Response to: "Gay Marriage....Why The Hell Not?

This response was emailed to me this morning from a friend back home, Bart Kay.

Unfortunately, politics = "the double game" so I agree whole heartedly on that issue. Getting elected in this country testifies to the fact that one is superior to their opposition in terms of the ability to speak out of both sides of their mouth. It's the easiest way to garner the most votes in a society that doesn't actively research its candidates' viewpoints/records. This is why commercial smear campaigns are so successful. So I'd just as soon remove politics from this discussion of the deeper issue.

As for the individual healthcare mandate, that's a federal policy. Auto insurance laws vary from state to state. Those mandates aren't from the federal government but rather the individual states who choose to govern that issue in such a way. Even if all states individually happened to decide on the same mandate for their auto insurance policy, that's far different from the federal government forcing them to adopt said policy. If the federal government mandated the entire country to purchase auto insurance and that was deemed constitutional, then your comparison to the individual healthcare mandate would apply. As it is, I don't believe it does.

On government intervention, every proponent of democracy is also a proponent of government intervention in the form of laws to govern. To disagree is to propose anarchy. In such a case, so be it, one is entitled to such a viewpoint if they choose it. I don't see laws against murder or theft as undue "government intervention", and I doubt anyone else that believes in a civil society would. The question then becomes, "What laws are conducive to a civil society?"
I believe any laws against gay marriage and/or abortion that you above label as "government intervention" are based on the concepts of civility and morality. A historical view of the rise and fall of empires shows that neither can exist apart from the other.

I am, however, aware that morality cannot be legislated. It must be chosen by the people. So, to answer your question, "So, with all of this talk of government not knowing what is right, what gives it the right to tell people who they cannot marry?"

For the moment, we do.

I'm excited to hear other viewpoints as well. Enlightened discourse is necessary for intellectual growth.

Love to hear what everyone else has to say. Send your responses to leftwingliberalshow@gmail.com