Prop 8: Equality or Liberty? (printable)

Topic: 1st Amendment
Prop 8: Equality or Liberty?

Nearly every article I've read concerning same sex marriage only talks about civil rights or equal rights. Very few have talked about the consequences to religious liberty and freedom of speech.
by P. Spencer
(conservative)
Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Liberty: Is the political concept of being free to act according to your own will without obstruction from government.

Equality: commonly refers to the idea of equal treatment of several diverse parties under the law.

These two political philosophies are constantly at war with one another. Equality only moves forward at the loss of someone's liberty.

For a broad illustration of this we can use any topic. The first amendment brings the base liberty and freedoms we enjoy in the form of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. For this example religion stands for any set of beliefs that form the basis of your world view and subsequent political persuasion (even Atheism)

In a Liberty point of view, it gives the opportunity for all religions to be practiced equally (right or wrong) without interference from government. Thus for example, religions are practiced freely without any speech impediments, and eventually constructive public policy is influenced by the majority views which several of the more popular religions will share together.
From an Equality point of view, all religions are equal in validity and worth and all must be treated as true (a logical impossibility). Thus for example, religions eventually get reduced down to their least common denominator (just be a good person kind of stuff), then anything beyond that must be suppressed by government. The only way it can work is if freedom of speech and religion is severely restricted.

The struggle between the two is taking place right before our eyes in the form of the same-sex marriage debate. Proposition 8 to define marriage as between one man and one woman in the state of California has ignited passion on both sides for sure. But usually in the media the Yes on 8 argument is presented only from a side of religious preference and traditional think while on the other hand the No on 8 are portrayed as helpless victims begging for acceptance.

There is another underlying message in the debate that gets little to no coverage anywhere that I've seen. That topic is Liberty. Changing the definition of marriage carries with it a whole host of problems concerning religious and speech freedoms, and brings us on a slippery slope which will inevitably end up taking liberty away in favor of the equality model if the definition is changed.

What are some examples of how it can happen?

Changing the definition in a legal sense definitely would have consequences on public schools. If 98% of schools teach about marriage, but the definition changes, of course it follows the schools would have to change the course materials to continue teaching it. This was largely used by the yes on 8 campaign because anyone with kids would have been effected, without any ability to 'opt out'. Now a state entity will be teaching about a counter morality (and thereby inherrently religious) subject which encroaches upon the the first amendment in that the state making no law concerning religion
Same sex married couples could not be hindered from adopting children from religious orphanages. In Massachusetts, a long time running Catholic orphanage was ordered by the court to allow a same sex couple to adopt. The orphanage rather than submit to the court chose to disband instead. So religious organizations will surely start coming under fire, reducing their ability to run, possibly ending them. Again the state hindering on a religous organization by compelling it to comply against the dictates of the religion
The next step would have been to criminalize any person or organization from speaking out against same-sex marriage as 'hate-speech'. Thus begins the states suppression of expression under the equality model. As is already the case in Canada, you will not be allowed to preach any sermons on the subject or refer to any part of the bible which writes about it. Now we have the state interfering directly with the beliefs of the church and hindering freedom of speech.
Since same sex marriage is sanctioned by the state, any church refusing the marry same sex couples will be seen as making a political stand and thus be threatened with loosing tax exemption status (this has already happened in Massachusetts). The loss of tax exemption will be crippling to the church and we'll see a drastic loss of charitable contributions that serve as a safety net of the down and out in our society. Now the state is favoring potentially one religion over another in the form of tax law.
Since the H-agenda will become more pervasive in public schools with marriage being sanctioned by the state, the response of many religious people will be to pull kids out of the public school to homeschooling or private school. This will then bring about seeking restrictions to homeschooling that will make public school near compulsory, forcing every child to sit through the indoctrination designed to thwart the parents passing on their heritage to their children. For private schools, the same indoctrination will be compelled as in public schools on the subject. Now you might even be able to add invasion of privacy on top of religious and speech hinderence. Certainly parental rights over the child's upbringing is being tampered.

I submit that the religious tradition basis argument in favor of traditional marriage is only the window dressing. But it is really the loss of religious liberty and speech that is really at the core of the issue for supporters of traditional marriage. It's not just 'gay people get to marry', but it is everything else that goes along with it, the eventual attack on religious liberty that will undoubtedly follow.

In closing, the recent actions by gay activists after the victory of prop 8, the defacing of church property, mailing white powder, LDS church protests, following church goers home after a sunday service are absolutely appalling. There is no excuse for it, and it only solidifies the argument against same sex marriage.

relevant links:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81310

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ZvPR09N4Q

©2008 P. Spencer, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Last modified: Wednesday, November 19, 2008

The views expressed in this article are those of P. Spencer only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. P. Spencer is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.

Report violation by P. Spencer of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.

