Tolerance = “overstepping your bounds”

The Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) is reporting that the Raleigh city council has passed a resolution opposing a ban on gay marriage.

In a 6-2 vote Tuesday, the city council opposed a statewide amendment that would ban same-sex marriage and civil unions.

The vote follows earlier comments from Raleigh’s outgoing mayor who described the ban as “discriminatory.”

Got to love those scare quotes. Just imagine, suggesting that it’s discriminatory to tell millions of people that they’re not allowed to marry the one they love just because they happen to fall in love differently than a lot of other people. How biased can you get?

Never fear, though. The holy men and women of the CBN are right there to remind us all about the proper limitations of government.

Traditional marriage supporters say the city is overstepping its bounds.

Right. You can always tell an overly-intrusive government by the way it advocates keeping the state out of people’s private business. A properly bounded government will pick your spouse for you.

What the article fails to report, of course, is that other supporters of traditional marriage also support the city council’s actions. The ACLU, for example, praised the city council and called on other cities to follow Raleigh’s example. And they’re staunch defenders of traditional marriage: let some government agency try to deny a man and a woman the right to marry—because they’re of different races, say—and the ACLU will be right there defending the right to heterosexual marriage as well.

Here’s the dirty little secret: traditional marriage doesn’t actually have any enemies. Nobody is attacking the right of heterosexuals to marry one another. Gay marriage and straight marriage are not mutually exclusive alternatives. It’s perfectly possible and reasonable to defend both at the same time (and in fact it’s hypocritical to defend one and not the other).

So three cheers for the Raleigh city council. I, and other supporters of both traditional marriage AND gay marriage, salute you.


  1. sailor1031 says

    “…(and in fact it’s hypocritical to defend one and not the other).”

    That, of course is the core issue; bigotry is founded on hypocrisy. Even xtian scripture warns against seeing the speck in another’s eye while ignoring the log in your own. But then if bigots would really read scripture….

  2. says

    I see the problem is that religions believe they ‘own’ marriage. They seem to see any action the government endorses that goes against their view of marriage as the state interferring with their property.

  3. Hatchetfish says

    “traditional marriage doesn’t actually have any enemies.”

    Well, not in so far as attacking it as a right, fair enough. As an institution, and as an institution it’s pretty much always irked me the state has any say in at all for anyone? Yeah, it’s got at least one enemy.

  4. frankb says

    I always wonder why do they care. Gay marriage doesn’t cost them anything, it doesn’t dilute their vote. They don’t have to do it, see it, or know that it is happening. Why do they care what ceremony someone is having on the other side of the city, state, or country. I love this quote I heard once, “I was against gay marriage until I realized I didn’t have to have one.”

  5. Draken says

    I think they’re scared they may be forced to perform a gay marriage in their own church. Which leads me to the question, can a church deny to fulfil such a request if they think it goes against their beliefs, even if the law condones it?

    • tubi says

      Absolutely they can. The civil institution of marriage can occur indepentdently of any church ceremony. Today you can get married, from a legal standpoint, simply by going to a courthouse and completing the necessary paperwork. That wouldn’t change. No supporter of SSM has ever, that I am aware of, insisted that churches be forced to perform any ceremony they don’t wish to perform. That’s a concern that is completely unfounded, yet works to rile up the bigot contingent and spur them to action. So of course it’s brought up all the time.

  6. Drivebyposter says

    Why are “christians” allowed to get married? I find their lifestyle choice disgusting and degrading to all humanity.

    That always gets fun responses.

  7. Sir Shplane, Grand Mixmaster, Knight of the Turntable says


    They’d be stoning rape victims to death, sacrificing doves whenever they have a period, and feeding children to bears?

    Please refrain from perpetuating the myth that “scripture” is anything other than utterly vile.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *