This one is trickier, as I have mixed feelings about the issue:

On to the next, on marriage:

Does [a] man have the liberty to define marriage as being between a man and a man?

The same logic applies. You may think this definition, but cannot force it upon others, and the society-level decisions should be arrived at as previously described.

I do not have a religious objection against homosexuals marrying each other, per se. But they are acting as just one more phalanx in the army of leftists attacking the social fabric of America with the goal of making the country weak, impotent, and no longer prosperous, and they think they are backed by a perverse notion of “social justice” as they work to bring about the misery of hundreds of millions of people. As the effects continue to grow — and we already see some of them — these social justice warriors will blame others, remnants of “privilege,” “the system,” anything but themselves … until a collapse comes, at which point it will be too late. But same-sex marriage is merely a small part of the onslaught against America, and (were it not for the militant actions of advocates) not a particularly important part.

(Added after the fact:)


It does seem to me that same-sex marriage could have been approached in a much more agreeable manner. I expect that the country will get there — and in a sense, is “there” now as a result of the US Supreme Court decision. A few states had elected to allow this, and more were on the way — but the way in which it was imposed upon the rest by a bare majority of five SCOTUS lawyers is problematic, generates hard feelings, and is causing something of a backlash. Because the backlash is from conservatives, there is little risk of violence. But the hard feelings remain. And the way it’s being done is replacing religious freedom with orientation freedom, when there is no inherent reason why both could not be accommodated.

The average, ordinary gay person is not the problem; it is the militant activist, the sort who think that gay pride parade grotesqueries and threats to burn down Christian businesses make for good public relations. It’s a bit like the distinction between ordinary US Muslims and jihadists, perhaps, though there are problems with that analogy likely to engender complaints from more than one direction.

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle