Cal Thomas' take on the upcoming Supreme Court ruling on marriage rights.
The only ones talking about keeping pastors from preaching whatever they want are Anti-Gay, Inc., and they're just doing it to scare people and increase their cash flow. As for the line between church and state, the state (and the rest of us) would be happy if evangelicals got back on their side of the line. Note to Cal Thomas: people criticizing you for repulsive opinions is not the same as the government censoring your speech.
Well, the Court is not considering a case brought by polygamists, so there's no need to worry about that right now. And considering Thomas' insistence on scripture, one wonders if he's read it at all. I refer him to King Solomon, for example, who wound up with 700 wives.
Besides, the Supreme Court is not allowed to base its decisions on scripture. Anybody's. So we're stuck with the Constitution, which does guarantee all citizens equal protection of the law and the exercise of their fundamental rights -- which include marriage to the person of one's choice.
Is someone repealing something? News to me. Somehow, expanding a fundamental right doesn't really seem like repealing anything, y'know?
The more shrill they get, the stupider they sound.
Even during the anti-slavery movement, even the pro-slavery movement in the South in the United States, the United States government didn't come in and try to keep pastors from preaching either for or against slavery," he insisted. "They let them have freedom of speech. You hear a lot from the left about the separation of church and state. A lot of evangelicals would would be happy if the state got back on its side of the line.
The only ones talking about keeping pastors from preaching whatever they want are Anti-Gay, Inc., and they're just doing it to scare people and increase their cash flow. As for the line between church and state, the state (and the rest of us) would be happy if evangelicals got back on their side of the line. Note to Cal Thomas: people criticizing you for repulsive opinions is not the same as the government censoring your speech.
If equal protection covers gays, lesbians, transgenders and the rest, what about the polygamists?" Thomas asked. . . .
So, who's going to say no? And based on what?" he continued. "Where's the standard. If it's not the Constitution, if it's not scripture, where is the standard?
Well, the Court is not considering a case brought by polygamists, so there's no need to worry about that right now. And considering Thomas' insistence on scripture, one wonders if he's read it at all. I refer him to King Solomon, for example, who wound up with 700 wives.
Besides, the Supreme Court is not allowed to base its decisions on scripture. Anybody's. So we're stuck with the Constitution, which does guarantee all citizens equal protection of the law and the exercise of their fundamental rights -- which include marriage to the person of one's choice.
If you are going to repeal something that has been part of human history for thousands of years, what's the new standard? And according to whom?
Is someone repealing something? News to me. Somehow, expanding a fundamental right doesn't really seem like repealing anything, y'know?
The more shrill they get, the stupider they sound.
No comments:
Post a Comment