The Morality of Using The State

**Travis A. Ramirez** · 14th-February-2009

"The theocratic Right really is absolutely clueless. Consider this situation and their response.

A theater company, Ion Theatre, is described as a “small but well-regarded young theater company.” They were leasing space for their performances in a building owned The Caster Companies. Caster is a family run business whose chairman is Terrence Caster. Caster also donated $700,000 to the campaign to take marriage rights away from gay couples.

The people at Ion felt that their rent was helping pay for the Prop 8 campaign. The theater group then decided that they will not continue using this space and would seek out space from someone who wasn’t as set on denying other people their equal rights. They were overly civil about it as well saying: “We don’t mean him [the owner] any malice; we don’t mean him any harm.” But the theater company also says that, other than the Prop 8 donation, they were “99 percent sure” they would have stayed where they were.

Terrence Caster simply refused to comment. But his son, a company official, spouted off about Jesus and God. “As a Christian, I know God reveals the value of each person through the work of his son, Jesus Christ. I know he loves everyone equally.” Apparently Jesus can love everyone equally but Caster can’t grant everyone equality of rights.

There seems to be an assumption made by religious folks that the moment they mention religion it justifies virtually anything they do to other people. There is a difference between having a personal morality that you apply to yourself and using the State to force those values on others. Prop 8 was not about personal values but whether or not the State would deny gay couples equality before the law in marriage rights. This was not what one believes but what one does to others. Admittedly they did it through the State but they did it nonetheless.

One of the major moral confusions that people have is that they believe that when government acts on their behalf they are not responsible for what it does. Even most the supporters of Prop 8 wouldn’t think of tearing up marriage licenses for gay couples. They just have no problem when the State does the ripping up on their instructions. People who wouldn’t kill another person advocate that the State do the killing for them. People who would never stick their hands into your wallet think it is fine to hire the State to do the same.

What is doubly baffling is that these people like to present themselves as moral – advocates of basic human decency. Yet they have no hesitation to hire the State to act in a manner that they would find reprehensible themselves. They believe that voting is a magic means of relieving themselves of any personal responsibility for treating others in a shitty way."
Classically Liberal: The morality of using the State.

Click the linky for more from CLS

**chevalier** · 14th-February-2009

I am on the theatre owners side on this one. God and Christ do love all people regardless of the gender they choose to be romantic with.

But Gays have not lost the right to be married to one another since marriage isn't a right it is a religious union meant for a man and a woman.

If marriage were a right then no fault divorce would not exsist would it?

If marriage were a right then men would not be forced out of a marriage for insignificant reasons.

Gays do and should have the right under the government to live with one another and carry on a relationship if they so choose. They have the right not to be treated inferior or be targeted by those who would do violence on them because of their being gay.

But they simply do not have the right to change what marriage is to suit themselves at the cost of every one else.

I do support civil unions to everyone who choses not to be married before God. Be they straight or Gay.

But I myself cherish the religious bond between husband and wife as set forth by God.

We are not clueless as you have said but instead we understand what marriage is truly supposed to be a religious union ordained and blessed by God when kept as a holy bond.

I am sorry if this is not what you wanted to hear but I can find no fault in this man for sticking up for his religious beliefs nor his defense of marriage as a religious union.

**Travis A. Ramirez** · 14th-February-2009

But a civil marriage is not a religious union, so why should they be denied that?

Marriage is a right as long as thier are (governmental) benefeits associated with it. If it's that big of a deal then call it a union, as you suggested, but it is plainly obvious that civil unions are inferior in the eyes of the law to marriage.

Under a civil union one cannot visit their SO in the hospital without extensive legal documents that the hospital can still deny. Under a civil union you cannot bring a foreign spouse into the country as you can under marriage.

And prop 8 failing wouldn't have made ANY church marry a gay couple, it would have been only the government who could not refuse to marry them. So unless you believe the government is a tool of religion...

As for your cost statement, what does gay's marrying cost you? Try coming up with an arguement based on reason, not faith. Faith is the enemy of reason.

And the point of brining up the theatre owner is this: He used his money to use the State to push morals that approx only 52% of the people (In Cali) live under. The theatre company chose only not to use his services as their moral response. They kept their moral decision in the private sector, where it belongs, and Craster used the public sector to push his morals on EVERYONE.

**chevalier** · 14th-February-2009

Faith is not the enemy of religion and it is rediculous to think so. I am very religious yet I find myself to be very reasonable.

I do agree with you though on one point. That marriage has certain rights under the law. I would like to see these done away with.

