2 years ago: Civil unions take a step forward in Delaware

April 8, 2011, on this blog: Civil unions take a step forward in Delaware

Wilson’s argument is based on the claim of hegemonic privilege for the majority sect. That is not an argument for “religious freedom.” It is the opposite of an argument for religious freedom. Wilson’s argument is that there is no such thing as religious liberty, no right to religious liberty — only a competition for dominance between sects to be settled by whichever has the greatest political muscle.

Delaware state Sen. Bruce Ennis said he voted against the civil unions bill because “he heard many concerns in his district that the bill ‘pitted religious liberty against sexual liberty’ and he voted the way he believed his constituents wanted him to vote.”

But this claim of a concern for religious liberty is a lie. “Liberty for me but not for thee” is not the position of an advocate of liberty. “Liberty for me but not for thee” says liberty is not a right, but only a prize won by the powerful and denied to the powerless.

""... Then I heard one of these people griping about Colin Kaepernick, and another one ..."

Sunday favorites
"Frozen peas really are the best a last-minute "shit I forgot" ingredient. They just need ..."

LBCF, No. 186: ‘Lone Gunmen’
"The last Civil War widow died in 2008:Maudie Hopkins (December 7, 1914 – August 17, ..."

LBCF, No. 186: ‘Lone Gunmen’
"So Satan is in favor of justice and consensual sex, and opposed to domestic violence? ..."

LBCF, No. 186: ‘Lone Gunmen’

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Michael Cule

    I do wish this wasn’t still timely. This morning’s headline in the DAILY MAIL was

    What an insult to Christians! After crucifixes are allowed at work, human rights quango tells firms: Give vegans and pagans special treatment too

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2305225/What-insult-Christians-After-crucifixes-allowed-work-human-rights-quango-tells-firms-Give-vegans-pagans-special-treatment-too.html#ixzz2PsTZlmAe
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    Note the same inability to see ‘equal treatment’ as meaning anything other than ‘special treatment’. Sheeesh.

    Tomorrow’s Headline will be all about Margaret Thatcher and how the people who are glad she’s finally gone are all going to hell. Or something…

  • Baby_Raptor

    I’ve gotten to the point where people telling me I’m going to hell doesn’t phase me anymore. I don’t believe in hell, but if it does turn out to be real, I’m going to have a lot of great company.

  • LoneWolf343

    Well, this is the Daily Mail, which is about as credible of a news source as Pravda.

  • Lectorel

    ‘Special treatment too

    I love (read:despise with the fiery passion of a thousand burning suns) how they basically admit Christians are getting special treatment, and are outraged at the thought other people might want similar accommodations and privileges.

  • Ross Thompson

    Ah, but all the replies are “Well, if they’re getting the same rights as Christians, that means NO RIGHTS AT ALL!”.

    In an article explaining the ramifications of a court case confirming the rights of Christians to wear religious symbols at work.

  • Lectorel

    I – just. I don’t even. Argh. People. Who thought people were a good idea? Because I want to have a word with them.

  • Michael Cule

    But alas, a good deal more popular than PRAVDA ever was…

  • That reminds me quite a bit of how the Chick-Fil-A controversy somehow got defined as a free speech issue. Quite a few Christians i’ve spoken to buy into the idea that churches are going to be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for gay people and that religious liberty is under serious attack by the secular left.

  • Victor Savard

    (((no right to religious liberty — only a competition for dominance between sects to be settled by whichever has the greatest political muscle.)))

    Come on Fred your gods know as well as I do that that “IT” is always settled by witch Eve her, I mean whichever has the greatest political muscle NOW!

    STOP “IT” sinner vic! Have you even read the entire story here so you know what Fred is actually talking about NOW?

