New York Governor_ If You Oppose Same Sex Marriage Yall Are All Bigots

I agree with Mirrors of Justice (comments at link) that this was not helpful. See The case for same-sex marriage: language matters

I am getting pretty damn tired, as someone that has never shunned the friendship and companionship of gays, of being accused of spreading religious hatred.

I guess that I am like many Christians as Hadley Arkes once said have an agreement with our gays friends. That we would try to shield them from hurtful words and over the top gay bashing and they on their part would not seek an global endorsement from us for all parts of their lifestyle.

It now appears if we do not give an global endorsement via now changing a institution that has been between just a males and female we are all now bigots.

A libertarian that had no real opinion on the matter of SSM had a great post here where she urged caution. See A really, really, really long post about gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the other

I love this quote.

But as G.K. Chesterton points out, people who don’t see the use of a social institution are the last people who should be allowed to reform it:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road.

The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think.

Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable.

It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution.

If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

Good advice and being called a bigot will not stop me from demanding we have this discussion.