I’m listening to the public forum taking place in the Iowa House on HJR 6 which is a resolution proposing an amendment to the Iowa Constitution which defines marriage as one man and one woman.

Those who oppose this legislation cite protecting homosexuals’ civil rights.  What is a right?  In our country’s organic law we see in the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, driving their just Powers from the consent of the governed

We first can’t understand what a right is if we don’t realize where that right came from.

It isn’t government.  It isn’t a legislature.  It isn’t a Supreme Court.  Our founders said that this should be self-evident.  All men are created equal and each man and woman are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

Unalienable – government can’t give and government can’t take away on a whim (obviously government can take away life, liberty and property via due process when a crime is committed).  So what basis did the Iowa Supreme Court have to grant a right to homosexual couples to marry?  If you reject the idea of inalienable rights given by a Creator and you do believe governments do grant rights then you can’t complain when those same governments take them away.

What is a right?  I don’t always agree with Steve Deace of WHO Radio, but today he made an argument that I agree with 100%.  Rights are a state of being.  I have the right to life, if that right is taken away it is murder.  I have the right to liberty no one can take that way without due process it’s called involuntary captivity or kidnapping.  I have property rights, when that is taken away without due process that is theft.  When I wanted to get married, I needed consent.  My wife now had to agree.

No one has a right to marry.  Somebody else has to consent to it.

54 comments
  1. Yet you would deny loving adults the ability to consent. Also you would choose to read much more of your God than is justified by our secular government. You have a lot of nerve, you are a theocratic bully in this instance and you are wrong.

    1. Hey tell me where I used the Bible in my argument? Do you have a problem with the Declaration of Independence? It’s organic law, not Scripture.

      You not having “consent” is a different argument, my point here is that there is no right to be married.

      Equal protection under the 14th Amendment – I would argue that a homosexual has the same equal protection to be married as I do.

      To somebody of the opposite sex.

      The state determines parameters in a couple of different instances in addition to gender – the age of the person you want to marry and how many people you want to marry.

      They also have the same right to marry one consenting adult of the opposite sex.

      “You have a lot of nerve, you are a theocratic bully in this instance and you are wrong.”

      And you are free to believe such. Thank God we live in a society where both you and I have the freedom of speech.

      I just want you to notice though who has been telling who to shut up in this debate. I’m not telling you to shut up. We need to have a public debate on this. The courts shouldn’t decide a matter like this, they don’t determine “rights” or make law.

      Anyway, thanks for stopping by.

      1. “I would argue that a homosexual has the same equal protection to be married as I do. To somebody of the opposite sex.”

        I see, like Senator Larry(“wide stance”) Craig, Reverend Ted Haggard, and “ex-gay” expert, Dr. George (“I only hired him to lift my luggage”) Rekers. All very publicly conservative “Christians”. So in other words, you’re okay with people being gay, as long as they lie about it, and lead false, often hypocritical lives.

      2. Oh wow, you got me. I don’t think I implied that I’m personally ok with people being gay. I do believe it is sinful, along with a whole host of other things that are sinful.

        They needed to repent and remain faithful to their wives.

        I also don’t recall Craig necessarily being known as a Christian or as a conservative for that matter. Being a Republican doesn’t make you either.

      3. So, you now admit that that your hatred of equal rights for Gay people is based on nothing more than your personal religious beliefs, which you wish to make public policy for those that don’t follow your ‘religion’.

        Larry Craig is an anti-gay politician. He is either a member of the religious evangelical movement or is pandering to them as there is no other reason to oppose Gay marriage (or just plain hatred of Gays).

      4. I reject your premise. I don’t hate equal rights for gay people. I’m against special rights for gay people.

        I never said that only my personal religious beliefs play a part in my decision, but they do play a part. Just like your worldview does.

        Do you really think we live in a moral vacuum?

      5. So when you ban marriage for straight people who cannot concieve then you can say that Gays are asking for special rights. Not till then.

        The only people who ever get denied anything are the gays right? No ban on divorced straight people remarrying right? Its only Gays that have to follow your rules.

        How about Newt Gingrich’s moral vacuum and defense of the institution of marriage? Where is the outrage? Talk about a moral vacuum.

    2. I just don’t understand why nobody has introduced a Constitutional Amendment requiring the stoning to death of adulterers (like all the C-Street guys). After all, doesn’t “Nature’s God” of Leviticus demand it?

