Redstate

Posted at 10:35am on Jun. 19, 2008 Tolerance and tyranny.

By Paul J Cella

Only a man of uncommon obtuseness could fail to predict this. In New Jersey, a homosexual couple wants to get married on a pavilion owned by a Methodist organization.

When Bernstein and Paster asked to celebrate their civil union in the pavilion, the Methodist organization said they could marry on the boardwalk — anywhere but buildings used for religious purposes. In other words, not the pavilion. [Rev. Scott] Hoffman says there was a theological principle at stake.

“The principle was a strongly held religious belief that a marriage is between a man and a woman,” Hoffman says. “We’re not casting any aspersions or making any judgments. It’s just, that’s where we stand, and we’ve always stood that way, and that's why we said no.”

The refusal came as a shock to Bernstein, who says Ocean Grove has been revived by the gay community.

“We were crushed,” she says. “I lived my whole live, fortunately, without having any overt prejudices or discrimination waged against me. So while I knew it was wrong, I never knew how it felt. And after this, I did know how that felt. It was extremely painful.” [. . .]

So the couple filed a complaint with New Jersey’s Division of Civil Rights, alleging the Methodists unlawfully discriminated against them based on sexual orientation. Attorney Lawrence Lustberg represents them.

“Our law against discrimination does not allow [the group] to use those personal preferences, no matter how deeply held, and no matter — even if they’re religiously based — as a grounds to discriminate,” Lustberg says. “Religion shouldn’t be about violating the law.”

Do I even need to tell you which side the court found for? Read on.

Posted in Christianity | Culture | Liberty | Same-Sex Marriage | Tolerance | Tyranny — Comments (100)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:37am on May 29, 2008 California tolerance.

By Paul J Cella

Suppose you are a government employee in California, authorized to conduct civil marriage ceremonies, and you object on moral or religious grounds to same-sex marriage. According to the plain logic of the California Supreme Court’s decision earlier this month, you are simply a bigot; the spring of your objection is irrational prejudice. There is no ground for tolerance for your views, precisely because your views impinge upon the fundamental rights of others. Recall that even someone (like Senator Obama) of the view that while marriage should remain an institution exclusive to a man and a woman, civil unions should be established for homosexuals, is also a narrow-minded bigot, again according to the force of the Court’s logic.

Fortunately, San Diego County is more magnanimous than the judicial despots of the Court. County employees will not be forced to perform marriage ceremonies to which they have a moral objection. Los Angeles County employees will not be so lucky. Tolerance forbids their objections. Wrote the City Attorney: “County clerks have no legal standing to grant county employees the authority or ability to choose which marriages they wish not to officiate at, based on their personal views or biases. [The Court] has been crystal clear on this issue — same-sex couples must be afforded equal protection under the law.”

It is instructive to observe the machinations of Liberalism on this issue. It is not enough that approval of same-sex marriage be institutionalized in law; disapproval of its opponents, too, must be institutionalized in law. We cannot “agree to disagree,” in the common catchphrase. For a state employee to resist blessing same-sex unions is tantamount to his denial of equal protection to a certain class of people; in short, unconstitutional.

Libertarians can hardly go a day without denouncing the “imposition” of morality by traditionalists; yet the imposition contemplated by Los Angeles County, in accordance with the Court’s clear logic, eludes their attention. In this our dear Libertarians simply resemble Liberals in their quaint innocence of what a public orthodoxy is. To use their cherished parlance, never has there existed a society that did not impose morality. The imposition of morality is a concomitant of social order. No orthodoxy, no society. That Liberals and Libertarians are uncomfortable with words like “orthodoxy” in no way changes the fact that they seek to impose one just like anyone else.

In our country, no one imposes morality like supreme courts. We are at the point where it is possible to answer the question, Who rules America? with a single word: “Courts.” Perhaps someone among out Liberals and Libertarians would like to make a forthright argument for judicial aristocracy. That at least would have the virtue of candor.

Posted in California | Culture | gay marriage | Tolerance — Comments (414)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 4:01pm on Apr. 5, 2008 Tolerance And Respect

Can You Hear Me Now

By California Yankee

The McCain campaign is out with anther great video. This one speaks to the need for civil discussion among Americans:

ANNCR: We have our disagreements, we Americans.

We contend regularly and enthusiastically over many questions:

over the size and purposes of our government;

over the social responsibilities we accept in accord with the dictates of our conscience;

over our role in the world and how to defend our security interests and values in places where they are threatened.

These are important questions; worth arguing about.

We should contend over them with one another.

It is more than appropriate, it is necessary that even in times of crisis, especially in times of crisis, we fight among ourselves for the things we believe in.

It is not just our right, but our civic and moral obligation.

But we deserve more than tolerance from one another, we deserve each other's respect, whether we think each other right or wrong in our views, as long as our character and sincerity merit respect, and as long as we share, for all our differences, for all the noisy debates that enliven our politics, a mutual devotion to the sublime idea that this nation was conceived in -- that freedom is the inalienable right of mankind, and in accord with the laws of nature and nature's Creator.

Let us exercise our responsibilities as free people.

But let us remember, we are not enemies.

We are compatriots defending ourselves from a real enemy.

We have nothing to fear from each other.

We are arguing over the means to better secure our freedom, promote the general welfare and defend our ideals.

It should remain an argument among friends;

each of us struggling to hear our conscience, and heed its demands;

each of us, despite our differences, united in our great cause, and respectful of the goodness in each other.

Terrific! Watch the video:

If we could just get Obama on board so we can get on with a civil debate and be done with Chicago-style politics as usual and old-school deceive-and-distort politics.

Posted in 2008 | John McCain | Respect | Tolerance — Comments (58)/ Email this page » / Read More »