It is those who oppose same-sex marriage who are the true champions of liberty. Indeed, if gay “marriage” is ever legalized, it is likely to result in unprecedented restrictions on freedom of speech and even thought.Look at Canada, for instance. Changing the dictionary meant that the government deprives Christians of the right to say what they believe without official sanction.
That article quotes from another which observes that there is no law against anyone calling any relationship he has "marriage," nor against any religious institution performing a ceremony for such persons/animals/things and calling it a "marriage" ceremony. Here is what is at issue:
What the law in most states currently does not do, however, is force third parties—individuals, businesses, institutions, and so on—to recognize these ‘marriages’ and treat them as if they were exactly the same as traditional marriages. Nor does it forbid anyone to do so.There you go.
Though I'd not yet read either essay, this is the point I was making yesterday, in what became one of my most-retweeted Tweets:
This isn't about (wo)men being able to marry (wo)men. They never will. It is about *forcing* you and me to *say* they can.— Dan Phillips (@BibChr) March 26, 2013
No man will ever be able to marry another man, nor will any woman be able to marry another woman, and they know it. There is no act of Congress nor any despotic tyrant on earth that will square that circle.
What this is really about bringing the power of government to force others to say "Yep, if you say so, that circle is a square," and sanctioning anyone who says and lives and conducts business otherwise.
Here's one other point which I've often made:
The problem with this position is that it again assumes the myth that homosexuals are not allowed to marry. The reality is that no one is stopping homosexuals from getting married, since they are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. The fact that they do not want to do this is no more relevant to the question than whether the pope wants to marry. Just as it would be absurd to change the definition of marriage to include celibacy so that the Pope can have “equal access” to the institution, so it is absurd to change the definition of marriage so that homosexuals can begin to want access to it.
Finally, at no extra charge, a little exchange between Il Presidente and your faithful correspondent:
Every American should be able to marry the person they love. #LoveIsLove, twitter.com/BarackObama/st…
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) March 25, 2013
.@frank_turk @barackobama Why only one person? Why only a person? #IsLoveLove
— Dan Phillips (@BibChr) March 25, 2013