We see again how “equality” is bringing about the destruction of our social order, and how denial of the Biblical basis of our society threatens morality as surely as it threatens our basic rights

Our Western system presumes that these rights are preexisting, not granted by the state but rather secured by the state — and that’s the point. The rights exist because they are God-given, but the actual, practical possession and enjoyment of these rights depends on a government that recognizes them and acts to protect them.

Marriage likewise is an institution that predates even government. The state doesn’t ‘create’ marriage; it acknowledges the institution and codifies the relationship, establishing a framework for it in the legal and societal context. Marriage is God-ordained, and a state that works to effect an orderly and stable society embraces it, protects it, and clarifies its privileges and responsibilities as and integral part — the primary building-block — of the social order.

So far as I know, homosexuals have the same ‘rights’ as anyone to enter into a private contractual relationship between themselves. But as to whether the state should be compelled to recognize such an arrangement as ‘marriage,’ conferring the same responsibilities and privileges, the state has no such obligation. The refusal to sanction it represent no violation of anyone’s “rights.”

“Equal rights” is the banner at the head of this march to suicide. As Carter Pittman wrote: “Equality of intellect stabilizes mediocrity. Equality of wealth makes all men poor. Equality of religion destroys all creeds. Equality of energy renders all men sluggards. Equality of virtue suspends all men without the gates of Heaven. Equality of love stultifies every manly passion, destroys every family altar.” — and now seeks to make perversion the equivalent of holy matrimony. The former is not elevated; the latter is dragged down.

Libertarians have to decide whether their devotion to liberty is more important than a devotion to equality. The 2 can’t coexist; it’s one or the other. And we all have to decide whether we will recognize God’s moral laws, or face His judgment.

Perhaps one could add to Mr. LeFevre’s powerful quotations, “equality of men renders family meaningless.”

Are we like trees?

There is unrest in the forest, there is trouble with the trees,

For the maples want more sunlight And the oaks ignore their pleas.

The trouble with the maples,

(And they’re quite convinced they’re right)

They say the oaks are just too lofty And they grab up all the light.

But the oaks can’t help their feelings If they like the way they’re made.

And they wonder why the maples Can’t be happy in their shade.

There is trouble in the forest And the creatures all have fled,

As the maples scream `Oppression` And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union And demanded equal rights.

“The oaks are just too greedy We will make them give us light.”

Now there’s no more oak oppression For they passed a noble law,

And the trees are all kept equal

By HATCHET AXE & SAW

Rush

Are we like trees?

There is unrest in the forest, there is trouble with the trees,

For the maples want more sunlight And the oaks ignore their pleas.

The trouble with the maples,

(And they’re quite convinced they’re right)

They say the oaks are just too lofty And they grab up all the light.

But the oaks can’t help their feelings If they like the way they’re made.

And they wonder why the maples Can’t be happy in their shade.

There is trouble in the forest And the creatures all have fled,

As the maples scream `Oppression` And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union And demanded equal rights.

“The oaks are just too greedy We will make them give us light.”

Now there’s no more oak oppression For they passed a noble law,

And the trees are all kept equal

By HATCHET AXE & SAW

Rush

Good poem, but I wish a different tree than the maple had been cast as the resentful “oppressed.” The maple is one of the finest and noblest of trees, a prince of trees. It would never be resentful of the oak. :-)

While I generally find the view of many libertarians that “if we have a state, it must be neutral on all social matters” to be silly, even if you do hold that view you can still be against homosexual marriage. Marriage is by its very definition a union between a man and woman, so homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. I don’t see how the state is making some sort of moral judgement by simply defining marriage as what it means.

“I don’t see how the state is making some sort of moral judgement by simply defining marriage as what it means.”

