Tag Archives: civil rights

Civil rights

Be sure to read Gay Marriage, Democracy, and the Courts — The culture war will never end if judges invalidate the choices of voters. (Hat tip: LCB).

By short-circuiting the democratic process, Roe inflamed the culture war that has divided our nation and polarized our politics. Abortion, which the Court purported to settle in 1973, remains the most unsettled issue in American politics—and the most unsettling. Another Roe would deepen the culture war and prolong it indefinitely.

Some insist that the Supreme Court must invalidate traditional marriage laws because “rights” are at stake. But as in Roe, they are forced to peddle a strained and contentious reading of the Constitution—one whose dubiousness would undermine any ruling’s legitimacy.

Lawyers challenging traditional marriage laws liken their cause to Loving v. Virginia (which invalidated laws against interracial marriages), insinuating that conjugal-marriage supporters are bigots. This is ludicrous and offensive, and no one should hesitate to say so.

The definition of marriage was not at stake in Loving. Everyone agreed that interracial marriages were marriages. Racists just wanted to ban them as part of the evil regime of white supremacy that the equal protection clause was designed to destroy.

On a similar note, a commenter noted this a while back:

I really don’t think it’s the responsibility of gay people to prove their eligibility to partake in traditionally heterosexual rights. I think it’s up to the rest of us prove that they are not, or let them in.

Women should not have had to prove that they were good enough to vote. Blacks should not have had to prove that they were good enough to be considered “people”.

Once again, folks, let me point out the obvious:

  • Gender is genetic and morally neutral while sexual behavior is not.
  • Skin color is genetic and morally neutral while sexual behavior is not.

I know it is right out of the (allegedly nonexistent) homosexual agenda playbook to lump us in with misogynists and bigots, but conflating skin color and gender with homosexual behavior and jumping to the conclusion that sexual preferences confer civil rights status is more than a stretch, and to say that the burden of proof is on us to demonstrate otherwise (as easy as that just was) seems unreasonable to me.

The “civil rights for sexual preferences” bit is just more of the passive-aggressive question begging (aka cheating) that goes on with the pro-gay marriage crowd.  They want to change the definition of marriage, but try to skip the hard work by claiming that it already encompasses the change.

It is also ironic that the commenter does not consider most of those destroyed by abortion to be people.  He expects them to prove it.


As Steven (aka Lone Wolf Archer) points out, the “rights” talk is equally abused in the health care debate.


Top Black entrepreneur analyzes gay activism — Excellent analysis and insights.  For the 10th time, skin color is morally neutral.  Sexual behavior is not.  Sexual preferences should not confer Civil Rights status.  Don’t let the homosexual agenda fool you.  It is doing away with free speech rights while advancing its “Civil Rights for sexual preferences” campaign.

God’s Plan for the Gay Agenda by John MacArthur — Yep.

Sweden rules ‘gender-based’ abortion legal — Virtually all gender selection abortions destroy unborn females, yet abortion is still considered a women’s rights issue.  Seems to me that having the “right” to destroy your unborn child is a pretty lousy demonstration of the worth of women.  Seems like something men made up to avoid responsibility for their actions.

Killing females for being female is the ultimate misogyny, and the Left supports it.

Intel hit with record $1.45 billion antitrust fine — Yea!  I always hated dealing with them when I was at Compaq / HP.  Every time I left a meeting I thought to myself, “There’s a reason monopolies are illegal.”  They used all sorts of trickery, even against their own customers. 

Some good questions to ask Muslims

Ann Coulter had a nice summary on the Carrie Prejean topic:

Christians aren’t people who believe they are without sin; they’re people who know they’re sinners and are awestruck by God’s grace in sending his only Son to take the punishment they deserve.

This is in contradistinction to liberals, all of whom believe they’re on a fast track to heaven on the basis of being “basically good” people — and also believe that anyone who disagrees with that theological view is evil.