More Articles By P. Spencer

Reader Comments:

Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-11-19 08:01:20

I'm sorry, but this is patently absurd. Defending the liberty of gays does not in any way diminish the religious liberty of others. Regarding your points:
(1) The solution regarding public schools is to end state mandates, not to discriminate against gays.
(2) There is no moral justification for using the law to hinder gays from adopting. Your claim is nothing more than prejudicial posturing. You don't want gays to adopt, so therefore allowing gays to adopt would violate your religious liberty? Hogwash! Actually, in my experience, gays are often excellent parents and are certainly as good at parenting as straights, as a class. Your ability to exercise your own religious rights are not dependent upon making gays into second class citizens. Rather, your rights are dependent upon the equal protection of all human rights.
(3) Allowing gays the right to marry automatically implies criminalization of anti-gay sentiments? Nonsense! You're sounding more and more like a Democrat than a supporter of liberty when you say that. This is the kind of muddled thinking that led President Bush and the neo-cons to conclude that the only way to protect the conservative view of freedom is to take away everyone's freedoms, i.e. the Patriot Act, Real ID, Iraq, etc.
(4) Refusing to marry gays is a political stance? That's an overreaction. A Catholic priest who refused to marry any heterosexual couple who refuses to raise their kids as Catholics would, by your logic, also engage in a political stance.
(5) This has to be the most fear-based and overreactive of all your points. Rights of gays should not be recognized, you argue, because a chain of events will take away the rights of homeschoolers. By that argument, no ones' rights should ever be protected because some weird, anti-liberty chain of events could undermine someone else's rights.
You imagine a world where only people whom you approve of and agree with have rights, because you fear that if people whom you don't like or agree with have rights you'll lose your rights. That's not just wrong. It's despicable.

Report violation

Posted By: John K.
Date: 2008-11-19 08:18:58

Mr. Spencer, this garbage isn't even worthy of a response.

Report violation

Posted By: Henry B
Date: 2008-11-19 09:27:32

You have hit the nail directly on the head. We have already seen this happening. When will we learn from our past history about nations that have crumbled because of their inability to see and learn from the past.

Report violation

Posted By: Jorg
Date: 2008-11-19 10:55:57

The other commenters have already taken care of your 5 points. Allow me to add that your false dichotomy between liberty and equality is pure hogwash destroyed by almost any ethical or political theory since...well...Hobbes, I suppose. In fact, liberty is not only impossible without equality under law, it positively requires such equality to function at all. By equality under law, we of course do not mean the equality of results, but equality of opportunity.

In short, you do not make a single point that is not completely incorrect. Nice achievement, that,

Report violation

Posted By: Sean Thomas
Date: 2008-11-19 18:11:52

Walt pretty much summed it up. Every point you made reinforced my argument that the state should not be involved in marriage.

Report violation

Posted By: Jason
Date: 2008-11-19 21:59:48

This argument is wrong-headed on many fronts. A few points:
-"Equality only moves forward at the loss of someone's liberty." This is one of the most un-American sentiments I've heard. It's that kind of absurd fear that prevents either from moving forward.
-Religious organizations like churches and orphanages that refuse to cater to same-sex couples deserve to lose their tax-exempt status. You pretty much say it yourself - the only liberty they would lose is the ability to discriminate while being given a free ride by the government. If they paid their taxes like any other institution, they would be free to discriminate however they wish, but the churches sold their liberty in that regard a long time ago by opting out of giving the government its due. The only reason they get tax-exempt status is because they supposedly provide a service available to ALL Americans.
-Parents can home school their children or put them in private schools whenever they want. It is not "liberty" for them to have whatever curriculum they desire taught to their children at tax-funded schools.
What you are talking about is not a loss of liberty for the sake of equality - the issue is a matter of the loss of disproportionate, unfairly granted priviliges that the Christian community has been given in the name of equality. Just as an abusive husband does not lose his "liberty" when told he cannot beat his wife, Christians are suffering no such loss when told they cannot discriminate against the American people as long as they are accepting financial breaks from their government.

Report violation

Posted By: LibertarianBlue
Date: 2008-11-21 15:34:53

Walt hit the nail on the head, the gay marriage argument has no impact on anybody's rights what so ever. Sure you can pull every stupid law that Canada has but when has America ever followed Canada's lead in anything? Christian churchs still have the right to refuse services to anyone, my cousin and his now wife were turned away by at least five churchs down in Georgia because they were an interracial couple. This article sounds like it came from the mind of Pat Buchanan and other Paleoconservatives who believe in legislating morailty. Conservatives requently trumpet the small government out of your personal lives horn but rarely live up to it, especially after these eight years. I have asked many anti-gay marriage/civil unions people on how gay marraige affects their rights and their financial freedom among other things. All I hear are the typical sinsationalist and doomsday type rehtoric, because their is no evidence that someone else's liberty enfringes on theirs.

Report violation

Posted By: Dale Husband
Date: 2008-12-04 22:46:05

(((([link edited for length]: Is the political concept of being free to act according to your own will without obstruction from government.
Equality: commonly refers to the idea of equal treatment of several diverse parties under the law.
These two political philosophies are constantly at war with one another. Equality only moves forward at the loss of someone's liberty.))))
So when slavery in the United States was abolished after the Civil War, the liberty of the slaveowners was being denied?
I can't begin to say how absurd that is. Opressing others is hard work and results in mistrust between oppressor and the oppressed. This can lead to violence from both sides and ignorance about the oppressed class. It's always more liberating to EVERYONE to allow all to have equal rights.
Allowing gays to marry does not deny anyone's religious liberty, since churches will always be permitted to deny gays a marrige under their roofs, as long as gays can have free access to secular alternatives. And then there are the Unitarian Universalists, who have gay couples and even gay ministers among them. So saying that religious liberty is being denied is nonsense. Not all religious groups are anti-gay, and those that are can still mind their own business, thanks to the First Amendment.
What you really fear is that once gays are allowed to marry, adopt children and have all the same privledges as straight people, seeing that they can function just as well as straight people in all those social functions will blow away forever the notion that the religious condemnation of homosexuals has any rational basis whatsoever, and that in turn will discredit the fundamenalist brands of religion, thus making societies more free and just for all.
No wonder Conservatives have been crashing and burning in America like the Hindenburg did!

Report violation