It is said that justice is equality, and so it is, but not for all persons, only those who are equal.
--Aristotle
In overturning the California voters' ban on gay marriage, the state's high court argued that homosexuals are a special class, somewhat similar to blacks and women, and deserve special judicial scrutiny for the protection of their rights. At the same time the court insisted that gay marriage must be allowed because gays deserve, no less than anyone else, the equal protection of the laws.
This argument is dubious on two counts. First, blackness and femininity are outwardly identifiable characteristics. Homosexuality generally is not. True, some homosexuals adopt exhibitionistic ways of walking and talking which perhaps serve as a kind of signal to others similarly inclined. But gays can "pass" for straight in a way that blacks can't typically pass for white or women for men. Moreover, blacks were slaves and suffered historical oppression in a way that neither women or gays can match. So the idea that these groups are the "new blacks" is an insult to blacks. Finally whether there is an innate disposition to homosexuality or not, it's hard to deny that homosexuality constitutes a choice and a lifestyle. Whatever the orientation, one still has to choose to act on it. By contrast, blacks and women don't have any choice because race and gender are not a lifestyle.
Now let's turn to the issue of equal protection. Clearly this means that people who are similarly situated should be treated in the same way. So men and women, blacks and whites, straight people and gays, all have the right to vote, the right to speak their mind, and the right to marry. But gays already have the right to marry, just like the others. They have the right to marry adult members of the opposite sex. What they want, however, is the right to marry members of the same sex. This, however, is not a right enjoyed by anyone else. In other words, gays are not asking to be treated the same as everyone else. They want special rights that no one else claims or enjoys. They want to rewrite the definition of marriage.
Put the matter another way. States, acting through their representatives and reflecting the values of the voters, have the constitutional authority to define what marriage is. Traditionally marriage requires: a) two persons b) both of them adults of legal age c) unrelated to each other and d) one male and the other female. Now here are some interesting possibilities. A 10 year old demands the right to marry, charging that the age requirement discriminates against him. Or a fellow wants to marry his sister, contending that the incest prohibition violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Or a Muslim seeks four wives, asking why polygamy among multiple "consenting adults" should not be allowed the same legal status as the traditional two-person arrangement. In more imaginative scenarios, a fellow might want to know why the marriage definition is so species-specific. This guy wants to marry his dog on the grounds that "I love my dog and my dog loves me." Why don't all these people have valid equal protection claims under the constitution?
The point here isn't that gay marriage is indistinguishable from polygamy or child-marriage. Rather, it is that gay activists want to dislodge one of the definitions of marriage but retain all the others. They want to move one of the goal posts but not the rest. But how can one part of the marriage definition be discriminatory under the laws while the other parts are not? If the male-female requirement violates the equal protection clause, so must the other requirements which also exclude classes of people. If gays are a special category, why aren't Muslims and Mormons also a special category? It seems that gay activists want a form of "equal protection" for themselves but not for other groups.
Neither equal protection nor antidiscrimination is a real issue here. Judicial tyranny is the issue. Isn't it interesting how even the most naked imposition of power must make the pretense of having justice on its side?
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 34)
16. THE LINK BETWEEN HOMOSEXUALITY & CHILD MOLESTATION
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one-a.php
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php
THE GAY GENE HOAX at 4:22PM on May 19th 2008
17. Jane, was your father a career military man? And are you about 48 years old?
JefFlyingV at 4:34PM on May 19th 2008
18. DD's arguments are tired and inane. People are in a special group because they LOOK different?
"But gays already have the right to marry, just like the others. They have the right to marry adult members of the opposite sex. What they want, however, is the right to marry members of the same sex."
NO. It's about the RIGHT TO MARRY the person he or she loves. Period.
What an asshole! Are we sure that DD isn't some junior high kid that got a blog on AOL? Oh wait, I've seen him in person. He's not.
Linda at 4:40PM on May 19th 2008
19. I support Dinesh's statements because it proclaims the ability to think against the grain, rather than accept all things for what other people say it is. Basically, it's politically correct to accept the open-minded viewpoint.
I think it's rather close minded to say that marriage is obliged by the state. God has full sovereign authority to marry and He chooses Man and Woman to be partners. The church exercises this right by decree granted while needed by the people.
The state can grant civil union, as in, the ability for people to share financial and state recognized benefits. Calling this marriage is heresy and constitutes a severe infringement on the rights to exercise free religion, mainly that the state has taken to define marriage outside of religious construct. The state is enforcing a marriage clause that they do not have a right to change because it is strictly developed and nurtured by the church.
