Wednesday, March 27, 2013

I'm for Equality...And I'm Not Interested in Facts!

    Yesterday the US Supreme Court heard arguments on California's Proposition 8 passed in 2008 which added a state constitutional ban on marriage between anything other than a man and a woman. Prop 8 was in response to the California Supreme Court striking down California state law banning same sex marriage. In California a ballot proposition is a mandatory referendum, the "people's veto" if you will, and takes precedence over common law, regulatory law, statutory law or legal judgements by state courts. The people are the final arbiter of what is and isn't allowed under the law; at least that's the way it's supposed to work.
    As you can probably guess the legal challenges started immediately, and surprisingly the California Supreme Court upheld Prop 8 (Rose Bird is spinning in her grave no doubt). But a US District Court Judge (a Bush appointee no less) struck it down and the US 9th. Circuit upheld. So now we're at the Supremes. It's clear to me how they should rule based on California law but God only knows.
    So that's the legal outline, but what is good law in this case? Are gays so injured that we as a society should overturn traditions and institutions that have served us well from time immemorial? I don't think so. But this case illustrates the dangers of an ill-informed "low information" voter. All they hear is EQUALITY! Everyone equal, everyone treated the same, none above others or as a FB friend said "Lets get together folks. Post my profile pic as yours if you think that equal rights for all should be the law of the land." Well it's not that simple.
    To begin with we are not all equal in the eyes of the law. We should be, but we aren't. We have set asides, special laws for this group, special laws for that. I find it ironic that the advocates for gay marriage are using the equal protection clause of the Constitution to advance their agenda but will turn around and argue for "hate crime" legislation which are no more than targeted laws for a particular class in direct violation of the 14th. Amendment.
    The bottom line is if we allow marriage to be redefined then sooner or later it will become irrelevant. If I redefine the reasonable speed limit on I-95 as being 200 mph, then what good is it? And let's be clear, marriage is not so much under attack as the family unit of which marriage is part and parcel. And this isn't the first time the family has be attacked, the federal government has been doing it since 1965 the results of which can be seen in Detroit and Compton and the South Side of Chicago. So go ahead, wash your hands of the whole thing and declare that government shouldn't be in the marriage business anyway. Or stand up for equality because by Golly it's the right thing to do. But you and I and everyone in this country will suffer for it. And your hollier-than-thou, self-righteous platitudes won't change that reality.


Jim Gaybors said...

Given the differences in the marriage rates between white Americans and African-Americans, I can not help but wonder if black gays will marry at a rate less than that of their white brethren. Also, will black gay males be more inclined to marry outside of their race, as many heterosexual black men do. Which leads to the question, "Where will they find enough fat white gay guys to marry?"

Anonymous said...

How will anyone suffer if two consenting adults of the same sex want to get married? What specific harms will result?
Marriage is not being redefined -- it is precisely that institution that gay people simply want to participate in. Permitting these committed relationships to be recognized and supported with all that stands behind the word "marriage" can't possibly lend to the institution becoming "irrelevant" as you argue. We have done that already with a near 50-percent divorce rate and pop culture trends like TV's "The Bachelor". Full participation can only strengthen it (if not through sheer numbers alone).
Are gays so injured, you ask, that we should change traditions and institutions that have served us since time immemorial? If using the 'time immemorial' standard then divorce would never have been permitted (at least since the publication of Mark 10: 8-12 in the Bible, which quite clearly says it is not permitted. (Not to mention the whole raft of Leviticus rules we all ignore.) Further to the point of 'since time immemorial', it is only our contemporary society which has legislated that things like hospital visitation and taxes be governed by marriage. These things cause real harm.
I enjoy your blog. Respectfully submitted.

Mudge said...

If the USA is still around as a nation in 30 years, maybe sooner, this same debate, with this as a precedent, will be had with pedophiles and their consenting partners claiming they are agrieved by the limiting definition of between men and/or women since it excludes the consenting child. I am not equating being gay with being a pedophile although many of the latter are the former. I am saying that the more we redefine our standards to meet the latest conventional wisdom, the easier it is for the unthinkable to become the latest conventional wisdom.

A mere two decades ago, homosexual marriage was unthinkable to most of America. Today, we are debating the Constitutionality of a definition of an institution that astonishingly few people ever thought required definition. Kind of like who ever imagined that we would be debating the "time immemorial" definition of gender being based on the reproductive organs with which the posessor of those organs emerged from the womb. But today we have an elementary school boy who wants to use the girls rest room and our "enlightened" members of society react with righteous indignation when someone refers to the little fella as a boy. And while there are those who are absolutely engaged in the redefinition of marriage for the sake of patient visitation and taxation reasons, etc, the CA prop 8 afforded those privileges to same sex unions but preserved the definition of something that never before required a definition.

No, this is about a Center for
American Progress (and their compatriots) strategic creative destruction of our social fabric to, from its ruins, construct a more "socially just" society. In America, we have always had the ability to do just that, legislatively. Using our rights to assemble, speak freely, vote for our elected representatives, we can debate, cajole and, yes, even mislead our fellow citizens into voting for a more just society but today we are saying, "No, that takes too long. Let's just take the judicial HOV lane to Utopia." The Constitution allows for Congress to legislate a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. It also allows that it be legislatively-defined as between a man and a man and a woman and a woman. It also allows that it be between a man and his sister who also has male reproductive organs. The point being that this is a discussion to be had in the representative legislature. So why is this even being considered by the SCOTUS? Because there is an urgency in "progressive" circles to do as much destruction as possible before Americans wake up and remove them from power. If they can get these things in place, they know it will be hard to undo them until the next time they get into a position of power to resume the destruction.

BTW,speaking of definitions and gays, I suspect that once they get enough experience with "marriage" they might retire their moniker for something more descriptive.

And Anon, even though we have differing views on this, nice post.

"The Hammer" said...

Well I was going to respond but it would be hard to add to what Mudge said. The concerns of gay Americans about their "rights" can be addressed, but whatever they have, however it may be described, two people of the same sex CANNOT be married.

Newer Post Older Post Home