Dave’s Strange and Unusual World

May 19, 2008

The Gay Marriage Ruling: A Response to Thomas

Filed under: Knee-Slappingly Funny — dangrdave @ 2:05 pm
Warning: This is a long post!
My initial thought, upon reading Thomas’ last comment (click here to read), was to block him from any further postings on my blog – no one likes to be called a hypocrite for expressing valid viewpoints.  After pondering the idea, I decided that my best course of action would be to refute Thomas’ assertions because, after all, that’s what good debate is all about; if I were to block Thomas, then I would just be playing right into the mis-perception and stereotyping that Thomas has concerning Christians and conservatives.
First of all, Thomas indicates that “hypocritical zealots” were the ones trying to suppress gay marriage in California.  To this, I respond that the overwhelming majority of Californians were the ones to vote against allowing gay marriage.  Therefore, according to Thomas, the majority of Californians are “hypocritical zealots.”  The voters refused to allow for homosexual marriage, but the CSC knew better and decided to follow its own leanings, versus the will of the people.  Who are the “hypocritical zealots” in this instance: the people or the courts?  Would the hypocritical zealots be the people who spoke at the ballot box or the few people who were appointed to their positions and have presumed to usurp the will of the majority?
And, I also questioned the implications that homosexual marriage will have for the entire country.  Basically, once homosexual marriage has been legitimized, the door is opened wide for all sort of courtroom shenanigans and sexual immorality.  To each of these in order.
First, I mentioned the issue of gay, married Californians moving to other states and demanding that their marriages be recognized in those places.  Twenty six states have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.  Will the precedent set in California allow the supreme courts of those states to overturn these amendments because the people are somehow not capable of making their own informed voting decisions?  Certainly, who would deny that judges with fancy degrees are much more knowledgeable than ignorant voters, who do not know what they really want?  Far better be it that judges make these decisions for us since we can’t be trusted with the responsibility of making good choices on our own.
The same problem will occur when gay couples from states outside of California (including those that already have amendments in place) go to California to obtain their marriage certificates.  What will they demand upon their return home?  They will challenge the will of the people in court.  And, all it will take is one lawsuit with a simple majority of the court to overturn the expressed will of the people.  Pretty soon, the precedents are in place for courts all over the land to begin deciding what is morally applicable to the people of the nation.  The voices of the people will slowly fade away into the background.  Can you hear the pillars of democracy crumbling? 
Now, not to sound biased, I believe that the courts do have a crucial role to interpret laws.  However, where do we draw the line between interpretation and legislation?  Where do “we the people” lose our voice and our freedom?  What, in fact, is really the purpose of a democracy if the voices of the majority don’t really count anymore?  Have we sacrificed the many for the few?  Are we changing laws and reversing decisions to accommodate the vocal minority over the silent, but voting majority?
Paul Shlichta wrote, on American Thinker (article here), about some other corollaries that may come from this type of decision making.  If we need to allow for homosexual marriages, then why should we discriminate against poligamy?  Who are we to tell anyone how many people he or she should marry?  Why should we discriminate against those who want to marry their favorite milk cow?  What goes on in your barn is certainly none of my business.  Who are we to judge someone who wants to marry a brother or a sister?  Why should we care if a father wants to marry his daughter?  What’s so wrong with teachers having sex with a student or with a man wanting to marry a minor?  Aren’t we just being prejudiced if we don’t accept this with open arms?  After all, it’s about civil rights, the right to make perverts feel good about their immorality.
Now, let me contrast the above-mentioned ideas of civil rights with other issues of civil rights.  A man is discriminated against based upon the color of his skin.  Civil rights violation?  Yes.  A woman is denied a job because she has a physical impairment.   Civil rights violation?  Yes.  A man wants to marry/have sex with: another man; an animal; a sibling; a mother, father, son daughter.  Is it a civil rights violation to deny a man such things?  Is there any difference between discriminating against one’s skin color or disabilities and discriminating against one’s personal choice of lifestyle?
