The conservative/libertarian divide on homosexuality

I love it when two pundits whom I admire disagree. There is a real divide between conservative and libertarian Republicans which I enjoy because I'm a bit of both. As long as we agree on the main issue - that intrusive big government Democratic socialism is bad - I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on some other issues.

Neal Boortz on yesterday's ruling about "gay marriage":

I don't give a rat's petuti about the ruling. It is going to have absolutely no affect whatsoever on my marriage or my life.

What's more, I challenge you to explain to me just how this is going to affect you!

Some of you are going to say this endangers the institution of marriage. How, pray tell? When you wake up this morning and look at your wife or husband, what has changed? And if three months from now there's a married gay couple living on your street, what will have changed with your marriage then?

Now ... do you want to know what is changing the face of marriage in this country? Hollywood. Your Hollywood. Those celebrities you love to worship; the very people who are featured on every evening's episode of Inside Edition or Hollywood Tonight. These are the people who create the motion pictures and the TV shows that feature your celebrity heroes hopping from bed to bed and marriage to marriage with about as much thought as you give to buying a new pair of socks. That's where the attack on American family values is taking place, not in the home of a loving couple in the next block that wants to celebrate their commitment with a marriage license.

Webguy and Cristina have already been informed that they will be working extra hours today .. because when I start to talk about homosexuality or gay marriage, the turbos come out of the woodwork and send us the most vicious emails. You want an example? Well, this isn't an email ... this is a column from Mike Adams that appeared on Townhall.com.

Mike Adams in a column titled The Christian Gene:

Neal Boortz has often asserted that people’s circumstances are nothing more than the product of the choices they have made in life. But not when it comes to homosexuality. On that issue, Boortz just can’t see straight (please pardon the pun). And if you disagree with Boortz or his allies in the politically correct academy then you are a homophobe or, in Boortz’ on-air opinion, a “dumba**.”
...
Some people are fearful of the implications of subscribing to the view that homosexuality is chosen.

They fear that one who holds such a view must also believe that heterosexuality is a choice. But they fail to grasp the implications of subscribing to the radical view that there is no choice involved in human sexual behavior.

What if we turn the argument around? What if the homosexual is allowed to argue, without opposition, that he has no choice with regard to his sexual behavior? Must we also allow the heterosexual to argue, without opposition, that he has no choice with regard to his sexual behavior? Does anyone have a choice? Would there remain any moral basis for outlawing any form of sexual behavior? Are all expressions, once fully explained, also fully excused?

Most people are not silly enough to suggest that sexual behavior is determined entirely by genetics. Nor are most people silly enough to suggest that sexual behavior is entirely a function of free will. Both factors are involved. And that is why, in a free society, both positions must be afforded constitutional protection.

In the end, reasonable people will have to decide for themselves which factors exert the greatest influence on human sexual behavior. The debate must be won by the party with the strongest argument. It cannot be “won” by the party that controls the government.

My take:

Like Boortz, I don't give a "rat's petuti" about the ruling. I don't have a horse in the race and it's just one lawyer's opinion and that opinion will be challenged by other lawyers. The price we pay for being a "free society" and "a nation of laws" is lawyers and he who has the best lawyer will ultimately win.

Still, I'd rather live in a litigous society than a society ruled by a dictatorship of an elite bureaucratic ruling class as the Democratic socialists would prefer - and as they have already achieved in Europe, Japan and China.

The best argued and most convincing opinion is always the winner in a truly free society whether it's in the courts, Congress, the country club or the local bowling alley.

May the best man win.