Someone who is gay should not be denied a visit in the hospital from their mate that is not only wrong but bad medicine as well.

I don't think the government has any business in marriage at all as I said due to it being a religious thing.

And I fully support civil unions between any person who does not wish to make their union before God.

And as for the cost. It costs the sanctitiy of marriage to have it watered down. It costs many people not having the bond they should in marriage when it's very meaning and intent can be changed by anyone who wants to call a christian a bigot while engaging in their own bigotry be demeaning Christians for their own gain.

In your veiw apparently we religious folk are either ignorant or just don't understand but in my veiw it is gays and their supporters who do not understand this issue.

But it is the religous among us who are called bigots because we disagree with gays on this issue. Why is that Travis? Gays are not innocent in this issue where bigotry is concerned either.

Your own statement that I cannot be reasonable without seperating my faith smacks of this does it not?

I answered you thread in a reasonable manner yet it is me who must disregard my beliefs while gays may belive as they wish.

Does that sound reasonable Travis? I think not in my own opinion.

I have nothing against gays but I do find homosexual sex to be a sin. I do not have a problem with gays living together or supporting one another.

I would not deny a person my help due to whether they are gay or not.

But why should I be forced to accept their veiws while mine are ignored it makes no sense.

**Travis A. Ramirez** · 14th-February-2009

I agree that if marriage was not a legal contract this would not be an issue at all!

I'm not going to say the religious are ignorant. However, faith IS the enemy of reason. Someone who KNOWS something based upon nothing but faith and feelings is not using logic or reason at all.

Let's take the age of the world issue. Fundemantalists christians (I cant say it is every sect, but a great many) take the biblical creation myth as literal. Based upon that timeline they KNOW the world is only 10,000 or so years old. No matter if carbon dating proves that false, because their FAITH says it is wrong. You can trot out factual after reasonable after logical arguement, and they will always think you're wrong because their FAITH says so. Because they FEEL it is so.

Everyone has the right to be bigoted. Gays can be bigoted towards the religious/conservative, and vice versa, woman and men =can be bigoted towards eachother. What is not right is forcing that bigotry onto the public. It's wrong when feminists do it, it's wrong when the religious do it, and it's wrong when gays do it.

But where as no gay group advocates forcing the nation to live by some gay code of law, christians in the west seem to have no problem trying to mmake everyone live by their religions code.

**Travis A. Ramirez** · 14th-February-2009

"Your own statement that I cannot be reasonable without seperating my faith smacks of this does it not?"

Perhaps I was being unclear, I was looking for an arguement based on something besieds "God said so"

**chevalier** · 14th-February-2009

Quote from Travis A. Ramirez

"Your own statement that I cannot be reasonable without seperating my faith smacks of this does it not?"

Perhaps I was being unclear, I was looking for an arguement based on something besieds "God said so"

Oh I misunderstood. Then I take back what I said.

As for the rest of this debate I must withdraw as it seems we are at an impasse that may lead to angry words exchanged. As I find faith to be very logical and you do not I fear we will debate endlessly on the subject to no good end. Thank you though for you thoughtful responses and I will think and pray on this matter closely.

**Garak** · 14th-February-2009

Just some random thoughts:

The problem with marriage is because the state is involved. If I were to ever marry again it would be in a church WITHOUT any government documentation, thing is...it is very rare for a minister to marry outside the law. No problem, I probably will never marry again anyway.

As for civil unions, what's the point?

So a loved one can visit you in the hospital? That boils down to hospital rules that are too strict to begin with and should be altered. If I want (I am not gay, just an example) you in my hospital room I will say so and the hospital better respect that. Simple and easy. Over regulation has created many problems in many areas. Why make more laws and regulations to counter existing ones?

As for wills and such, if you have enough assets to leave to others chances are you have a will. If not (most people), it matters not. Simple rules are fine but elaborate are wasteful.

If you're married and you die, the house goes to the wife or kids (dependent on age). It's a no-brainer but the lawyers want their cut so they make it more complicated than it has to be.

**Travis A. Ramirez** · 14th-February-2009

Quote from chevalier

Oh I misunderstood. Then I take back what I said.

As for the rest of this debate I must withdraw as it seems we are at an impasse that may lead to angry words exchanged. As I find faith to be very logical and you do not I fear we will debate endlessly on the subject to no good end. Thank you though for you thoughtful responses and I will think and pray on this matter closely.

I'm sorry if the discourse caused you any offense Chev, that was not my attention. Thanks for actually discussing with me. I will think on this tonight as well.