the piece he wrote either “calls for absolute theocracy” or a “dictatorship” (as you called it). The man may think that, and his flawed philosophy could lead to that end. But what he is advocating against in this piece is “no special rights”… Which happens to be correct… even if he got there by accident (which I also pointed out in my first reply).
If you want to hear my argument on the issue of marriage itself, here it is: Right now, there is a special protection for religious groups, who would be offended if the contract of marriage, which they describe as “holy”, would be possible between two individuals of the same sex, as it should be. I am arguing that the law be changed, and all irrational requirements within this contract be removed from all legislation, including the one allowing a man to only marry a woman, and vice versa (and any potential references to God, religion, family values etc.).
Which special protection are you referring to? Is there a specific state for federal legal language you are thinking of? I agree with your principle here, but I’m not sure that when you say “the law should be changed” that I know what exactly you are suggesting.
What I am concerned about is the concept that there is a “right” to marriage which some feel the government needs actively facilitate. Rights cannot force action by others. Rights are one’s freedom to their own actions. It does not require that others provide you with anything. And, of course, the state should not prohibit your freedom to action.
What you seem to be arguing for is that the contract of marriage itself be eliminated from the books, and never be enforced by any Court again. My question is now, do you wish the same thing happened to all contracts in general, or just to this particular type of contract, and why?
Hmmm… No, that is not what I am arguing.
I did miss the part where he said to keep discriminatory laws in this article. Can you show me that part? I’ll hapily disagree with him on any statement where he supports discrimination in law. The gist I got in this piece was that gays should not have “special rights”… and there is nothing wrong with that particular point.
I can show you, but I won’t, you already have the link. Read the first five or so paragraphs for a third time, or ten times, or however many times necessary, until you discover that he is explicitely calling for the government to continue preventing gays from getting married. I have no intention of wasting time hunting for excerpts to point out the obvious.
What I am concerned about is the concept that there is a “right” to marriage which some feel the government needs actively facilitate. Rights cannot force action by others.
Rights are freedom to action, and it is the government’s job to protect that freedom. By doing that, the government is actively facilitating the exercise of one’s rights. That is what it needs to do in this case as well, nothing more. That is what it is refusing to do, and what the person in the article is openly and enthusiastically condoning, based on his religion.
Gays, in this country don’t have the freedom to marry. If they had that freedom, and if the government recognized their marriage contract, that would mean that the government recognized their right to marry. That is what is being asked of the government, nothing more. And that is what it is refusing to do. It couldn’t be any more clear.
such hyperbole… absolute theocracy? I think not.
Gays, in this country don’t have the freedom to marry. If they had that freedom, and if the government recognized their marriage contract, that would mean that the government recognized their right to marry. That is what is being asked of the government, nothing more. And that is what it is refusing to do. It couldn’t be any more clear.
well gays are able to marry, just not to marry someone of their own gender - same as any hetrosexual. furthermore, you can commit your life to another person of the same gender and call it marriage, you just can’t expect the government to recognise that in terms of tax policy etc.
having the government recognise your marriage is not a freedom, it is a government entitlement, which is the point of the article. if two gay men set up a contract to buy a house together, the government would enforce that. if a lesbian decided that her partner would inherit her house and wrote that in her will, the government would enforce that. you are not asking government to enforce a contract between two people, you are asking government to force third parties to accept the contract made by two people.
having the government recognise your marriage is not a freedom, it is a government entitlement
So you’re against the government recognizing marriage?
having the government recognise your marriage is not a freedom, it is a government entitlement, which is the point of the article. …, you are asking government to force third parties to accept the contract made by two people.
If a patient in hospital has signed an document saying that his gay partner should make certain medical decisions on his behalf, would that violate the hospital’s rights? In absence of such a document, if the law recognizes that a spouse (gay or straight) has certain implicit permissions, is that a violation of the hospital’s rights? Similarly, if a person dies without a will, and the law recognizes that the spouse – gay or straight – has certain rights to the property, is that a violation of any third-party’s rights.
I know some people want the law to back off and insist that all such rights should be documented in formal contracts between spouses. However, the law is simply doing what is convenient. It has some rules that say if I die my wife gets certain property that was once owned by me. If I want to decide differently, I can still make a will. The law is merely recognizing the reality of the contract that actually exists between two people.
well gays are able to marry, just not to marry someone of their own gender - same as any hetrosexual.
Yeah, sure. And the Jim Crow laws didn’t ACTUALLY prevent black people from voting, they just had to have grandparents that could vote, same as any white person.
And I know someone is going to bitch at me because I am comparing a much more serious issue to this one. I’m just trying to illustrate why your point is stupid.
furthermore, you can commit your life to another person of the same gender and call it marriage, you just can’t expect the government to recognise that in terms of tax policy etc.
Nobody here wants the government to recognize any marriage in terms of tax policy, because nobody here wants taxes.
having the government recognise your marriage is not a freedom, it is a government entitlement, which is the point of the article. if two gay men set up a contract to buy a house together, the government would enforce that. if a lesbian decided that her partner would inherit her house and wrote that in her will, the government would enforce that. you are not asking government to enforce a contract between two people, you are asking government to force third parties to accept the contract made by two people.
But the government doesn’t, if you refer to it as a marital contract.
