Question for liberals on issues of conscience:
Thinking of Martha Coakley's statement that religious people shouldn't work in ER's. Never mind that women aren't really raced to ER's to get emergency abortions.
No liberal would argue we should, if the draft were reinstated, do away with conscientious objection for those with pacifist religious beliefs. Yet liberals generally oppose conscientious objection or conscience clauses for those with objections to such liberal good sacraments as abortion or gay marriage. Why?
------------------------------
Once More Unto The Breach
'Puter's going to wade, with some trepidation, back into the gay marriage arena, prompted by an email from Gormogon Operative J.M., currently located somewhere in the Mid South region. And no, the email was not a gay marriage proposal, despite the calumny being spread by Sleestak, who will be disciplined severely.
'Puter is sympathetic to J.M.'s libertarian streak, in which his correspondent states:
The libertarian in me doesn’t care what a gay couple does so long as it doesn’t interfere in my life. My employer provides benefits to same sex partners because those employees are good employees and we want to keep them. Gay couples can (with some mild additional work) insure that they enjoy all the benefits of marriage (joint bank accounts, medical decision maker, power of attorney, etc) without that label.
Exactly so. 'Puter's been thinking about starting a "Leave Me the Heck Alone" party in New York, but 'Puter digresses. But J.M. doesn't stop with the libertarian angle. He goes on to put identify the rub in all of this: it's not a two way street. The pro gay marriage crowd refuses to show the same respect for traditional marriage that it demands for gay marriage. J.M. writes:
The biggest fear I have regarding gay marriage is not gay people who want to get married, but rather some ambitious ACLU lawyer who takes up a suit on behalf of a gay couple who can’t get married ‘in the Catholic Church’ resulting in Federal action against the Church, revoking of tax exempt status, etc. It’s paranoid, I know, but not a reach.
'Puter thinks this self-labeled fear neither paranoid nor a reach. Gay marriage, if legally recognized, opens the door to destruction of traditional marriage by permitting redefinition of the entire institution. "Marriage" will quickly become a user defined institution of two or more consenting adults. Neither number nor gender will be relevant. This will gut the societal purpose of marriage: creating a state supported institution geared to efficiently creating and raising functional children (future citizens) at minimal cost to the state.
Traditional marriage cannot coexist with gay marriage. Society must choose, and it must choose wisely, for the consequences of redefining marriage will be negative and severe. 'Puter's admonition is to support your gay friends and neighbors in securing marriage-like benefits (see J.M.'s listing above), but to oppose redefining a bedrock institution to accommodate them.
Scripsit Ghettoputer
gormogons.com |