I will let you know I have used civil union to an ex-fiance for purposes that lead towards our eventual marriage - which never happened. Civil union is ideologically sound that friends who determine long term relationships can appreciate each other's trust and financial benefit. Marriage is out of the question.
Marriage was created to union man and woman. This is the mother of humanity. Do not defile the mother of humanity and pay some respect to the creation of marriage defined by our natural, spiritual and near-perfect intimation of man and woman.
Civil union is entirely a separate matter and should be categorized as such. It's no different than a business arrangement, a contract binding to state laws.
Marriage is God's territory, always has been always will be. Every single marriage every harbored by mankind in the history of this earth has involved the spiritual bonding of man and woman. This should change why?
Again, civil union is fine. No immorality please. It's for your benefit. Friendship and love is absolutely acceptable, as long as there is no disgracing activity that degrades the value of one's honor and sanctity.
We should be pure in our actions and avoid all animalistic instinct that has given this world everything from lust to murder. Passion is love that is between man and woman, pure in that a child is born from the consistency of innocence amidst lovemaking.
If you can't make children together then you're using your bodies to gain sexual pleasure. You are making illusion instead of truth.
Heterosexual couples gain sexual pleasure as well, but they create beautiful baby girls and boys who grow up to do the same thing. What will the legacy be of immorality?
It is worst for one to rely on immoral conscription of life, it always leads to longterm suffering. Happiness becomes a fake smile and a river of tears. I know because I've experienced such empty life, drowning things out with the next best thing, always to be disappointed.
Those who have found loving friendship, keep that while discarding all the unnecessary perversion. Isn't it time to be happy? Really, actually and truly happy.
There is a reason why we feel revulsion when we commit obscenity in early stages. We commit a crime and we commit immorality and feel a little rush mixed with guilt.
How do we overcome this guilt? By doing it so many times we become numb to the pain. How often do you find other numbing activities developing? Anger, substance abuse, violence, loathing with depression, all forms of self-hate.
Then we fool ourselves into an "enlightened" state of understanding saying the self-hate is because everyone else. This inner disgust has nothing to do with my own actions, it's simply because society is so closed minded. Let's blame the church, let's blame ignorance. Ourselves? Well, we're just exactly as we're suppose to be. We abuse our bodies and abuse each other to get brief band-aid dose fixes to our pain while adding to the consistency of our suffering.
Accepting one's abuse does not mean the abuse doesn't exist. It just means you're tired of resisting and walking against it. So you give up and give in, something that is falsely liberating.
You become more and more enslaved to that lifestyle. You think immorality is new? Try ancient. Ancient and has consistently proven itself to be grossly negative against those involved and those in the surrounding elements.
The more you cling to immorality, the more you cling to a path that leads to self destruction. No amount of money and no amount of therapy will heal you of such violence.
Friendship is beautiful and is something that should be nurtured by constant love and attention. Sharing one's life doesn't mean that you have to be the opposite sex. There are rules that humanity exists upon, rules that are in your blood, skin, heart, and spirit. These rules come along with being human.
Jesus walked the most important parts of his life with 12 other men. There was distinct love and a brotherhood that outlasted thousands of years. He still held His mother and His close friend Mary Magdelene dear to His pure heart.
There is no need for immorality. Every day you tell yourself that you can't help yourself is another day you can't help yourself. Helping yourself comes along with help that others are willing to give - just learn to accept the truth.
mincpa at 4:49PM on May 19th 2008
20. sorry bilko, you are wrong. Please see this link. #2 was correct
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/07/national/07california.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
Linda at 4:46PM on May 19th 2008
21. remember there was once a time when interracial marriage was illegal in this country.was it right for any state to deny people the right to wed simply because of racial differences.it was done to proportedly keep the white race pure.sounds a lot like the 1936 nuremburg laws, which denied jews and christians the same right to marry.was that the business of the state also. so dinesh whats that make you a nazi or klansman.
leonard at 4:55PM on May 19th 2008
22. "They have the right to marry adult members of the opposite sex. What they want, however, is the right to marry members of the same sex."
What the court decision does is grant gays the equal opportunity to marry the consenting adult person of his/her affections.
jay at 5:00PM on May 19th 2008
23. "Moreover, blacks were slaves and suffered historical oppression in a way that neither women or gays can match." - D'Souza
Surely this can't be a 'biblical truth'? This must be D'Souza changing 'truth' goalposts to suit himself, to agree with the rest of this blog entry.