    Mind your own business Victor! Why arn’t YA helping your soul with that speach that he’s going to making in his new pulpit http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=18142394&postID=3673204053413552134 in other words, Where’s your GOD when YA really need HIM? Doesn’t HE know that while the rats away the mice will play with their “F” Bombs http://www.patheos.com/blogs/diaryofawimpycatholic/2013/03/why-im-catholic-in-200-words/comment-page-1/#comment-39544 NOW?

    Be nice sinner vic cause you know as well as “I” do that HE sent you to help me out so are you going to help my soul with his speach so that he’s not turned into some kind of crazy fool NOW!

    HE did? I mean HE did Victor so have him make an appointment with my secretary when she gets back from her holiday with that clown, “I” mean jest her, NO! NO! I mean jester NOW! http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/2013/04/not-peace-but-a-sword-the-great-chasm-between-christianity-and-islam/ Listen Victor! “IT” is very important that your soul get in touch with U>S gods soon cause between YA and any body hell, “I” mean else who wants to listen Victor’s soul is walking the insanity line and he’s staring, “I” mean starting to scare U>S that he might be falling off the deep end http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYtkL4Svk-I

    Hey! How deep is “IT” anyway sinner vic?


    How tall are ya Victor? Never mind we gods must work on that speach for your soul NOW!

    Hey sinner vic! Can you and your alien gods give U>S (usual sinners) a sample of what “IT” might sound like NOW!

    OK! Butt if the alien stop this, don’t blame “ME”, “ME” and “ME” NOW! Anyway “IT” starts something like this: WAKE UP PEOPLE AND/OR SHOULD “i” BE CALLING YA A BUNCH OF FRUITS now? WHY MUST YA BE SUCH COPY CATS? JUST BECAUSE THIS JESUS IS CALLED A FRUIT OF THY WOMB……….

    Sorry sinner vic, I mean Victor! This is as far as the alien gods will let me go at this time NOW!

    “IT” is OK sinner vic cause “AM” sure that we have all the time in the world to get through “IT” NOW!

    Go Figure! :)



  • Sounds like Scalia. “If we let X have the same rights as Y, then we’re giving X preferential treatment.”

  • ReverendRef

    No . . . no . . . no . . . no.

    State agencies will be required to issue marriage licenses to all people meeting the state rules for marriage. Churches will not be “forced” to perform marriage ceremonies for any people they don’t want to; i.e. no Jews in Catholic churches, no Catholics in JW buildings, no atheists in any religious facility. It’s called separation of church and state for a reason, and this is why it’s a good thing.

    Grrrrr . . . /end rant

  • JustoneK

    Except in North Carolina?

  • ReverendRef

    Oh, right . . . North Carolina. Oy.

  • Alix

    I’m almost to the point where if someone tells me I’m going to hell, I take it as a sign I’m doing something right.

  • stardreamer42

    This is why it’s good that we’ve been seeing a shift in terminology from “gay marriage” to “marriage equality”. Words MATTER, and the way an argument is framed can shift people’s perception of it. (Kind of tangential to your comment, but this is rather a hobby-horse of mine.)

  • A friend of mine and I have “People are a problem” as a catchphrase. This led to the following exchange in public:
    “You know what the problem is?”
    “Yup: people.”
    “Right! Exactly right!”
    Which deeply puzzled our audience.

  • Carstonio

    Any idea why the Beatles focused on the paper? There are references in both “Paperback Writer” and “A Day in the Life.”

  • *Nods* I’ve been careful to use that phrase myself for the same reasons, for all the good it does with the hardcore nuts like Scalia who don’t think certain types of people should have any rights.

  • Fusina

    Uuuh, Amen, Preach it sister (or brother)?

    I only jumped in because I am pretty sure my mum thinks I am headed for hell, although she is very sorry about that, and I know my brother does, cause he said so.

  • Victor Savard

    (((Tomorrow’s Headline will be all about Margaret Thatcher and how the people who are glad she’s finally gone are all going to hell. Or something…)))

    God Bless her soul Michael

    That’s all Victor?

    Nothing more is needed at this time.