Because under liberalism, which denies transcendent goods, marriage has no inherent nature and function; or, at least, the traditional understanding of its nature and function is no longer authoritative. Marriage is simply a good, a commodity, that provides certain benefits and life experiences that people feel they require in order to feel complete; as Andrew Sullivan has it, marriage—or rather the right to marry—is required for people to be fully human. In addition to these weighty private goods of marriage, there are also public goods it bestows, such as financial rights and benefits, social standing, an image of maturity, and so on. So marriage under liberalism is a strange mixed thing. Its goods are of both a private and a public nature which make it highly desirable; but at the same time these goods are not defined in terms of an inherent natural and social function such as the reproduction and the raising of children, but in terms of self-fulfilment and status. On one hand marriage is indispensable, on the other hand it has no nature and structure implying, inter alia, that it is by definition a union of a man and a woman; its value is absolute, even as its meaning is purely subjective. Therefore to exclude homosexual couples, or anyone, from the possession of this value, based on the assumption that the value has an established definition, is an act of arbitrary discrimination and unwarranted moral judgment.

And as someone, probably Matt, has pointed out, that’s what liberalism is all about, isn’t it? Having denied absolutes, yet still needing absolutes, it makes human desires and preferences absolute; having liberated mankind from the supposedly oppressive rule of absolutes enforced from above, it subjects mankind to the absolute rule of each person’s desires.

Which, as Plato said, leads ultimately to the person (or the group) with the strongest desires becoming dictator.

I never thought I see the day when the Canadian rock band Rush is quoted on VFR. Nevertheless — it is a good song with fine lyrics.

The Rush lyrics posted by Charlz is insteresting if you know something about trees as well. Most species of maple are very easily scorched when young and actually require the shade of Oaks and other older trees to thrive. But that is part of a created order - something which absolutely must be destroyed according to the dogmas of liberalism.

I wish the so-called defenders of morals in the debate on gay marriage didn’t so often sound like schoolyard bullies looking for a weak target to pick on. We now understand that bullies have fears that fuel their anger.

Film maker Michael Moore shows us an America full of fears which are easily manipulated into social crusades against real or imagined enemies. In my youth, I heard about a Communist conspiracy, a Black power conspiracy, and a feminist conspiracy. Most of that turned out to be ordinary people availing themselves of the democratic process.

Canada has passed a law approving gay marriage. I’ll bet, five years from now, Canada will still be up north, and will not have sunk into a pool of moral depredation. In “Bowling for Columbine,” Michael Moore visits a Canada free from the racism and gun violence that we see in America. Could it be because Canada is not always looking for someone to hate or blame? I wonder.

Paul Shaheen writes: “Could it be because Canada is not always looking for someone to hate or blame?”

As a Canadian, let me assure Mr. Shaheen that he sees my country through very rosy glasses (Michael Moore’s, it seems). A great many Canadians generally look to blame the U.S., though white males, Christians and Israelis will do in a pinch. Of course this isn’t universal, but there’s a reason why the ghastly Liberal Party is expected to return to office in the coming elections with 90% of the seats in Parliament.

Mr. Shaheen writes that Canada is “free from the racism and gun violence we see in America”. This is patently false. Does he not remember the Air India bombing, for instance, carried out by Sikh extremists based in British Columbia? This was the worst case of air terrorism prior to 9/11. Just a few weeks ago a Filipino boy in Vancouver was beaten to death by a gang of Indians for racial reasons. Jews were spit on and beaten by angry Arabs at Concordia University last year. (Or would Mr. Shaheen not be willing to count these cases as “racism”, given that the perpetrators were not white Europeans?)

Finally, Canada’s black population is responsible for a vastly disproportionate number of violent crimes, including shootings. Just as blacks are responsible for a vastly disproportionate number of violent crimes in the U.S. - although oddly enough Michael Moore somehow fails to make any mention of this in his “documentary”. Michael Moore’s Canada is pure fantasy.

Of course, here as in the U.S., it is usually suggested that the horrifying black crime rate is somehow the fault of white people - all those awful Republicans and duck hunters in Moore’s film. The accusation at least has the merit of clarifying who it is that is “always looking for someone to hate and blame”, and who it is that is hated and blamed.