Weren't women traditionally second-class citizens? Weren't women traditionally owned by their husbands?
According to the Bible, weren't gays traditionally stoned to death?
not-pboyfloyd at 4:58PM on May 19th 2008
24. Rara,
Re #10
The Church cannot officially recriminate its' own members, to do such would destroy the tenuous stranglehold they have on its' members.
Robert at 5:09PM on May 19th 2008
25. Sorry Mincpa, I'm not going to buy it.
You're right that there are two kinds of marriages: religious and civil. Many people have both. They get a religious marriage in the church that they venerate, and a civil marriage as recognized by the state.
To the former, I don't care. What churches marry who in the name of what isn't my business. They can get married in the church of the easter bunny. I don't care. I don't think there should be a law requiring a social club like a church to marry people they don't want to marry. And I also know there are churches, christian churches, that have not a lick o problem marrying two gays. Christian universalists, some methodists, lutherans, and presbytarians have pledged to hold ceremonies the second it is legal.
The marriage we want is the marriage that actually matters: the civil marriage. Why? Because THAT is the one that has all the stuff that really matters. Not the voodoo supersitition. The tax benefits and legal spousal protections. And don't try and play a semantic game. You're not going to make two standards of civil marriage and call one 'marriage' and the other 'union'. Because sooner or later some nit is going to come along and say 'Well I think Unions are wrong so I'm gonna try and get them banned or limited while I enjoy my nice and cozy 'marriage'.
Now Mincpa... if you want to call the religous ceremony a marriage... fine. Call it marriage... and leave it to your church of choice. I'll have one myself thanks to a nice church of christ pastor who's agreed to marry my love and I. And if, by some stretch of the impossible, there is a God and he actually doesn't like it then I'm sure that supremely powerful creator of universes will be able to deal with it without your help.
But, if you're going to do that then that package of 1018 benefits and rights goes to everyone that appears before the judge and signs the marriage license. And no one takes it away. If they're friends with benefits... gay... straight... devoutely in love... black... white... other... doesn't matter. Two people, both concenting, get married. And hell, if they don't have kids with each other, I don't care if they're related. It's their relationship to deal with.
Somber at 5:13PM on May 19th 2008
26. mincpa,
If church and it's version of the imaginary man in the sky does not approve of gay marriage then it should not let any gay people get married in there church. If other churches feel differently then they should be allowed without any government interference.
I'm pretty sure neithter I or my wife are members of your particular church, can I no longer state that I am married?
tmo at 5:15PM on May 19th 2008
27. Seems odd how some of the greatest art works of the Vatican were created by homosexuals. The popes and their minions commissioned these artworks and never said a word against those artists, the art was mightier than the dogma.
JefFlyingV at 5:17PM on May 19th 2008
28. Dear Jet-
The Art WAS the Dogma. The artists just happened to be sexually liberal. It was a 'necessary' evil.
The same with their priests. Repressing the innate sexual aspects of homo sapiens never really worked. But they still need the priests, they are the modern version of the 'artists' who continue to propagate their dogma. Celibacy? Please... Show me a 'celibate' person, and I'll show you one with warts on their palms.
Robert at 5:30PM on May 19th 2008
29. ::Your use of slippery-slope argument against gay marriage is weak. Everyone isn't going to run out and bang sheep because two adults who happen to be of the same sex can commit to one another.
The slippery slope argument can be used to demonstrate a real truth by following the between-the-lines logic to it's naturally absurd conslusion. Will we end at the example you give? I doubt it. However, logically speaking, it's a mere matter of degree, and that is a conslusion which demonstrates that a precedent, a principle, is being violated. Not good... for when you trace it back it concerns the very basis of law and the proper function of government...
Jesse at 5:34PM on May 19th 2008
30. This article makes no sense.
Homosexuality is not a life style choice.. it is a genetic trait. Lots of gays in the animial kingdom. Science is 99% there on proving homosexuality is physical.
If DD does thinks gays have the equal right to marry.. ie to marry heterosexuals..., that right would only be equal to the rights of hetersexuals if heterosexuals can only marry gays. Is that what DD wants?
If our society wants to allow polygimous marriage.. it can pass the law.. as long as everyone can have one.. ie men can have multiple wives or wives can have multiple husbands, and gays can have multiple spouces of the same sex.
As much as DD proclaims his anti gay stance, I bet he loves to watch woman on woman porno... which of course means he loves gay sex.
cdnbirch at 5:45PM on May 19th 2008