New York's Same Sex Marriage Law and Libertarians

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

_________________________

As the State of New York officially starts recognizing same-sex marriage - and as libertarians and liberals alike continued to sing the praises of the triumphs of liberty - I remain befuddled.

My general opposition to same-sex marriage aside, I cannot help but be puzzled at libertarian support for the redefinition of marriage as it came to pass here in New York.

A few weeks ago, the Mercatus Center - a libertarian think tank at George Mason University – ranked the state of New York dead last in its “Freedom in the 50 States” index. The authors of the report even used the phrase “by far” to show how deep into the cellar the once most-populous state in the nation has descended.

Its contentions were based principally on the Empire State’s sickening levels of taxation.

That higher taxes always mean increased levels of government spending cannot logically be disputed by anyone who claims to be on a first-name basis with their own brains. More government spending - and by natural extension, increased intrusion and control - definitionally means more government.

Period.

How can one deny it?

It's like denying the dampness of water, the uselessness of Keanu Reeves as an actor, or, if you're a liberal, the certainty that the planet is teetering on disaster because of man-induced climate change.

As talk-show host and author Dennis Prager often says, the bigger the government, the smaller the individual.

Indeed, bigger government means less liberty. Again, by definition. (I needn't explain this to conservatives or libertarians). It simply isn't possible for an ever-more intrusive, powerful governing body to spawn more freedom.

How would that work exactly? What model is there to base that fantasy on?

Among other qualifiers to New York’s dubious distinction is the fact that the state has "the strictest health-insurance community-rating regulations in the country.” New York is also an anti-smoking zealot’s Xanadu. The strictest tobacco laws anywhere exist in New York. (That tobacco use has not been found to be an outright act of violence here is still perplexing). Mix in such acts of nanny-statism as mandating what oils restaurants can cook with, barely constitutional anti-gun laws, painfully excessive home schooling regulations, usurping the will of the people on term limits, banning smoking in privately owned bars and public parks, ridiculously stringent motor vehicle laws, rampant "Eminent domain abuse," and the almost obsessive war on salt by the likes of Michael “New-York-City-Welcomes-All-Illegals-To-Come-And-Stay” Bloomberg, and you’ve got a recipe for an ever-growing soft tyranny, a phrase that talk show host Mark Levin has popularized (quite accurately).

Yes, there is a totalitarian tendency in modern liberalism.

To the left, government knows best how to spend your money, feed you, teach you, medicate you, make health decisions for you, and so on. It’s the leftist's impulse to exert more influence in the everyday lives of its citizenry, because, according to them, they know best. That totalitarian inclination instinctively feeds the human being’s native longing for power and control, and helps to exemplify his inherent inability to know when to curtail that power when given more of it.

The term slippery slope comes to mind.

In other words, people just don't know when to stop.

That's why we create laws.

When this report was released last month, co-author Jason Sorens, a University of Buffalo political-science professor, offered an opinion as to how the State of New York could begin the process of healing its freedom-stifling wounds.

Legalize same-sex marriage.

Said Sorens, “"The most liberal state in the country can surely find the political will to legalize same-sex partnerships of some kind," he said.

The passage of same-sex marriage here in New York continues to be touted as a win for not only supporters of redefining a millenia-old institution but of teeny-tiny-government libertarian types who equate allowing more people to get hitched with less government control.

Hail freedom!  Get out of our lives, you big ol' Government, you!

But this thinking is misguided and hardly libertarian.

New York's sanctioning of same-sex marriage has actually served as an expansion of the government's reach - something that is supposed to be an anethma to a libertarian. With the redefinition of marriage, government is now more involved in our lives.

And yet another powerful lobby has successfully buried its hooks into the soft, fleshy matter of the statehouse.

Where exactly do New York's elected representatives summon the arrogance to believe they can redefine the basic institution of society? What makes them competent enough to do so? Simply because they're elected? Because they say so? Because they want to? Because they feel like it? Beacuse someone has to? Because their collective wisdom exceeds all of the history of humanity that preceded them? Because a given special interest group knows how to bang their cans more loudly?

New York's elected officials have taken a page from Mayor Mike Bloomberg's totalitarian-light playbook. Remember when Mayor Mike decided one day that New York City's term limit law didn't suit him? So he said, in effect, "To hell with what the people want, New York needs me." Likewise, Albany is saying that because a group of people say life is unfair, it has the faculty and qualification to change - literally change - a millenia-old societal institution that transcends every culture and civilization.

Think about that.

That's not a recession of government power - that's a full-fledged expansion of its power.

What will government decide it has the power to change next? What will they decide they need to be involved in after this?

That the question is even being asked flies in the face of libertarian principles.

Twenty-five years ago, the very thought of two people of the same sex marrying was considered one of those, "Don't be ridiculous" notions. Today, proponents of keeping the definiton of traditional marriage in tact are called ridiculous and antiquated. Same-sex marriage is suddenly  - magically - an issue of equality, freedom and civil rights.

And where does it end?

Today, the thought of someone marrying, say, their goldfish or a cup of Snack Pack butterscoth pudding is one of those "Don't be ridiculous" notions.

