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 34 of 34)
496. BUT,
You are Right about ONE thing: the Judgement at the end of the world will be a differing one than that over Sodom. Now that science is in the way to creating "man-kies" and causing female animals to make female off-spring and male animals to make male off spring and the other whole host of abominations occuring in modern day times.......
??? at 3:47PM on May 23rd 2008
497. Linda: I've often asked myself this question. What does ethnically Jew mean? Do you mean middle-eastern?
Anyway Dinesh, once again you have made me nauseous...I can't believe that you honestly believe the vile shit you spew! You insinuate that blacks act a certain way because of their race. Women & femininity are 2 different subject, we are finding more and more that this is a product of nurture. SO because I don't like pink does that make me less of a woman? The social contraints we put on people are why they act a certain way. Gay culture is effiminate, hence why some act overtly feminine (not all)....but who effin cares! I can't believe that you are so concerned with a gay person affecting society. They are fantastic human beings, that deserve protection! You're blog only continues make a plea for discrimination and ignorance. The same bullshit was said about blacks and women decades ago. I can't imagine God being too pleased. The only reason I believe in God, is because i would like to be there on the day that he bitch slaps all you morons, for being so uncompassionate to the "different" people!
MeL Tastic at 6:16PM on May 23rd 2008
498.
Mel Tastic?!
Mel Tastic?!
Is that YOU for real?!
Bend over, Beotch-- AAAAARUFFFF !!
Mellie Mel at 6:58PM on May 23rd 2008
499.
MEANWHILE,back at the 'dude'ranch with Mel Spastic
"...dang dang,
diggity,
dang
da dang dang..." [BACKground music]
"AAARUUFFFF!"
Mel Tastic Goes Spastic at 7:43PM on May 23rd 2008
500.
"Take it higher, baby!" [Mel T, bent over your
daddy's armchair]
Mel Tastic 4 REAL Y'all at 7:52PM on May 23rd 2008
501. The following tri-poster must be a practitioner of gay sex, no straight person could be this knowledgable.
Mel Tastic 4 REAL Y'all, Mel Tastic Goes Spastic,
Mellie Mel
Kuni Linqvist at 5:58PM on May 24th 2008
502. Hey, Kuni,
Did you hear how, in Austria scientists are fighting a serious legal battle so that chimpanzees are granted legal personhood?
This would entitle our 'relatives' legal access to medical care, legal rights of humans, including the right to own property, attend government funded schools, etc. health care in the human health care facilities, marry and divorce---
My solution to all of this craziness (where all of this research money could be better spent on purifying water and helping the human population survive better on this earth):
THE MANZIER FOR THE CHIP-MAN-ZEE!!!
"Festivus for the Rest of Us"!!!
(Will you
let us all know when botts converts you
to Jehovah Witness religion, where they don't believe in the Divinity of Christ and where they also believe that THEY are the ONLY ones going to Heaven?!?! )
And, some people on this blog thought that guy was politically correct and tolerant......some NERVE...
George Castanza's Dad at 3:35AM on May 26th 2008
503. #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..." --cdnbirch
I'm calling you to the carpet on this one. I need your citation on this statement. Please provide CREDIBLE evidence to back up your claims. Give us links to universally recognized scientific institutions, who proclaim that there IS homosexual activity in the "animal kingdom." This would be as unprecidented as discovering life on another planet.
If you cannot provide citations, then your credibility will be lost forever. And I'm not talking about some European "Professor" who sits around toking on a bong thinking that he saw two African Sputzies of the same sex hanging out together. CREDIBLE, WORLDLY-ACCEPTED SOURCES ONLY, PLEASE. I'm banking on the fact that you're going to severly disgrace yourself on this. Oh, and if you can't provide references, you'll STFU forever on these blogs. Do we have a bet?
Lizard at 7:00PM on May 25th 2008
504. Did you purposefully avoid posts that do point out findings of what you are rejecting lizard?
Kuni Linqvist at 7:08PM on May 25th 2008
505. It is so disgusting and just plain sad to see how some people will twist logic into pretzels in order to oppress others and deny them their equal rights.
Does it feel good to imagine yourselves "superior" to your fellow human beings? To be in a "special club" and to deny dignity to those who aren't just like you?
The California Supreme Court (which is made up of EIGHT justices who were appointed by CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS and only ONE justice appointed by a Democrat)did exactly what the justice system is supposed to do. Protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. These were not "liberal judicial activists". They were decent, intelligent, fair-minded people who know how to do their job.
This was a truly American decision that gets to the core of what our country is supposed to be about:
Liberty and Justice for ALL.
The only question is: What took so long?
Ajock8 at 4:21PM on May 30th 2008