The National Review, or rather the editors claim that we (gay folks) and our gay rights threatens the freedom of belief and conscience. I was lost on this concept and no matter how many times I read this article, I still don't get it. So my response may be off, but I have to rant about this idea.
How do we threaten the freedom of belief and conscience? The article points out this piece:
Churches oppose same-sex marriage in part because it represents an implicit threat to freedom of conscience and belief. California already had one of the broadest civil-unions laws in the country. There was little in the way of government-sanctioned privileges that a state-issued marriage license would confer. But the drive for same-sex marriage is in practice about legislating moral conformity — demanding that everybody recognize homosexual relationships in the same way, regardless of their own beliefs.
But does the religious right follow the same format? They are demanding we should not have the right to marry and demanding their beliefs to be followed by all. Churches stifles the freedom of belief. If you don't believe in their practice, you go to Hell. To believe in something else than God is blasphemy. And to think outside of their Bible box means that you are a sinner or possessed. Their very existence threatens the freedom of belief and conscience if you ask me.
Because we want marriage will not change the ticking of the clock. No moral wall will fall and children will not go blind if we got Prop 8 overturned. Our wish for freedom and rights don't threaten anything. However the only thing it threatens is the foolish institution religion has been standing on for centuries.
via Pam's House Blend
