Conservative he ain't
Andrew Sullivan attests he is not "somehow less of a human being". I've never said he is less than a human being. But just because he believes his "sexual orientation" is a part of his genome doesn't mean he has the right to dictate my morality to me.
"Wait a second", you say. "Isn't that the other way around? Aren't YOU the one dictating morality?"
As a matter of fact, I am. The old saying that "you can't legislate morality" is a lie of the first magnitude peddled by secularists and liberals for years as a way to subvert the power of the majority to do what it has every right to do. ALL laws are a statement of the state's morality, from abortion to welfare. Name any law that is NOT an expression of the morality (the "code of good conduct") of the society, and I'll change my thinking, but the fact is that whatever the state codifies in law is by definition a sanction by the society of a given value judgement, or a proscription against one. So when supporters of gay marriage say they have a right to marriage, they are saying the people have no say in setting their own standards for their society, in fact there ought never be any standards for any society. My political science professor in college described that as the definition of "anarchy", but I prefer to call it "chaos".
While I'm on the subject, I should note that this is all a very appropriate discussion here, under the watchful gaze of Mr. Lincoln. One of the most atrocious claims by the gay rights crowd is their attempt to equate their crusade with the civil rights struggle of black Americans. Nothing could be more heinous to the sensibilities of the American people than to make this claim. Why? Because of all our laws, the one most enshrined as the codification of the American morality is called The Constitution of the United States. The liberals twist the meaning of our sacred document by invoking the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, written specifically to protect men and women whose skin color was different the right to decide for themselves what was in their own hearts. The equal protection clause is not a free license to sanction any conduct, any action one thinks should be legalized, even an activity that one might be predisposed to by gene structure. For those who need an example, it's quite possible (though I'd think not probable) that one could be genetically predisposed to some other activity the public finds distasteful, like kleptomania. Does this mean that we must hand over our property to anyone who steals it?
This issue is clearly outside the scope of the equal protection clause as it was written, and despite a margin of one judge in Massachusetts, it still is. Under another of our Amendments, the power to define marriage is a power "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
