How Well Is That ‘Live And Let Live’ Strategy Working Out?

Written by Michael Cummings on December 6, 2018

Live and let live.

This phrase seems to have origins or at least gained momentum in World War I at a time of massive trench warfare, specifically the Christmas Truce on the Western Front in 1914 where low-level soldiers, weary from prolonged fighting, refused to fire on easily-targeted enemy fighters.

Often in political discussions among libertarians – and, increasingly, among leftists who want to cram their social agendas down our throats – we hear this seemingly peaceful adage as a way to tell conservative curmudgeons that their Victorian ways are impinging on the rest of society.

“How does smoking pot affect you?”

“If you’re not gay, don’t marry a man.”

“You’re such a bigot! Why would a woman who thinks she’s a man have any influence on your life?”

“If you don’t like it, change the channel.”

As most could predict, the consequences of leftism don’t lean toward “live and let live:”

* This week, in his daily podcast, Ben Shapiro spoke of a man, thinking he’s a woman, who tried to go into a gym catering to Jewish women. The owners can’t refuse the man entry for fear of being sued so the women members will stop going to this exclusively-female gym because it’s no longer exclusively female. No customers equals no business.

* Religious organizations like Catholic Charities are closing down because they refuse to comply with laws requiring them to allow same-sex couples to adopt or foster babies

* The ex-wife of a man in Texas is taking him to court over their nine-year-old son James who, the mother claims, is transitioning to be a girl. When he’s with her, his goes by Luna and wears dresses. When with his father, he is James and wears boys’ clothing. Apparently, you’re not allowed to parent according to your beliefs. Is it a stretch to believe that if gay marriage is a right, as the Supreme Court has said, priests will be forced to perform same-sex weddings?

“…the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that will decide whether the Constitution forbids states from upholding marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Among the exchanges, Justice Antonin Scalia repeatedly noted that if the High Court finds same-sex “marriage” is a constitutional right, then priests, ministers, rabbis, and imams will be required to perform such ceremonies – regardless of their religious beliefs – or face state penalties.

Justice Scalia repeatedly suggested that once a constitutional right to marry by same-sex couples was enshrined by the court, a member of the clergy could not be given civil marriage powers by the state unless he agreed to perform any and all marriages that the nation legally recognizes.

“Every state allows ministers to marry people, and their marriages are effective under state law,” Scalia said. “That will not be the case if, indeed, we hold, as a constitutional matter, that the state must marry two men.”

As it stands, most clergy serve a dual role, celebrating church nuptials but also signing legal documents allowing the state to legally recognize that marriage. But if they refuse to conduct same-sex rituals, government officials may strip clergy of their state legal standing, rendering their marriages legally invalid in the eyes of the state government.” It’s happening in Sweden.

So it appears “live and let live” only applies to people on the left, and Muslims.

Michael Cummings
Michael A. Cummings has a Bachelors in Business Management from St. John's University in Collegeville, MN, and a Masters in Rhetoric & Composition from Northern Arizona University. He has worked as a department store Loss Prevention Officer, bank auditor, textbook store manager, Chinese food delivery man, and technology salesman. Cummings wrote position pieces for the 2010 Trevor Drown for US Senate (AR) and 2012 Joe Coors for Congress (CO) campaigns.