  2. You tease out the Bible and invoke the Bible with your citations about “organic law.” Then you cite a passage from the DoI that you appear to use to argue that our rights in the U.S. stem from God. But the Declaration of Independence is not the overriding document from which we take our law. The declaration lays out certain rights, allegedly from God, but later amendments and actions of our government have concretely and without doubt stripped God out of that equation and left only the underlying rights. Therefore we have the thesis that all men and women are created equal with inalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness… When the Iowa Supreme Court extended marriage rights to same-sex couples based on equal protection principles, they did so with an eye to the law and not to “natural law” or to God. God is simply out of the equation and ideas like “Creator,” “Laws of Nature,” “Nature’s God,” et al have no place in our debate anymore.

    You are so stubborn and hurtful when you interpret equal protection for same-sex couples as the ability to marry “somebody of the opposite sex.” That’s like telling a blind person they have the same right to see as anyone else. Or telling a Jewish person they have every right to be Christian. Or telling someone who loves pizza that they have every right to eat macaroni and cheese. Or telling a paraplegic he has every right to walk.

    You may notice that I’ve mixed analogies between those that suggest homosexuality is innate and those that suggest homosexuality is a choice. Either way, by moving to limit their rights to equal access to legal rights/privileges granted to hetero couples in the EXACT SAME STATION in the life and EXACT SAME SITUATION then you have been a dictator and a bully. (If you haven’t caught my drift by now — the only reason you’ll say they have different station is because of your Biblical morality … which lies outside the equation.)

    So, come back when you have an argument other than “we don’t HAVE to give ANYONE rights!!”

      1. P.S> What kind of disturbingly bad logic is “No one has a right to marry. Somebody else has to consent to it?” There are all sorts of rights that are conditional on certain factors. Such as “I have the right to eat an ice cream cone — provided someone sells me one first,” or, “I have the right to obtain a driver’s license, provided I have keen enough eyesight and meet other criteria.” You’ll notice that in every case the prerequisite for exercising these rights are equally applied and have laws extending to protect minority groups from discrimination without cause. A homosexual can buy an ice cream cone. A homosexual can drive a car. A homosexual can obtain a bank loan (provided he or she has fair credit.) A homosexual can legally do anything else a straight person does — can you think of any other official government action that a straight person is allowed to perform but a gay person is not, purely on the basis of being gay? I doubt it.

      2. No your logic is flawed. You don’t have the right to do those things… you may have the ability to eat an ice cream cone provided you have the ability to pay for it or somebody decides to give it to you. It isn’t inalienable. You don’t have the right to drive, that is a privilege you earn by passing a driving test, vision test, etc.

        No the government hasn’t stopped homosexuals from doing the things you mentioned. So what? Marriage serves a different purpose.

      3. That phrase means exactly nothing. A man without testicles has exactly zero “potential” for procreation. No amount of “well, if he did have testicles and if his hair were made of green cheese” will change that. I might as well use your argument and say my husband and I have the potential for procreation if one of us were a woman.

        Legal benefits should granted on the basis of reality, not on the basis of what mighta been.

        One major reason the right always gives for government benefits is to aid children (not non-existent children who might have been born in some alternate universe). So why do you want to grant those benefits to childless couples and withhold them from other couples who are raising children? Sheer lunacy.

    1. Well let’s see the preamble of the U.S. Constitution.

      “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

      We secure our blessings of liberty, they are already present.

      Again, the Supreme Court of Iowa or the United States cannot create rights. Period.

      “You are so stubborn and hurtful when you interpret equal protection for same-sex couples as the ability to marry “somebody of the opposite sex.” That’s like telling a blind person they have the same right to see as anyone else. Or telling a Jewish person they have every right to be Christian. Or telling someone who loves pizza that they have every right to eat macaroni and cheese. Or telling a paraplegic he has every right to walk.”

      Actually a Jewish person does have every right to become a Christian if they so choose and vice versa…

      Being homosexual is not akin to being blind and a paraplegic, not to mention sight and ability to walk has no place in the discussion of “rights.”

      Your pizza analogy is just asinine.

      My reply to you is when the Iowa Supreme Court changed the definition of an institution that has been defined as one man and one woman without the consent of the people. They are the ones who are the dictators and bullies.

      Last time I checked we aren’t ruled by oligarchy, we live in a representative democracy.

      We can and should have this debate. Notice I’m not telling you to take a flying leap and to shut up. You have free speech rights, as do I. We want our voices heard. It could very well be that a marriage amendment gets voted down by the people.

      Then you know what? You get what you want in the manner it should have happened all along by consent of the people not through the courts. You may disagree with my point of view, but I have just as much of a right to express my point of view in the public square as you do yours.

  3. Shane–

    In Iowa, people have the right to marry someone of the opposite or the same sex. This is not something abstract, this is a reality. If you don’t agree with same-sex marriage, don’t marry someone of the same sex. No one has taken away your right to marry a woman, and no one is threatening to do away with that right.

