I’m going to take a break again tonight based on a news story I saw earlier today. The story can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/opinion/27wed2.html?_r=2
The first statement is that the CA Supreme Court got it terribly wrong.
No. What was terribly wrong was that the case was even brought to the Supreme Court. While this isn’t a political blog, since this is more about morality, I am bringing this up, but some politics will be necessary. When the people have a free election and vote on something, it is not up to the courts to make a ruling on it. If it is not agreed, there can be another election another time. If the CA Supreme Court had ruled against the people, it would have been rendering all voting useless. We would no longer have a Republic.
Our writer next says that upholding Prop 8 was unfair to homosexual people. How? Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else. They can marry anyone they want of the opposite sex. “Well we want to marry someone of the same sex.” Then you want different rights. I don’t have the right to marry someone of the same sex. Also, if marriage is a right, then I say bring forward my girl! I’ve been patient for a long time and I’m single!
No. Marriage is a privilege. It is a gift.
Our writer next says that homosexuals can be targeted as a minority. Upon what basis? You could fill in any group this way. Accountants are a minority. Left-handed people are a minority. People who are bald are a minority. Is there any real basis for saying homosexuals are?
It’s because they have a different lifestyle? So do several other people. Why should a lifestyle that seeks a relationship of an erotic nature with the same sex be different? With something like race or being male or female, that is inherent to the person. To make the case, someone would first have to show that homosexuality is inherent to the person. Sorry, but it hasn’t been done.
Even if a genetic link was shown, what would that prove? Would it prove that homosexual actions are moral? No more than showing a genetic link to alcoholism would show that alcoholism is moral. You have to look at the action itself.
The writer also speaks of fundamental values enshrined in the California Constitution. Could our writer please go to the California Constitution and show where the founders of the state wished to include a fundamental value that homosexuals ought to be allowed to marry one another? I’m sure that’s what was on their mind when they wrote out their constitution after all.
The dissenting vote said “discrimination against a minority group on the basis of a suspect classification strikes at the core of the promise of equality”. It’s quite the opposite. Attempting to change the social fabric of society based on a suspect classification is the problem. There is also no denial of equality. The debate is not about the nature of persons. It’s not being asked if people who are homosexual are fully human. (If it is, it shouldn’t be.) It’s asking if homosexual union is a legitimate lifestyle right alongside heterosexual marriage. Are those two equal? The answer is no in every sense of the word.
The writer is confident that California is a temporary setback. California is not known for being a bastion of conservatism however and yet, it ruled in favor of a highly conservative value while all the way electing an incredibly liberal president. Our writer mentions Iowa as an example. If anyone wants to know the truth about Iowa however, I recommend this article from the Ruth Institute:
Our writer sees it as a temporary setback as I said. I hope he’s wrong. It’s my hope a fire will be lit under America to uphold true marriage and morality. I do not believe our society can last if we lose this battle. I ask America to wake up and take a stand now. Your children are counting on you.