RSS Feed

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


You are here

Random Quote

To a chemist, nothing on earth is unclean. A writer must be as objective as a chemist; he must abandon the subjective line; he must know that dungheaps play a very respectable part in a landscape, and that evil passions are as inherent in life as good ones.
-- Anton Chekov


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

<-- Go to Previous Page

A Win


Individual liberty and limited government gained ground today in Vermont with the legislature overturning a governor's veto, and in so doing, the legislature legalized gay marriage.

The government has no business in a person's private life to bar them from victimless activities, just as the government has no business dictating a person's salary or energy usage.

Awesome :)

ETC: The Des Moines Register has been running a poll since the Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage in Iowa.

That's mighty close. The Republicans are trying to put it up to a popular vote. If they lose, will they then drop it?

As I wrote the other day, the Republicans are being hypocritical if they see fit to use government to legislate individual behavior in some areas, but oppose it in others. Where's the principle at work? There isn't one, which is why they should lose on this issue.


by Brett Rogers, 4/7/2009 11:43:10 AM


If the government should stay out of a person's "private life" then why did this issue need to be changed at all. Marriage is not an issue that needs redefinition now after thousands of years.

If you support the constitution as you claim to do then you have no right standing on this issue. Only those who are wishing to revise history AND the constitution are the ones gaining any ground in the arena of the same-sex marriage debate. Because history and the constitution must be revised to accomodate the allowance of same-sex marriage.

Ultimately what I see from those in support of same-sex marriage is that they hold to certain tenents:

1. There are no objective, God-given standards of law, or if there are, they are irrelevant to the moden legal system.

2. Since God is not the author of law, the author must be man; in other words, the law is law simply because the highest human authority, the state (or the Supreme Court), has said it is law and is able to back it up.

3. Since man and society evolve, therefore law must evolve as well.

4. Judges, through their decisions, guide the evolution of law.

Here is the reality, to uphold an ideal like same-sex marriage, all of the above must be true. I say unequivocally that the above are not true.

Law, and all objective standard comes from God. To argue otherwise is nonsense. And it is certainly the original intent of our country's founding fathers. Therefore the ONLY acceptable way to embrace and adopt laws that support same-sex marriage is to revise and nullify our constitution.

And, I would add, that you claim that republicans are attempting to legislate individual behaviors in some areas and not in can you not see this as a legilation of individual behavior (behavior being the choice word, mind you)? For it is NOT an issue of civil IS an issue of behavior.



Posted by Mike Demastus (, 4/9/2009 10:57:10 AM

I posted this reply in the other post as well, but it applies here:

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?

Mike, you say: "Ultimately what I see from those in support of same-sex marriage is that they hold to certain tenets... 1. There are no objective, God-given standards of law, or if there are, they are irrelevant to the moden legal system."

What I read in the founding of our country is that all of us (believer and unbeliever alike) have certain unalienable rights - life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. What I don't read is that law comes from God. And if it did, which God? That of Christianity? Jewish? Muslim? Hindu? Freedom of religion, to worship as we choose... certainly that is disconnected from an endorsement of religion which would be necessary to choose which God's laws you want to use as a basis for law. Therefore laws of government cannot be based in an official selection of religion.

To quote Jefferson again:

Law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. - Thomas Jefferson
Individual freedom is the basis of this country - not religion and not government. When individual freedom is held as the foundation, only then do you have freedom of religion to worship as you choose. Otherwise, the state can base its laws upon its interpretation of the God it esteems most toward its own ends, and then there is no freedom of religion at all.



Posted by Brett Rogers (, 4/9/2009 11:43:38 AM

And to clarify, I'm saying that these unalienable rights come from God, but law does not come from God. Big difference...



Posted by Brett Rogers (, 4/9/2009 11:46:15 AM

If law does not find it's origin from God then same-sex marriage should be heartily embraced. If it does indeed come ultimately from God then only a revision of our history and our constitution can make it acceptable to adopt same-sex marriage laws.



Posted by Mike Demastus (, 4/9/2009 4:04:00 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:

What's the first name of the guy who wrote songs with John Lennon in the Beatles?