Liberals believe that an implication of having individual rights is the “right to do wrong.”

Actually, most Christians do, too. At least, these days. I’m not aware of any church planning on firing up an Inquisition, at least.

…where do we draw the line? Maybe at “harm to another”?

As a first step, yes. It’s not the only principle, though. For example….

Then what about abortion? It harms another.

“Suppose there is reasonable disagreement about” when a fetus becomes a human person. “Are you prepared to say (as I think you must if you oppose blatant governmental tyranny) that defenders of” abortion “DON’T have good reasons for” supporting the option of abortion in at least some cases?

What about divorce? It harms children.

As much as being raised in an unsuccessful, bitter marriage? And who decides?

What about affirmative action? It harms the arbitrarily excluded candidate

Again, balance of harms. Is it possible that an inequality of opportunity in one area could be used to help compensate for – and eventually eliminate – an inequality of opportunity in another area?

wouldn’t it be tyrannical for the government to marginalize or penalize citizens who believe same-sex marriage is not real marriage–and who have perfectly good, but maybe not rationally compelling, reasons for so believing?

How marginalized or penalized? I mean, as I asked Douglas Johnson before, the Westboro Baptist Church gets plenty of legal protection for their activities. Where do you think WBC doesn’t go far enough?

“If you want a little sanity you’ll have to turn the clock back to before the discussion started”

Exactly. That’s the point. If you back up to before the discussion started, then you don’t have to discuss anything at all. You get to pretend that gay marriage is merely and entirely irrational.

In the meantime, you’ll complain long and loudly when anybody calls your position bigoted, even though you’re acting just like they are when you paint your opposition as insane.

If you want to actually debate the issues, discuss them respectfully and reasonably with someone who believes that you might have rational reasons for supporting a position I disagree with, then let me know.

By the way, gay marriage is hardly a new idea. You can find gay couples in every century, and if you think they didn’t wish they could live openly and happily, then you don’t understand human nature very well.

I’d like to see a little sanity return to these discussions.

Sanity?

We are looking back through all known time and civilization and are now discussing this new made-up idea: whether we should redefine marriage so that it has nothing in particular to do with a man and a woman procreating a family. If you want a little sanity you’ll have to turn the clock back to before the discussion started.

“Do liberals have rationally compelling reasons for anything they believe?”

No, we don’t.

“I can imagine sophistical responses (“Tom and Bob would be able to procreate if Tom had been born a girl”), but not any good ones”

We liberals only engage in sophistry. It is one of the pledges we sign and take seriously as long as it suits our whims and harms only those we don’t happen to care about today.

A positive law right–or fundamental positive law in the case of constitutional law (the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court).

Fine. But positive law may conflict with natural law or the with the good. Liberals insist that the right is prior to the good. Fine again. That’s the current orthodoxy. I’m a heretic on this. I believe liberal neutrality is a house built on sand, and that citizens who reject it, either outright in part, are rationally entitled to do so.

Should I be castigated, or worse, for being a heretic? That is, for denying that liberalism is the truth written in the stars? Probably. After all, how is it possible to be such a vicious heretic unless you *deserve* to be persecuted?

Facetiousness aside, the point is that you can’t just say, “If it’s a right, then people who deny that it’s a right are bigots” when we may reasonably disagree about whether it’s a right, or about what implications individual rights have.

Here’s one way of looking at it. Liberals believe that an implication of having individual rights is the “right to do wrong.” Wow. Really? What kind of wrong? Is there a right to kill innocent adults? Innocent babies? Helpless fetuses? If there is indeed a right to do wrong–and it follows from the belief in the priority of the right over the good, a belief that is at the heart of liberalism–where do we draw the line?

Maybe at “harm to another”? Then what about abortion? It harms another. What about divorce? It harms children. What about affirmative action? It harms the arbitrarily excluded candidate (arbitrarily excluded in relation to other whites of similar merit who are not excluded, and who thereby gain an unequal competitive advantage).

If, however, there is no right to do wrong (and thus it cannot truly be said that the right is prior to the good), then the liberal-neutrality house of cards collapses–utterly.

Suppose there is reasonable disagreement about same-sex marriage. In that case, even if same-sex marriage is legally recognized, wouldn’t it be tyrannical for the government to marginalize or penalize citizens who believe same-sex marriage is not real marriage–and who have perfectly good, but maybe not rationally compelling, reasons for so believing? (Do liberals have rationally compelling reasons for anything they believe?)

