RSS Feed

a playground of art, photos, videos, writing, music, life


You are here

Random Quote

For a creative writer possession of the truth is less important than emotional sincerity.
-- George Orwell


Blog - Blog Archive by Month - Blog Archive by Tag - Search Blog and Comments

<-- Go to Previous Page

Iowa's Ruling on Gay Marriage


Iowa's courts decided that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.

I only have a few words to say about this.

If you read this web site with any regularity, you know that I staunchly defend the rights of the individual. Neither the government nor my neighbors have any right to tell me - or anyone else - how to live.

So for that reason, of course a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. It's nobody's business.

From the article:

Craig Overton's jaw dropped when he heard the news. He's opposed to same-sex marriage, he said. Overton, of Pleasant Hill, had been carrying signs before the result was known. He was stunned to hear the news his arm holding the signs dropped until the signs were resting on the sidewalk.

"I don't want this taught in schools," Overton said.

And on that front, he's right. The schools have no business teaching morality or lifestyle acceptance.

He goes on to say:

"Animals don't do that. I don't like it. I have small children, and I just don't think this is right."
Mr. Overton has every right to his opinion and to speak it out. But he has no right to legislate his morals about victimless behavior through the government.

I have yet to hear how allowing gays to marry (or whatever name you want to give it) has any negative or dilutive effect on hetero marriage.

If conservatives/Republicans are to be a people who supposedly believe in individual rights, then why is it they can do so arbitrarily? This is no different than the Dems/libs wanting to legislate salary caps. The government has no right to tell others how to live. Period.

You either believe in limited government, or you don't. You either champion individual freedom, or you don't - whether you agree with the behavior or not. What occurs between two consenting adults is nobody's business.


by Brett Rogers, 4/3/2009 11:54:49 AM


Your idea that government has "no right to tell others how to live" cannot be upheld. Even very limited government tells people to "Not kill" or to "Not steal" which one could argue at a base point is an infringement on liberty.

One of the duties of government is to protect it's citizenry and that cannot be done without "telling others how to live."

Why should the pedophile not be allowed to express his love in a way he deems fit? Why should a person not be allowed to marry his horse if he so desires?

To have the kind of liberty you are aspiring to is to lead to utter and complete moral decay (something by the way the earth has seen many times before where it was described as "every man did what was right in his own eye") and believe me, we don't want to return to that.



Posted by Mike Demastus (, 4/9/2009 11:16:08 AM

I'll quote Thomas Jefferson:

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. - Thomas Jefferson
Liberty only applies where my actions don't injure another person. Victimless behavior between two consenting adults - why is that in the purview of government?



Posted by Brett Rogers (, 4/9/2009 11:24:16 AM

When will it be okay to speak out against "victimless behavior"? If our laws were modified to say that as long as an adult and a child "consent" to sex then it is okay. Would it be okay to speak up then, or would that be considered an infringement upon personal liberty?



Posted by Mike Demastus (, 4/9/2009 4:07:40 PM

Add Your Comment:
Name (required):
Web Site:
Remember Me:   
Content: (4000 chars remaining)
To prevent spammers from commenting, please give a one-word answer to the following trivia question:

To move the cursor on your computer screen, what device do you use?