Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Louisiana votes to ban same sex marriage

Louisiana

"voters overwhelmingly approved a state constitutional amendment Saturday banning same-sex marriages and civil unions, one of up to 12 such measures on the ballot around the country this year.
With 95 percent of precincts reporting, the amendment was winning approval with 79 percent of the vote and support for it was evident statewide. Only in New Orleans, home to a politically strong gay community, did the race appear to be close, and even there the amendment was passing by a small margin."

Discussions - 7 Comments

I suppose my politics have changed from Conservative to Libertarian over the past few years. I’d prefer if the government keep to preserving our property and liberty and stay away from our personal lives.

I’ve seen some very happy gay couples and none of them have threatened me or disrupted my life in any way.

I would vote to keep the government small and out my personal life.

What do the rest of you think? Is the ongoings in one’s personal life significant enough to affect a dignified constitution?

Gay marriage is a matter that should be delt with by the state governments. Let the state legislature deal with the matter, and keep Washington out of it.

If the issue of homosexuality and gay marriage is simply one of personal preference, liberty, and keeping the government out of our personal lives, and if we are to argue in the absence of natural law or the moral law, then many forms of marriage become permissible. For example, we should certainly not prevent a mother from marrying her son as a matter of personal liberty and keeping the government out of the family. Then, we should allow men to have one hundred wives and stop limiting their personal freedom. We should allow a consenting eleven-year-old boy and thirty-year-old man to marry since they might love each other and need personal freedom. We should also allow a man to marry a sheep or his dog because he has personal freedom to marry whatever he wants and is not harming anyone else.

Professor Hadley Arkes, who led an excellent teacher seminar, which will be available for listening on the Ashbrook site, asked a very good question, "Do we have a natural or constitutional right to do a wrong?" If the practice of homosexuality is wrong, then no legislature, state or federal, can endorse its practice or the union of two homosexuals. If we go back to first principles, then we see the plain truth of the matter.

Bravo, Tony!!!

Thank the truth - I’m just a follower.

Your argument is flawed in that you have failed to recognize that marriage is a mutual relationship. Each party must fully understand the extent of marriage and accept all aspects of it.

It is commonly accepted that one enters and adult cognizant state somewhere around age 18. So, two twenty year old men can understand marriage and agree to join together in this union.

An eleven year old boy is not recognized as being able to make this decision, so he is not allowed to enter into marriage.

The same is true for a dog or sheep (sorry if you have get a divorce now, Tony).

The government should not be in business of regulating morality, but rather of protecting our lives and property.

So, if mutuality is all that’s necessary for consenting adults, why are you and the government limiting my freedom to marry my mother or many women? Why not have a group love fest marriage if everyone agrees? Also, why are you arbitrarily instituting some sort of rule that only 18-year-olds are capable of giving their consent? It may be commonly accepted by law that 18-year-olds can give consent, but should government be in the business of telling someone when they are capable of giving consent and limiting their personal freedom to make decisions? In addition, consent cannot be given to commit a wrong. If two robbers agree to consent to break the law, one would not recognize that consent was given, but rather that it was an illicit contract to do wrong/break the law. Perhaps the idea that without God/moral law/natural law, all things are permissible really does hold true. Finally, government regulates our bodies and morality all the time, and it should, so why should this be different? I personally don’t want to live in a Hobbesian world - I prefer to live in the Hamiltonian world of a "Farmer Refuted."

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/5003