Are you prepared to say (as I think you must if you oppose blatant governmental tyranny) that defenders of traditional marriage DON’T have good reasons for opposing same-sex marriage? What if someone says, “And the reason sterile and aged couples can marry is that they could procreate if their bodily organs were functioning normally”? What is the liberals’ response? I’ve never seen one. I can imagine sophistical responses (“Tom and Bob would be able to procreate if Tom had been born a girl”), but not any good ones.

In describing the same-sex marriage debate as one of reasonable disagreement, the opponents of same-sex marriage are bending over backwards to reason with their fellow citizens. What they privately believe (if they’re like me) is that the case against same-sex marriage–more so than the case against abortion or the case for capital punishment–is a slam dunk.

The debate about same-sex marriage can easily get much uglier than it already is, and the reason for that, at the end of the day, is sheer liberal insularity–the ludicrous belief that “to be reasonable is to be liberal.”

IMO, and notwithstanding any contumely that may come my way from the ignorant and the unreflective, marriage equality is jabberwocky.

My point was satiric. I think there’s too much talk of the sky falling. The GOP is not waging a war on women, and Democrats are not planning on herding Christians into FEMA-run concentration camps.

When you say that “Matthew Franck referenced John Corvino’s “or else,” you take Franck’s word for it that Corvino uttered an “or else.” He didn’t. Franck has decided to paint Corvino and the gay marriage movement as totalitarian and barbaric. He has misconstrued what Corvino has said.

In the meantime, you have misconstrued David as uttering an “or else” when he hasn’t.

I’d like to see a little sanity return to these discussions.

if he changes his mind and decides that the state should redefine “gay marriage” as a civil right then my opinions would no longer be legal

A correction.

Opinions are not, and have never been, illegal. The Westboro Baptist Church got support from the Supreme Court on that point. NAMBLA is legally allowed to present their (reprehensible) positions, too. You are in no danger whatsoever of having your opinion made illegal.

Some actions based on those opinions might be made illegal. I’m not sure what that might entail in your case. Is there any area where you don’t think the Westboro Baptist Church goes far enough, for example?

Douglas Johnson,

No “severe punishment” has been imposed on Angela McCaskill. She is on paid leave. Both pro- and anti-SSM advocates are calling for her reinstatement.

You seem to have a very difficult time understanding my position. I am saying it is appropriate for pro-SSM advocates to use the same tactics as pro-life advocates, or, for that matter, anti-SSM advocates or pro-choice advocates. I am saying that pro-SSM advocates have a perfect right to insist that they are right and anti-SSM advocates are wrong in the same way that pro-life advocates have a right to insist pro-choice or pro-abortion advocates are wrong. Or in the same way that pro-choice or pro-abortion advocates say that pro-life advocates are wrong.

Pro-SSM advocates do not have to cease holding fast to their position just because some people have religious reasons for opposing SSM. Some people had religious reasons for persecuting Jews, or justifying slavery, or believing in racial segregation, or opposing gambling or contraception or electricity!

Douglas Johnson,

Pardon me, but I didn’t say that. I said

It seems to me that chief diversity officers (especially at federally funded universities) ought not to take public stands on hot-button issues. (Yes, signing a petition is taking a public stand.) On the other hand, it seems like Angela McCaskill has proven herself in her job, and even supporters of same-sex marriage are going to bat for her.

Saying that chief diversity officers ought not to take public stands on hot-button issues is not the same as saying they should be fired if they sign a petition in their church. Also, note the part that begins, “On the other hand . . . . ” It seems to me that someone in charge of diversity should try to remain impartial and to maintain the appearance of impartiality. But diversity officers are really quite new on the scene, and if there is a consensus on rules of conduct, I don’t know where to go to look for it.

The thing is, unlike Corvino and David Nickol I regard such “or else” threats as totalitarian and barbaric.

The “or else” threats I said would be appropriate would be the same as for any rights movement. I specifically mentioned the pro-life movement. Do you find them totalitarian and barbaric?

Where in the world did you get the idea that Maggie Gallagher, or Matthew Franck, or Robert George, et. al. ever suggested that people who hold opinions different than their own should be threatened with an “or else” and lose their jobs? Where did I ever suggest such a thing the way Corvino and Nickol did?

Where did I say people who hold different opinions about same-sex marriage than I do should lose their jobs? Of course, you may remember that one of Romney’s advisors lost his job because he supported same-sex marriage. Do you think it was acceptable for the Romney campaign to get rid of an advisor who supported same-sex marriage? What about freedom of speech?