Marriage equality for me, but not for thee

Advocates of "plural marriage" rights draw inspiration from the gay-rights movement, not that the latter approves:

Which is why it was so jarring when, about 20 minutes into the discussion he started dropping terms that were borrowed from another community that hasn't always gotten along with religious right: The gay rights movement.

"We made the decision as a family to come out," he said, at one point.

"All we want is our equal rights," he said, at another.

When finally asked whether he saw parallels between the gay marriage cause and his own, Darger didn't hesitate: "Definitely."

Gay rights advocates want nothing to do with the polygamists, having spent years batting down the right's argument that the freedom to marry could extend in unexpected directions. But to get polygamy decriminalized, Darger said he is modeling his strategy after the successes of that movement (which he supports on Constitutional principle). As part of the effort, he and his family are waging a public awareness campaign to demystify their lifestyle.

Commenters on Reason.com are taking gay activists to task for distancing themselves from advocates of equal rights for polygamous families and for effectively taking a stance of "equality for me, but not for thee." In my mind, those commenters have an excellent point. Absent a principled distinction, equality for me, but not for thee, is not equality at all. Also, as for whether acceptance of same-sex marriage will set us down the slippery slope to acceptance of polygamy, so what if it does?

Why bother trying to understand science?

What's the point? As all right-thinking people know, science doesn't have nearly the relevance to the real world that postmodernism used to have and that the latest academic fad with "studies" in its name now has. So why learn about science? Todd Akin is a good reason why.

Is Paul Ryan a true Catholic? What if he isn't?

Many Catholics, including the bishops, are questioning whether Paul Ryan's political views agree with the teachings of the church. Others defend Ryan's views as authentically Catholic.

First, it appears that Catholicism in practice is whatever any Catholic wants it to be. I have only rarely heard a Catholic say anything to the effect of "Here's what I want to believe, but my Catholic faith teaches otherwise, so what can you do?"

Second, and more to the point, why should secular law follow anyone's view of what Catholicism, or any other religion, really teaches? What happened to non-establishment of religion?

Thank you for your concern. Now stop "helping" us.

Now our supporters, by proposing government reprisals against Chick-fil-A, have made someone as loathesome as Dan Cathy a martyr for the First Amendment. Since this particular form of politically correct backfire has been going on for decades, you'd think that by now the left would have learned when to stop feeding the right's persecution complex.

Chick-fil-A, Amazon, and marriage

As you're presumably aware by now, the family that owns Chick-fil-A has donated millions of dollars to fight same-sex marriage, while the founder and CEO of Amazon.com has announced that he will donate millions to support it. Activists are cheering the Boston and Chicago politicians who want to make things difficult for Chick-fil-A. I think that the activists should not be so fast to cheer on those politicians.

First, there is the minor matter of the First Amendment. Second, there is the other minor matter of the iron rule, "Me today, you tomorrow." Who says that politicians in conservative communities will not try to take similar reprisals against Amazon, especially when history shows that conservative politicians are just as eager as liberal politicians to use the power of local government to punish thought crimes? While we disagree with what our opponents say, their right to promote their viewpoint is the price that we pay for our right to promote ours.

You didn't build that.

From that infamous Roanoke speech (source that is difficult to dismiss as right-wing spin):

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

How does that apply to those who are successful in left-wing politics? How does it apply to the few individual liberties about which the left still at least pretends to care? I'm getting a headache switching back and forth between "You didn't get there on your own" and "I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul."

Religious right or P.C. left? Quotes 41 and 42

In this series of blog posts, your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to read each quote and guess, before doing a Web search, whether someone in the religious right or the politically correct left said it.

41.

None of them want actual diversity; they want diversity in appearance, drug use, sexual partners, employment, etc. but NEVER in thought and speech. Never anything that actually matters or resembles reality for most people. In their sick pursuit of what is “alternative” they have turned their backs on basic truths about the human condition. And their “alternative” view and choices have become the mainstream for ... anyone else who doesn’t have ENOUGH PROBLEMS of their OWN. They want to HELP equalize everything and in doing so, alienate and ostracize anything that is not in lock-step with whatever fantasy equation they dreamed up about how the world SHOULD be but never actually CAN be without the loss of critical thinking and questions. Dissent is often at the heart of growth and creativity. They will NOT tolerate it.

42.

[in reference to gay men] We suggest they focus their energies on themselves by taking a more vocal position on NAMBLA, HIV/AIDS transmission and get Preparation H by the caseload. Or perhaps, for those less civic minded, how about putting on a pair of pants at parades and God forbid maybe a shirt? Nobody wants to smell or see them shoving their offensive nakedness in everyone’s faces....