      1. “Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man” was the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court (Loving v. Virginia).

        And if two men or two women consent to marry, what is it to you?

        Was the Iowa Supreme Court wrong to rule that a slave was not property, even before the US Supreme Court ruled he was? Was the Iowa Supreme Court wrong to rule that racial school segregation was wrong almost a century before the US Supreme Court did?

      2. We are going to go round and round with this.

        Race and a behavior are two separate things.

        I wonder why most African-Americans despise this debate being couched in civil rights language… hmmm????

      3. Shane–

        “Race and a behavior are two separate things.”

        And?

        “I wonder why most African-Americans despise this debate being couched in civil rights language… hmmm???? ”

        Maybe they have their own prejudices against homosexuals.

        I still have to ask, what is the point of this whole process? Why do people want to potentially disrupt people’s marriages and families?

      4. Perhaps you should ask Nelson Mandela or have asked Desmond Tutu or Coretta Scott King. Or you could ask John Lewis to answer that question for you.

      5. Perhaps you should ask Nelson Mandela or have asked Desmond Tutu or Coretta Scott King. Or you could ask John Lewis to answer that question for you.

      6. Perhaps you should ask Nelson Mandela or have asked Desmond Tutu or Coretta Scott King. Or you could ask John Lewis to answer that question for you.

      7. “Race and behavior”…

        Keep repeating your mantra. Never mind that the Rights listed in the Bill of Rights are primarily the rights to choose one’s own behavior. After all, what is religion other than deviant behavior?

      8. This is completely on point. Whether or not the Supreme Court Justices overstepped has been addressed. They’ve been removed. Where is the rationale for the adoption of a discriminatory definition of marriage?

      9. Nor did the right to be free “exist” until slavery was abolished… if you assume a right does not exist until it is acknowledged.

        The Constitution does not explicitly mention the Right to Eat at Woolworth’s Lunch Counter. But the Courts acknowledged that the right is implicitly present in the document.

        Besides, the Declaration of Independence is quite clear about the rights to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of a Penis.” 🙂

  4. DEAR SHANE:

    There is no “right” to marry for ANYONE, Gay or Straight, at the federal level. The Constitution of the United States does not include the word “marriage.” However, the federal government, through its own actions, has virtually created the right to marry by creating 1,138 legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities for married couples (according to the Government Accounting Office). Not only that, but thanks to the “Full Faith & Credit” clause of the Constitution, any heterosexual couple can fly off to Las Vegas for a drunken weekend, get married by an Elvis impersonator, and that marriage is AUTOMATICALLY honored in all 50 states. And not only THAT, but in the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia which struck down anti-miscegenation laws, the Supreme Court of the United States said in its unanimous decision, “Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man.”

    What more do you need to know?

    Considering that the ONLY difference between Gay and Straight couples is the sexual orientation of the two people in the relationship, there is simply NO Constitutional argument to be made for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the exact same legal benefits that Straight couples have always taken for granted. It is THIS that the Iowa court has acknowledged.

      1. I didn’t realize that post menapausal women couldn’t marry. Or that fertility tests were required for a marriage license.

  5. Perhaps I look at it a bit too simplistic (and no, I won’t use the Bible here). A marriage license is like a drivers license. Either follow the rules or you don’t get one. It’s that simple. Everyone has an equal opportunity to follow the rules.

      1. Everyone knows what he means. It’s the old joke: “Of COURSE Gays have the right to marry … as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex! Ha ha ha …” It’s always guaranteed to get a wink and a nudge in the Sean Hannity Comedy Club.

        If he actually KNOWS anyone who is Gay, he already knows how absurd such a statement is. I have to wonder if he thinks it’s a good idea for Gay men to marry Straight women, to lie to them, corrupt their marriages, undermine the integrity of their bond and eventually, as so often happens, leave their wives with a sense of betrayal and loss? Does he really think this is a good thing? How many marriages have ended in disaster because of this delusional thinking?

      2. So what is your ‘plan’ for Gay men who are not going to go to your church, are not going to be celibate, and are going to have sex with other men? Banning Gay monogamy is your solution.

        But I”m confused by your post here. It seems to be incongrous with your article above. You say that Gay men have a right to marry (women only), but you don’t think its a good idea? Can you please reconcile your opposition to a Gay man lying about his sexuality and marrying your daughter with your argument that ‘since Gays can marry a woman, there really isn’t any discrimination?

      3. So what is your ‘plan’ for Gay men who are not going to go to your church, are not going to be celibate, and are going to have sex with other men? Banning Gay monogamy is your solution.