But will it be in twenty-five years?

If you could go back in time a quarter of a century and tell the citizens of New York City that smoking would be banned in bars and taverns, or that the government would keep free citizens from using perfectly legal cooking oils in privately owned restaurants, they'd look at you as if you had a pulsating basketball-sized goiter growing out of your neck.

The fact is, the loss of liberty is incremental and often barely noticeable.

This is the slippery slope.

When does it end?

And because of the passage of same-sex marriage in New York without a referendum, how could a government ever say "no" in the future when some new special interest group with resonating garbage cans comes a-clanging, making a huge noise about wanting to marry their ink jet printers? Or a jar of pitted olives? Or a sister? Or a dog? Or whatever the hell he or she wants to join in matrimony?

On what basis could the government say "no?"

Is this what New York libertarians had in mind?

This is nothing but government-constructed relativism. That is supposed to be the antithesis of libertarianism.

Proponents of keeping the definition of traditional marriage as it has always been draw the line at one man and one woman. Proponents of same-sex marriage draw the line at two individuals, regardless of sex.

By definition, both discriminate. 

Same-sex marriage advocates scoff at the suggestion that this opens the door to allowing such things as multiple spouses or sibling marriage, but on what grounds? Same-sex marriage has its limitations and discriminations, too, doesn't it? Why then is so called "gay marriage" discrimination acceptable and traditional marriage discrimination not?

Why are the inequalities and prejudices of permitting same-sex marriage okay?

And on what do same-sex marriage advocates base their matrimonial line in the sand? On how they feel? On what sounds good? How could they logically argue against a polygamists' movement? Or sibling love?

But what do I know? I've already been told on numerous occassions that I hate gays.

I can only hope my sister knows I don't hate her because of my opposition to sibling marriage.

-

The President, Constitutional Illiteracy And Ground Zero

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

The President supports the Ground Zero mosque

If New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg is a fool – and it’s hard to argue the point – then how exactly would (or could) one characterize President Barack Obama?

Be creative.

My bag of hackneyed adjectives has been raided so much during the first nineteen months of the Messianic Age that I’m left with nothing but literary lint and a deep aching for a “What Could Have Been” McCain presidency. (That’s pretty scary in and of itself).

Michael Bloomberg - sage, arbiter of social justice, salt and cigarette warrior – has openly supported the construction of the Ground Zero mosque and cultural center in the name of tolerance and acceptance, much to the delight of the New York Times. The irony, of course, is that such a center is needed least of all in America, the most accommodating and tolerant nation on Earth.

Bloomberg has carelessly and inappropriately yanked on the First Amendment as some sort of justification (and validation) for the Islamic Cultural Center’s construction two blocks away from the site of the worst terrorist attack in this nation’s history, an attack perpetrated in the name of Islam. The fact that the entire issue has nothing – absolutely nothing – to do with religious freedom somehow escapes the billionaire three-term mayor.

It’s a point worth beleaguering.

Muslims are, in fact, perfectly free to practice their religious beliefs in the United States of America. That’s precisely what the First Amendment says. They cannot be denied the right to be observant Muslims. And, as has been noted endlessly, they can do so in any of the over one hundred mosques located in the Big Apple, if they so choose.

But King Bloomberg says the proposed Ground Zero mosque and cultural center must go up because the Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom is on the chopping block.

It’s an argument that makes a lot of sense … if you have no idea what the hell you’re talking about.

Religious freedom isn't the issue here. There is no threat whatsoever - not a scintilla's worth - to the Constitutional right of religious freedom in the opposition to this mosque and cultural center.

This issue is about sensitivity, compassion and common sense.

It's also about the Mayor being terrified of enflaming Muslims.

New York Mayor, Mike Bloomberg

You’ll recall Bloomberg is the same mayor who asserted that the Times Square bomber was probably a disgruntled opponent of Obama Care.

The Mayor doesn't seem to get the point that it is not unreasonable for people directly affected by the 9/11 attacks to object to a house of worship being constructed mere steps from the site of an act of unprecedented evil - a terrorist attack carried out by those who murdered nearly three-thousand innocents in the name of that particular faith.

But in Bloomy’s world, if people do object, it’s simply too bad.  Their objections are not to be tolerated.

It is up to them to adjust.

But now, into the ever-growing bouillabaisse of ignorance, insensitivity and stupidity – taking his rightful place along side the term-limit smashing mayor of New York - goes the young metrosexual from Chicago – our President - so enamored with intrusive government, so in over his head, so out of touch with the people he is charged to serve, that his incompetence in all arenas outside of the campaign-trail is (or should be) unquestioned among those who have functioning synapses.

On Friday, Barack Obama came out in favor of the construction of the controversial Ground Zero mosque.

Of course he did.

It’s Ramadan.

And while he would not participate in the National Day of Prayer Service at the White House in May, he did take part in an iftar dinner last week - the evening meal at which Muslims break their fast during the month of Ramadan.

Iftar is a religous observance ... and the White House was more than happy to host the event.

He, like Bloomy, went on to justify his position by (conveniently) referencing the country’s founding principals, saying:

As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.

