Liberals despise anyone who would dare to impose a moral worldview on them. Case in point, Rick Santorum. At the same time, they have no problem in imposing their worldview on everybody else.

Steve Simon, a state representative from Minnesota, gave a short speech against a constitutional ban of same-sex or same-gender “marriage.” The video has gotten a lot of YouTube hits. Most of the traffic is the result of promotion by homosexual groups and homosexual marriage advocates.

Here are some of Representative Simon’s comments, all of which are in bold face:

“We have to be careful not to enshrine our beliefs in the Minnesota Constitution no matter how religiously valid we may believe them to be.”

I wonder if that goes for the prohibition of slavery that is found in Minnesota’s Bill of Rights: “There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the state otherwise than as punishment for a crime of which the party has been convicted.” I’m sure the Rev. Martin Luther King would have been surprised to learn that all things religious should be kept out of constitutions. Just because something has a religious origin does not mean that it can’t also have a moral meaning and legal application. Consider the Preamble to Minnesota’s Constitution:

“We, the people of the state of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings and secure the same to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

A liberal is grateful only when God looks the other way.

In supporting homosexual marriage, Simon stated that what he is hearing is a “religious justification for a change in the Minnesota Constitution. I don’t think it’s right. I don’t think it’s fair. It departs from our tradition.”

Heterosexual (male-female) marriage is “our tradition.” Marriage between a man and a woman, and only between a man and a woman, was ordained by God. The homosexual community has co-opted marriage, which has a biblical origin, and redefined it to give same-sex marriage legitimacy.

So, of course, Rep. Simon doesn’t want any consideration of religion. Once an outside moral reference point is out of the way, then all so-called marriage relationships are legitimate. In fact, everything is legitimate. Why stop with homosexual marriage? Of course, homosexuals don’t want to stop with homosexual marriage. It’s no accident that homosexuals aren’t the only aberrational sexual group vying for legitimacy: GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered).

Rep. Simon continues:

“How much of homosexuality is nature versus nurture? Is it something you learn or acquire or something that you’re born with? Is this just another lifestyle choice like skateboarding or gardening, or is this something innate within the human being?” Quoting a clergyman, Simon said, “Sexuality and sexual-orientation are a ‘gift from God.’” Simon added, “And I think that’s true.”

Wait a minute! I didn’t think we were supposed to appeal to religion, and yet he quotes a clergyman who says sexual-orientation is a “gift from God.”

“The scientific evidence shows more and more everyday that sexuality and sexual orientation are innate, something people are born with. . . . If that’s true, what does it do to the moral force of your argument?”

The scientific evidence does not prove this, but let’s suppose it does. Does this mean that rapists, pedophiles, adulterers, those who engage in bestiality, prostitutes, and polygamists are also “gifts from God”? People in each of these groups are exhibiting “sexuality,” a possible “sexual orientation.”

“How many gay people must God create before we accept that he wants them around?”

The assumption here is that God created people to engage in certain behaviors. Did He create people to steal, murder, and rape? There seems to be a lot more stealing, murdering, and raping going on. Is God telling us “that He wants them around”?