        But I”m confused by your post here. It seems to be incongrous with your article above. You say that Gay men have a right to marry (women only), but you don’t think its a good idea? Can you please reconcile your opposition to a Gay man lying about his sexuality and marrying your daughter with your argument that ‘since Gays can marry a woman, there really isn’t any discrimination?

      4. Oh, I thought the rules were quite clearly set down in the Buy Bull:

        The woman must obey her husband’s every order without question, she must never speak in Church, during her period she must not leave the house or let any person touch her… the State must impose those rules strictly or civilization will degenerate into chaos.

  6. So given your argument that Gays should be denied the 1200 secular benefits that come from marriage rests on the preamble to the Declaration of Independence (which isn’t part of the constitution, btw), then really aren’t you saying is that ‘Lets have 50% + 1 vote on what religious doctrine we are going to use as the ‘organic law’ that applies to everyone’, right? I guess if a nation that doesn’t subscribe to your particular brand of fundamentalism (say Saudi Arabia) chooses to punish those that convert from Islam to being Baptist, then you’d be okay with public policy punishing them (so long as there was a vote on it, right?)

    In your world

    Marriage isn’t about pro-creation (post menapausal women can marry, which I assume you don’t oppose)
    Marriage isn’t about love (not required in your world)
    Marriage is only about the matching of opposite genital parts.
    Your opinion regarding marriage does more to degrade it than Gays ever could.

    And what about your public policy treatment of Gays? Many people talk about gay promiscuity. So, I guess your solution is to make Gay monogamy illegal. And you wonder why Gays think you hate them. 99.9999999% of straight men are not lifelong celibates. 99.999999% of Gay men are not lifelong celibates.

    If two Gays wish to consent to take care of each other for life, then that is a good thing for society. If you seek to destroy their families (by say, advocating separating Gay families where one partner is not a US citizen, for example – yet another of the 1200 rights of marriage that you oppose), or by denying them benefits simply because your particular brand of fundamentalism hates them, then you are what is bad for society.

      1. Please name ONE evangelical conservative politician who WHILE in office introduced or publically voted for legislation to remove laws making being Gay illegal.

        Can you please post your public comments in support of the Supreme Courts’ decision in Lawrence v Texas from 2002?

      2. Please point to liberal politicians who haven’t wanted to violate religious liberty in view of “gay rights.”

        I don’t have public comments on Lawrence v. Texas since I wasn’t blogging in 2002. I’m personally not against the decision. I don’t think the Government should regulate what goes on in the bedroom between two consenting adults.

        I don’t believe Government should sanction and promote those types of relationships though either.

      3. But you certainly talk up Rick Santorum on the blog (who supports making all Gay people criminals and compares all of us to people who have sex with dogs).

        No, fundamentalists never criticize those who advocate throwing Gays in prison directly.

    1. No. A post menapausal woman cannot conceive. Neither can a woman with no ovaries. When you ban marriages for straight people that cannot conceive then you can use the arguement that marriage is about procreation. Until then, you cannot.

  7. “No one has a right to marry. Somebody else has to consent to it.”

    Someone else? Well, yes. The person you marry has to consent to it. Do her parents? That idea went out with the notion that a woman is the property of a man.

    Where you appear to be being a bit coy is where you indicate that the “someone” who has to consent to my right to marry is some right-wing legislator who wants to impose his religion on me, or the voters of the State I live in. To be equitable, why not just prepare a list of all couples who have applied for marriage licenses and then hold a special election where the voters decide on each and every couple individually.

  8. Thank you so much for not typing anything Alan Keyes said. It would be a real waste of space.

    Why didn’t you mention that Keyes disinherited his daughter… in the name of “family values”?

    Want a video about the subject. Watch all of this testimony before the Iowa Legislature. After this they should be ashamed of their vote.

  9. Okay, I broke down and watched the Alan Keyes video. I think he said something like this:

    “Since procreation between a man and a woman is possible in principle, that doesn’t change if a man wants to marry a woman who is dead.”

    Did he say “dead”? Well, no matter. The argument he used is the same.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Iowa Senate Republicans Select Bill Dix Majority Leader-Elect

Iowa Senate Republicans selected State Senator Bill Dix (R-Shell Rock) as the incoming Majority Leader of the Iowa Senate for the 87th General Assembly.

Senate Attempt to End Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Fails

The U.S. Senate failed to invoke cloture on S. 109, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2019 by a 48 to 47 vote.

Liberal Protestors Lack Civility During Paul Ryan’s Visit to the Iowa State Fair

Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) made a quick trip to Iowa after being…

Stepping Down from the RNC to Step Up for Ethical Stem Cell Research

Four years ago, I decided to run for the position of Republican…