  • christopher_y

    The Daily Mail has always, back to the days when it supported the British Union of Fascists, been the paper of lower middle class authoritarian followers who think they should be upper middle class. To the Beatles, like other Brits, it’s a two word code for a whole world view.

  • Carstonio

    One variation on the “compromise” is using the “civil union” label for all civil marriages, same-sex or opposite-sex, and reserving the “marriage” label for unions solemnized by clergy members. The mistaken assumption is that marriage is fundamentally a religious institution. No, it’s likely that marriage predated religion. This variation enables the old belief that couples who have courthouse ceremonies “aren’t really married.”

  • LoneWolf343

    Shame too, because Pravda’s a laugh riot. Daily Mail is just insufferable.

  • Cathy W

    …so I can mentally substitute “Fox News” and get about the right target audience and level of credibility?

  • Carstonio

    Does this description of evangelical sexual politics sound accurate?


    The Republicans who would forgive and forget Sanford’s South American romp are the same ones who have steadfastly rejected gay marriage. They claim that if society endorses gay marriage, we’ll all be headed down that slippery slope from polygamy to bestiality. As laughable as the argument sounds, it has a historical foundation among mid-19th-century evangelicals and their opposition to divorce. They described marital dissolution as the gateway to hell, leading to “free love” and polygamy.

    Before the ideology underlying companionate marriage became common in modern
    times, “free love” was the idea that people could select their partner when they first fell in love, and when love faded should be free to follow their heart and find a new, more suitable spouse. Old-time evangelicals preached against free love and Mormon polygamy in the same breath. The evangelicals who couldn’t see their way to voting for the Mormon Mitt Romney were replicating what they never really left behind –- the 19th-century anti-Mormon rhetoric and the confiscation of polygamists’ property that sent Romney’s people to Mexico.

  • Launcifer

    Have to say that made me giggle a bit. Brightened my day.
    I want to say it’s not quite that bad, but I’m rifling through my brain and only coming up with the “Murderers” front page in my lifetime where the paper actually took the right kind of risk for a half-decent reason. Sport section’s been pretty good for the past few seasons, though.

  • P J Evans

    Apparently the RC hierarchy is now threatening people who support marriage equality with refusal of communion or even excommunication. Because ‘Love your neighbor as your self’ and ‘Do unto others’ aren’t good Catholic teachings, apparently..

  • Out of Michigan, no less.

    I’m really going to hate my vacation there next week.

  • Veylon

    What do they do about the clergy members currently willing to solemnize same-sex marriages? That’s getting to be a fairly significant flaw in the “keep civil unions and marriages separate” plan.

  • On rare occasion with heterosexual (and not so rare occasion with homosexual) couples, a civil union isn’t considered marriage at all. I recall reading a story about a civil union pair who were denied hospital visitation rights because “a business contract is not the same as being married.”

  • Carstonio

    Very true. One could reasonably argue that bans on same-sex marriage hamper the religious freedom of those particular clergy members.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Not to mention the religious freedom of those congregants who wish to engage in same-sex marriage.

  • Don’t be silly; any religion which allows same-sex marriage isn’t a legitimate religion. No true Scottsman religion would do such a thing.

  • Cathy W

    I recall one argument made in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act, back in the day, was that “We’ve got to act quickly – the Episcopalians and Quakers are going to start marrying same-sex couples any day now!”

  • Carstonio

    Sure, except that I haven’t heard opponents insist that laypersons will be forced into marriages with people of their own gender.

    The latest propaganda trick is the idea of people using same-sex marriage as a legal subterfuge. As if that doesn’t happen now with opposite-sex marriage.

  • Hey, woah, wait! Italics are working again? My tags disappear into obscurity, leaving only the blunt force tools of CAPSLOCK and *asterisk sandwich.* Perhaps Disqus now will only accept tags? testing testing …A-ha.

    This has been a test of the Disqus formatting system. We now return you to your regular comment thread, already in progress.