The Objectivst position is that marriage should be objectively defined by the courts, in the same way the corporations and partnerships are. There’s no sacrifice of freedom in this, and it’s not contradictory to capitalism to have the courts pre-define contracts that will be made very often.
If a patient in hospital has signed an document saying that his gay partner should make certain medical decisions on his behalf, would that violate the hospital’s rights?
as this is a possibility there is no need for gay marriage, their rights are not being breached.
and surely it is up to the hospital to determine whether they accept that or not (I suspect that virtually all would agree anyway).
In absence of such a document, if the law recognizes that a spouse (gay or straight) has certain implicit permissions, is that a violation of the hospital’s rights?
if a gay couple can get a marriage contract, why can they not get a contract stating that they can act on behalf of each other in medical cases?
if the hospital was run by a fundamentalist Christian organisation, then forcing them to accept and honour a homosexual partnership would be a breach of their rights.
Similarly, if a person dies without a will, and the law recognizes that the spouse – gay or straight – has certain rights to the property, is that a violation of any third-party’s rights.
no, it would not be a violation of anyone’s rights. but I don’t see how it is relevant, it would not be a violation of 3rd party rights if they served salmon at the funeral either. I never said that every conceivable aspect of gay marriage violates third party rights., I simply said the rights of gay people are not being violated if they cannot have their marriage recognised by the state.
I know some people want the law to back off and insist that all such rights should be documented in formal contracts between spouses.
that would be my preference, yes.
However, the law is simply doing what is convenient.
if convenience is the argument you want to make for gay marriage, fine, make that argument. I am simply saying it is not a matter of rights or freedom.
It has some rules that say if I die my wife gets certain property that was once owned by me. If I want to decide differently, I can still make a will.
you are not comparing like with like here. you are comparing a gay couple with no contract to your relationship with your wife, a woman with whom you have made a contract stipulating her as an automatic beneficiary in the event of your untimely death. a more fitting analogy would be a cohabiting couple, who had no legal relationship to each other. in this case, if the male partner died without a will, his property would go to his next of kin rather than to the woman with whom he happened to be living - exactly the same as a gay relationship.
this simply underlines the importance of obtaining legal contracts to ensure such problems do not arise.
as this is a possibility there is no need for gay marriage, their rights are not being breached.
and surely it is up to the hospital to determine whether they accept that or not (I suspect that virtually all would agree anyway).
It is not up to the hospital. For instance, the hospital cannot decide that (say) a person’s boss has the right to make medical decisions for them. The hospital has to look to accepted law in order to see what the law says about how to figure out the patient’s wishes.
If one wants to campaign for the removal of all recognition of spousal rights for all heterosexual couples, then one should do it clearly that way. Singling out one type is a problem. One could as well say that the law should not recognize any implicit rights between inter-racial spouses (not far-fetched, but a page from history), claiming that one would recognize those rights if the inter-racial couple writes things down in a contract. Clearly, if the theists had only this objection about documentation, we would have had civil-unions enacted pretty easily, above the objections of gay activists who do not want a separate legal term.
The principle here is that the law may not be informed by religion. If you wish to roll back implicit marriage contracts, you should start by campaigning against the biggest abuse of your ideal: heterosexual marriages.
So you’re against the government recognizing marriage?
yes, the state should stick to enforcing contracts, not forcing others to recognise contracts made by others.
yes, the state should stick to enforcing contracts, not forcing others to recognise contracts made by others.
Do you have a concrete example of someone’s marriage causing force to be used against a third person?
If one wants to campaign for the removal of all recognition of spousal rights for all heterosexual couples, then one should do it clearly that way.
you are right, I should have stated my position, apologies.
however, I was addressing the OP, the article and the idea that this is an issue of freedom.
if only gays could marry, I would make the same point - straights are no less free because the state won’t recognise their relationship.
Singling out one type is a problem. One could as well say that the law should not recognize any implicit rights between inter-racial spouses (not far-fetched, but a page from history), claiming that one would recognize those rights if the inter-racial couple writes things down in a contract.
as reprehensible as it is, I don’t think it would be an issue of freedom, if the law did precisely that.
the problem is the government granting specific privileges to groups, not the groups that they choose to favour.
if government grants marriage privileges to gays, the polygamists will be next banging at the door.
Clearly, if the theists had only this objection about documentation, we would have had civil-unions enacted pretty easily, above the objections of gay activists who do not want a separate legal term.
indeed. the argument over such pointless semantics baffles me. the irrationality of conservatives who oppose gay marriage, but are happy with granting gay couples the same rights, so long as they change the name confuses me. the issue - surely - is the privileges granted, the name is irrelevant, imo.
Do you have a concrete example of someone’s marriage causing force to be used against a third person?
taxation policies that favour married couples.
the issue - surely - is the privileges granted, the name is irrelevant, imo.
I agree. No privileges are granted by recognizing gay marriage. The government would be doing nothing except recognizing the agreement made by two parties. Nothing is enforced against third-parties. Not to do recognize marriage of some individuals is a violation of their rights. So, it is definitely a question of freedom.
Tax laws that favor some couples over another is a poor example, because one cannot make a good argument for any of those detailed tax-laws. Definitely not an example where third parties are being forced to anything by the fact of the contract: only by the arbitrary force applied by the tax-laws.