Comments on: Michael Heath Returns To Maine

By: John

John — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 19:39:48 +0000

Actually, marriage is not a natural law. If anything, marriage for most of human history was about property and inheritance rights. A man wanted to be sure that any children were actually his. As if it matters once a man is dead who inherits his property. People take what is seen as marriage and family today and assume that it has always been that way. This doesn’t even touch polygamy, which was common historically. What marriage encompasses has changed over time.

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 22:12:40 +0000

Same thing occurred to me Hunter – there are no rights in nature.

By: Hunter

Hunter — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 21:40:13 +0000

They are pleased to call them “natural rights,” but offhand, I can’t think of a single “right” that exists in nature — it’s a purely human legal concept.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 21:30:15 +0000

Richard,

Lately I’ve heard them use language describing their positions (marriage, whatever) as “special” and in need to “special protections”.

Some of the religion folk actually are asking for special rights using that language.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:22:27 +0000

Any anti-marriage campaign with the slogan “There’s no basis in nature for a right to sodomy” is worth encouraging.

Too bad Fred Phelps already has “God Hates Fags”.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:04:28 +0000

Common law was certainly influenced by natural law, as was the US Declaration of Independence, but modern legal systems are far more clearly based on positive law theory

By: Allen

Allen — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:30:35 +0000

He says, “There’s no basis in nature for a right to sodomy or a right to call two men or two women who are choosing to relate to one another sexually as a marriage…There’s no intrinsic or natural right to that. So we believe that these are special rights.”

This may be only the tip of the Heath iceberg, but this particular argument doesn’t sound that radical to me. I’m not saying I agree with him–quite the opposite, in fact. The problem, though, is that I haven’t met an opponent of LBGT rights yet who didn’t claim that the equality we’re asking for is a “special right”.

In spite of being easily refuted on a one-to-one basis I think it’s the most repeated and pervasive argument against LGBT rights, which actually makes it the hardest to refute.

By: Richard Rush

Richard Rush — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:26:39 +0000

The No Special Rights PAC is welcome, indeed. Things really have gotten out control, so it’s about time a PAC actively lobbies for reducing the vast array of special rights accorded to religion, especially Christians, in the United States. Surely, that must be what this is all about, because I can’t think of any other group that comes close to being showered with so many special rights. Almost every day it seems that Christians are dreaming up new ideas for rights that they are certain they’re entitled to, and then there’s always a bunch of politicians tripping over each other in their eagerness to take credit for turning those dreams into reality.

By: Gene in L.A.

Gene in L.A. — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:39:38 +0000

The loonier they get, the better for our side.

By: PJB863

PJB863 — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:21:28 +0000

I thought this guy went to Africa to sell appliances in countries without electricity or something like that.