The battle for gay marriage has essentially been won. No, it is not legal everywhere in the United States, and may not be for some time. However, with increasing acceptance of same-sex marriage across the United States, as well as more involvement from the courts (which are starting to see this as a 14th amendment issue), the question is when, not if, we will have nationwide same-sex marriage.

Personally, I am happy about this development. Since for the most part I am an originalist when it comes to the constitution (like Justices Scalia and Thomas), I have some reservations regarding the use of judicial review to strike down bans on gay marriage, but I am still someone who has always supported the idea of allowing gay people to marry one another. In fact, back in 2005 when I first heard about gay marriage in 5th grade, I counted myself a supporter. Well before frauds like President Obama and Hillary Clinton hopped on board the bandwagon.

It is my belief that same-sex marriage strengthens, rather than undermines, the institution of marriage, and it is something more conservatives such as myself should embrace. With higher rates of broken homes in the US than in decades past, this is clearly something that can help make the concept of marriage become popular again. Sure, it changes the definition of marriage, but in a way it is like a club opening up its doors to new members. In essence, it could help the club from dying out.

What worries me is what may come next. Once the battle for legal equality is over, I feel that the gay rights movement might take a turn into betraying one of its core arguments and principles. That argument being, ‘homosexuality does not affect you, so stay out of the bedroom.’ Whether this argument is used against anti-sodemy laws, or in favor of marriage rights, it essentially means that people who will not be affected directly from homosexual activity should let others do what they want.

The argument worked. Even if someone personally feels homosexuality is immoral or repulsive, it is not their role to tell others they can’t participate in those activities. Gay Marriage does not directly affected straight marriage, and isn’t a direct threat to your heterosexual relationships. These are all fair points, and I agree with them. What’s troubling is that certain members of the gay rights movement are starting to force people into these activities, making those activities have a direct effect on others.

Take for example the recent case of a photography business, owned by a religious couple, refusing to photograph a lesbian couple’s ceremony. The lesbian couple sued, and the Supreme Court of New Mexico forced the photography business to take the pictures. Here you have a case of religious individuals, who own a photography company, choosing to not get involved with homosexual activity. The photographer, Elaine Huguenin, didn’t try to stop the ceremony. She just said that they she didn’t want to be present, and a part of what she saw as an immoral activity, which she felt would piss off the creator of the universe. Sounds like something you would expect. However, instead of going to someone else, the lesbian couple sued the photographer, racking up court costs, time, energy, tax-payer dollars, and ultimately succeeded in getting the courts to force someone into an act she deemed immoral.

To be clear, I don’t think businesses should be able to deny service to gay people for being gay. That is ridiculous and mean-spirited. But, if this continues, it’s possible that we could one day see the government threaten to take away tax exempt status for religious organizations that don’t perform same-sex ceremonies. Or, threaten to shut them down altogether. What about religious private schools, as well as home schools that don’t teach their kids about homosexuality, or accepting the morality of it? Government might want to shut that down too.

My point is, if we continue down this road, one day the gay rights movement might evolve into something it swore it wasn’t at the start: something that forces their sex life, love, and companionship on others who disagree with it.


If you think the opposition to gay rights is bad now, wait until you see how nasty things get when you actually start to interfere with people’s religion, kids, and speech. All I can suggest to the gay rights movement is this: For the sake of the country, our cohesiveness as a nation, and for the preservation of liberty, watch your step.

  • LauraTee

    If you know absolutely nothing about law, it’s probably not a good idea to write about it. No, there is no chance whatsoever of the government shutting down churches or forcing homeschooling parents to tell their children to love gay people. The photographers did not simply “choose not to get involved with homosexual activity.” That’s not why they lost a lawsuit. They broke the law by refusing service to a protected (in that state) class of people. They’d be in just as much trouble for refusing service to a couple based on race.

    People can hold whatever bigoted beliefs they want; the government won’t (and can’t) do anything about that. But businesses are not people. The state gives businesses all kinds of protections and perks that you don’t get just as a person; in exchange, the business has to follow the rules. The photographers would have been within their rights if they were invited to the wedding and chose not to attend; it’s when they run a business illegally that they run into problems. And that has nothing at all to do with gay people.

    • DanWebster1

      You do realize the author explicitly says he doesn’t believe businesses should do this right?

      I mean my god, it’s stated in the sentence following the paragraph you’re referring to.
      Overtly.

      This wasn’t a legal argument. Of course he understands the legality of it. It was a moral argument being made here. About what the spirit of the gay rights movement should be. He didn’t say the couple was legally wrong, but that they might be wrong to pursue it, since it betrays a key tenant of what the author felt the gay rights movement was about.

      • LauraTee

        Of course I understood that the author didn’t agree with it; it was clear from the beginning that the author didn’t approve of anti-gay sentiments. But the part that I responded to IS trying to make a legal argument, and it’s the foundation of the entire piece.

