To those who believe their rights are being violated by their (or any) state's decision to allow, legalize, recognize, not prohibit or stop prohibiting same-sex marriage, I am prepared to make you the following offer:
If you can plausibly identify and articulate for me the specific individual right that you have, the specific liberty interest held by you as an individual, that is infringed, interfered with, violated or taken away by your (or any) state's decision to allow, legalize, recognize, not prohibit or stop prohibiting same-sex marriage, I promise that I will praise Jesus, go to church, watch "Fox News," and vote Republican for the rest of my life.
So far, no one who has tried has been able to do it.
In calling for an "uprising" in Utah over U.S. District Judge Richard Shelby's ruling that Utah's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, former Grand County, AZ sheriff Richard Mack said the following:
We have a right to raise our kids without homosexuals being part of the Boy Scouts, the schools and teachers and doing everything.
OK, let that sink in for a second. "We have a right," says Mr. Mack, "to raise our kids" in an environment "without homosexuals being part of the Boy Scouts, [being part of] the schools and [being] teachers and
doing everything." In other words, "We have a right" to live in a world, an environment, where there are no homosexuals; where we do not have to see them, know them, interact with them, or be aware that they exist.
No, Mr. Mack. You have no such right.
You do not have a right to live in a world where homosexuals are prohibited from joining the Boy Scouts.
You do not have a right to live in a world where homosexuals are prohibited from working in, or for, schools.
You do not have a right to live in a world where there are no homosexual teachers.
You do not have a right to live in a world where there are no homosexuals "doing everything," whatever that's supposed to mean.
You do not have a right to live in a world where homosexuals, or any other category of people for that matter, are excluded by law from participating in any activity, profession or organization.
You. Have. No. Such. Right.
Sure, you have a right to tell "your kids" whatever you want to tell them about homosexuals and homosexuality. You have a right to keep "your kids" away from anyone you want to keep them away from. You even have a right to tell "your kids" that homosexuals don't exist and to act as if they don't exist. But you do not have a right to make them not exist, or to live in a world where they don't exist.
A while back I got this little nugget over on HuffPo:
Same-sex marriage "puts an extraordinary heavy burden on me in numerous ways. It is in direct opposition to everything natural as well as to everything I hold dear as a man and Christian. ... I have Constitutional rights too which are being threatened directly by homosexual marriage. Homosexual marriage also changes the tax structure and poses a heavier load on me and my family. ... [H]omosexual marriage does impose on me, very much so in fact."
To which I had to respond:
The fact that something upsets you or bothers you does not constitute a legally-cognizable -burden- upon you that justifies denying civil rights to others.
There is no Constitutional right that you have that is "threatened," let alone "directly," by the law recognizing same-sex couples as "married" with each as the other's "spouse." You have a right to believe what you wish and practice your religion as you see fit. You do not have a right to require anyone else, let alone everyone else, to do the same. You do not have a right to have the law mandate and enforce societal conformity with your religious beliefs, let alone at the expense of others' beliefs and others' rights.
Same-sex marriage does not "change the tax structure" in any way. The Internal Revenue Code is still the same; neither does it -need- to be changed to accommodate married same-sex couples. The only result might be more married couples filing jointly, but that does not affect you, your tax status or your tax liability.
This "burden" and "impos[ition]" that you feel is wholly imaginary.
That was the end of the conversation.
Now we have a "Constitutional Sheriff" saying that "the people of Utah have rights, too, not just the homosexuals." As if "the people" are one category, and "the homosexuals" are a separate category, not a subset of the former.
It seems that every time someone tries to explain what "right" they have that Teh Gayz are infringing upon, the answers just keep getting stupider and uglier.