How exactly does one characterize a man who could make such a foolish statement?

How exactly is America’s commitment to religious freedom being compromised?

How is religious freedom in danger when the entire discussion is about one specific location in an area of Manhattan considered sacred to many – a war zone - where thousands were murdered in the name of Islam?

No one – repeat, no one - is calling for the removal of any already existing mosques in New York. No one is asking for any Islamic cultural centers – of which there are many in New York – to be shut down.

This is about the area in and around Ground Zero; a place where two tall towers used to stand, brought down in an act of war by followers of the very faith that did so in the name of that faith.

It is not unreasonable for people to object.

You'll recall that the White House was originally silent on the matter, saying only that it was a local issue ... even though it was the United States of America, as a nation, that was attacked on September 11, 2001.

site of the proposed Ground Zero mosque

Now, with Ramadan upon us - and the Ground Zero mosque controversy ever-growing across the country - the President has done an about face and decided that the matter is, indeed, a national issue worthy of his commentary and Constitutional prowess ... even though (once again) this is not about the Bill of Rights or religious freedom.

It never has been.

The moment the government keeps anyone from being a Muslim, please call me.

The second anyone is denied the right to follow Islam, let me know. It'll make for a fascinating article.

Rather, this is a matter of spectacular insensitivity on the part of the pro-mosque contingent - including our Commander-In-Chief.

Why is it that the feelings, emotions and sentiments of those supporting this mosque and cultural center are the only ones that matter here?

If this really is an issue of tolerance, why are the wishes of the 9/11 family members (as well as a majority of Americans opposed to its construction) not tolerated?

And let's keep in mind that there is not a Muslim community in lower Manhattan, save for street vendors and cab drivers. The goal in constructing this facility is to create a Muslim community in that portion of the city so that, in part, the 9/11 narrative can be changed.

On Saturday, Bammy tried to backtrack a bit, doing his best to have things both ways, saying:

I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding.

You can't make it up.

Does he honestly expect us to believe that he was not endorsing the mosque and cultural center with his original remarks? That he was speaking in generalities? He specifically referred to the mosque in lower Manhattan in his comments on Friday, didn't he?

Come now, Mr. President.

Where in the Constitution is the expressed right to construct a house of worship anywhere anyone pleases?

What right is being infringed upon if construction is denied on that specific location? Aren't there over a hundred mosques in the city already?

Liberals are incredibly tedious, aren't they?

The real question is: Had America not been attacked on September 11, 2001, is there anyone who truly believes that this mosque and Islamic cultural center would still be built right there at the site of the old Burlington Coat Factory? (It might still be open had the building not been damaged by a wheel from one of the 9/11 hijacked planes).

And while many have not touched upon it, this is also an issue of national security.

The truth is, we would afford our enemies a sense of victory precisely because the mosque would go up within spitting distance of Ground Zero. The mayor said it himself … he supports this to show how tolerant we are. He, like so many on the Left, thinks this will impress the world - particularly Muslims - with American open-mindedness and acceptance.

What the Left doesn't comprehend - what they will never comprehend as long as they remain on the Left - is that our enemies don't see an olive branch. They see weakness.

Of course, after President Obama stepped away from his original statement about the mosque on Saturday, White House spokesman Bill Burton came out and said that Obama’s pullback was premature. The President, according to Burton, is “not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night.”

Why should he?

Mahmoud al-Zahar, co-founder of Hamas

President Obama continues to be in wonderful company. Support for the mosque has just come in from Mahmoud al-Zahar, co-founder of the terrorist organization, Hamas – as if Saturday’s ringing endorsement from The Center for American Progress, a powerful leftist group, wasn’t enough.

Mahmoud al-Zahar said, "We have to build everywhere."

None of this is to be confused with yet another report from an “unnamed White House official” that the President made his support for the mosque public “purely on his own.”

Indeed, when the controversy was still a “local issue” – a position so drenched in stupidity as to be criminal – the President, at least, was out of the crosshairs of public sentiment.

Weak, but somewhat effective.

Now, with the Commander-In-Chief apparently taking it upon himself to let the world know that he endorses the construction of the mosque, stupidity (and downright ignorance) has been elevated to a new level at the expense of the citizenry he is charged to serve.

And no, he didn’t speak with Mike Bloomberg about this before hand either. It looks like Bammy did this all on his own.

Politically speaking, this is a disaster for The One.

Morally, he has hit rock bottom.

Tolerance is not caving into phantom visions of sugar-plum unity at the expense of the very real pain and suffering of 9/11 family members. Tolerance is not about crapping on Americans (like myself) who, to this day, feel the catastrophic effects of those attacks on our nation by people who did so in the name of that religion.

(I’ll keep repeating that until my fingertips explode)

It’s remarkably difficult to listen to rhetoric from proponents of the new Islamic cultural center about reaching out and building bridges when the moderate Muslims of the world who actually do renounce extremism remain silent and refuse to stand up loudly and proudly against terrorism with the rest of us.

This is not about legalities - about having the right to construct a mosque.

This is about what's right.