        The entire reason that the author wants the gay rights movement to tread carefully is because s/he mistakenly believes that it could lead to the government interfering with churches and private schools and teaching morality. That is a legal question, not a moral one.

        • ChrysD

          Already been tried actually. A preacher in Europe was arrested for giving an anti-gay homily in his own church. A Canadian province tried to pass a law saying homeschooling parents must teach the provincial views of tolerance during school hours. They could teach contradictory, religious views outside school hours. That failed after major public backlash, but the push was there.

        • ChrysD

          Already been tried actually. A preacher in Europe was arrested for giving an anti-gay homily in his own church. A Canadian province tried to pass a law saying homeschooling parents must teach the provincial views of tolerance during school hours. They could teach contradictory, religious views outside school hours. That failed after major public backlash, but the push was there.

    • ChrysD

      Already been tried actually. A preacher in Europe was arrested for giving an anti-gay homily in his own church. A Canadian province tried to pass a law saying homeschooling parents must teach the provincial views of tolerance during school hours. They could teach contradictory, religious views outside school hours. That failed after major public backlash, but the push was there.

      Most of these lawsuits are not about not serving gays. It is about specifically not serving gay weddings. Want a donut or piece of cake, no problem.

    • ChrysD

      Already been tried actually. A preacher in Europe was arrested for giving an anti-gay homily in his own church. A Canadian province tried to pass a law saying homeschooling parents must teach the provincial views of tolerance during school hours. They could teach contradictory, religious views outside school hours. That failed after major public backlash, but the push was there.

      Most of these lawsuits are not about not serving gays. It is about specifically not serving gay weddings. Want a donut or piece of cake, no problem.

    • ChrysD

      Most of these lawsuits are not about not serving gays. It is about specifically not serving gay weddings. Want a donut or piece of cake, no problem.

    • ChrysD

      Most of these lawsuits are not about not serving gays. It is about specifically not serving gay weddings. Want a donut or piece of cake, no problem.

  • Nelvis

    You sound like a pretty educated kid if I may say…..but what people
    like you seem to fail to understand is that the whole argument you just
    posted, can be turned around as well and have it addressed to these Bible Thumping Bigots! If religious organizations don’t want to loose their “TAX EXEMPT PRIVILEGES”, then
    they should stay away from trying to implement political views
    …..period! Now all this becomes and issue for these organizations when
    they feel threatened to loose their “so called” voice and
    rights…..why? Why was it okay for them to do it to others? Why are you still
    doing it? The day you can get these bigoted organizations and
    politicians to stop affecting these groups they’ve been oppressing for
    so long, then that may be the day they can all come to an understanding
    to respect each others beliefs. Don’t tell gays they need to be careful
    when they are still fighting to have rights they were guaranteed by the
    Constitution of this Country and have ALSO FOUGHT and died to preserve,
    yet it is only recently they were allowed equal rights in the
    Military…some which are still being fought for. Just because gay
    marriage is now legal in many States, doesn’t make the playing field
    leveled buddy! Take that same advice you give the Gay Community and try
    giving it to these Bible Thumping Bigots…then come back and tell me
    how you make out! As for forcing people to provide a service they don’t believe to be moral…..NO, I agree it shouldn’t be done, but these are the same people and Religious Organizations that because they don’t believe in it…they just want to make it ILLEGAL all around….therefore, denying a certain group rights or even better, keeping a Religious Sect from performing a same sex marriage if they felt it was their belief to do so. Bottom line is ”
    New American Standard Bible
    “In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12” Now….isn’t it funny, that I’m not either religious or liberal or conservative, yet I understand and respect this to the out most!

  • Nelvis

    You sound like a pretty educated kid if I may say…..but what people like you seem to fail to understand is that the whole argument you just posted, can be turned around as well and have it addressed to these Bible Thumping Bigots! If religious organizations don’t want to loose their “TAX EXEMPT PRIVILEGES”, then they should stay away from trying to implement political views …..period! Now all this becomes and issue for these organizations when they feel threatened to loose their “so called” voice and right…..why? Why was it okay to do it to others? Why are you still doing it? The day you can get these bigoted organizations and politicians to stop affecting these groups they’ve been oppressing for so long, then that may be the day they can all come to an understanding to respect each others beliefs. Don’t tell gays they need to be careful when they are still fighting to have rights they were guaranteed by the Constitution of this Country and have ALSO FOUGHT and died to preserve, yet it is only recently they were allowed equal rights in the Military…some which are still being fought for. Just because gay marriage is now legal in many States, doesn’t make the playing field leveled buddy! Take that same advice you give the Gay Community and try giving it to these Bible Thumping Bigots…then come back and tell me how you make out!

    • ChrysD

      Nothing bigoted in the phrase “Bible thumping”. Kinda difficult when centuries old moral codes become political views. Respect of views is a two way street.

    • ChrysD

      Nothing bigoted in the phrase “Bible thumping”. Kinda difficult when centuries old moral codes become political views. Respect of views is a two way street.