Forgive me for posting this as a diary, but I don’t see an appropriate open thread for it.
Many are familiar with the tactics of the social-engineering shakedown artists. Jesse Jackson, among others, has made a career of it. There are numerous examples of lawsuits brought before sympathetic courts to force a bending of wills to Progressive agendas. We see it most often in the public arena, but when it happens in the private sector, the outcome is particularly despicable.
I offer for your consideration the eHarmony shakedown by a homosexual activist. I won’t cover the details; Michele Malkin does it far better.
When Conservatives bring up their opposition to issues related to homosexuality, we are quickly accused of forcing our views on others. That accusation never seems to apply in the other direction. In this instance, how can a rational person argue that the lawsuit is nothing less than imposing one’s view on another?
My intention is not to ‘gay-bash’; I don’t do that or condone it. Neither do I condone homosexuality. For those that do condone it, I will just have to respectfully disagree, with equal emphasis on ‘respectfully’ and ‘disagree’. I consider it a vice and leave it at that.
My view regarding the relationship between vice and government was stated in a post yesterday:
Just let me say that although our laws and Constitution have a basis in and depend on Christian morality, when we legislate against personal vice we put that controlling function in the wrong sphere. Government should neither promote nor prevent the exercise of personal vice. That is between an individual and his God (and to an extent; his priest, pastor, brother, sister, etc). Government intervention in this area creates too many unintended consequences. Don’t put the duty of the individual Christian and the Church in the hands of the legislature.
For folks who either have no Holy Bible or are disinclined to read one (i.e.: Secular Humanists), my argument is this: Homosexual behavior between consenting adults is a decision they themselves bear responsibility for. Government sanction of said behavior sends the wrong message to society. I see little to recommend it. It is a genetic dead end. It does nothing to advance the species.
For the spiritually minded I say this: Although the Scriptures certainly teach against homosexuality, they also indicate that all sins save one are equally reprehensible in the eyes of God. The only sin of higher rank is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Thus we have the instruction to “love the sinner, hate the sin”. Any spiritual person who singles out homosexuality for special censure, or put it in higher category of sin is in error.
This lawsuit and its outcome makes me very sad, but angers the Libertarian part of me, as well. I detest coercion and blackmail. This is a limit on liberty that cannot be tolerated.