Another point that Mr. Shlichta makes in his article goes on to question whether or not it would be a violation of the rights of heterosexual roommates to deny them the benefits of gay marriage.  Would heterosexuals, who have not married, be at a disadvantage in many ways and find themselves faring not as well as homosexuals because they are being discriminated against on account of their sexual orientation?  Would not all single heterosexuals fare much better if they were to have a ruling allowing for heterosexual marriage?  After all, the law should not be able to discriminate against these people’s desire for marriage based upon their sexual orientation; the same rights should be provided to these people as well.
Bear in mind (Thomas, focus your attention here), that I have not even brought religion into this posting, as I did not in my last posting.  I’m not writing this based upon a religious viewpoint; I’m writing this post using logical arguments, so that I can’t be accused of being using religion to bolster my argument, even though my religious beliefs would lead me to the same conclusions as I’m reaching now using the current argument.
So, Thomas indicated in his response to my former posting, that I am affected in no way by the CSC ruling.  To this, I refer the reader to what has been written above.  The entire foundation of democracy hinges upon court decisions like this.  Truly, this specific decision may not destroy our country and our laws, but decisions like this, compounded over time, have the potential to irreparably harm everything that this country was founded upon.  With such decisions, we begin to enslave the many to the lusts of the few; we begin to create a society with no moral boundaries, no ethical limits.  We become a “feel-good” nation, where all is permissible, and accountability is demanded of none.
When we stretch the argument, we wonder why we even need the ability to vote or to voice our concerns, because others always know so much better than we do what is best for us.  At first, we accept that the elite courts are better able to handle such things; later, we demand that they handle such things.  We, as a country, lose our strength and revert to fat babies, demanding to be fed by our morality and ethics by those who know better than we do.  And, make no mistake, there are many who will take hold of the reigns of power and oblige Americans in this quest.  Unfortunately, by this time, the leaders won’t be democratic as they are now.
Finally, before closing this out, I wanted to address Thomas’ final concern, wherein I was told that if I try cared about the will of the people, then I would be in favor of impeaching Bush and immediately ending the war in Iraq.  It is in this concern, that Thomas calls me a hypocrite.
To this, I would respond that we have elections and Bush was elected by the majority.  I don’t think that we should impeach Bush.  That’s a personal opinion and has nothing to do with gay marriage.  I would remind Thomas that Congress has a lower approval rating than the president.  Therefore, to follow Thomas’ line of thinking, we should impeach all of Congress and, once that is complete, we can move on to the president.  That is, of course, if Thomas is even correct in his assertion that the majority of people in this country want to impeach Bush.  Perhaps Thomas has extrapolated from low approval ratings something about impeachment.  Who knows?  Whatever is meant by impeachment, I can be sure that, logically, such an argument has nothing to do with gay marriage. 
Hypocrisy on my part?  Nope.
Let’s see if I am a hypocrite because I don’t want to immediately bring the troops home.  Bear in mind, of course, that, once again, this has nothing to do with gay marriage.  First, do I care about the troops?  Yes.  Why?  Because I served five years in the military and three in the National Guard (just a little context).  Would immediately bringing the troops home be a good idea, now that we are already there?  Probably not.  Such a decision would be a sure fire way to ensure that Iraq ends up worse off than under good ole Hussein.  Regardless of what one thinks about the reasons behind going to war, an immediate pullout would be one of the biggest blunders that we could ever make and the idea of such a pullout is preposterous.  If American wants the troops home, then the ballot box will indicate as much in November when we choose candidates.  Hopefully, we will have a phased pull-out so that we don’t leave a vacuum.  Regardless of my beliefs, the ballot box will decide the way forward.
Hypocrisy on my part?  Nope.


  1. Warning: This is a long comment!

    First, thank you for not banning me. While we don’t agree on much, I certainly respect someone much more when they are able to understand the value of debate rather than suppressing any ideas that don’t match their own. I wish I could have responded sooner, but this has been a very hectic couple of weeks and posting comments doesn’t pay the bills!

    As for calling you a hypocrite I would like to clarify that. We have never met or spoken so I don’t know you personally and I have no basis for commenting on your personality in general terms. What I meant was that saying the will of the people should decide one issue (gay marriage), but it shouldn’t matter on another (impeaching a very unpopular president) is hypocritical. I stand by that specific example as it seems hypocritical to me, however, I apologize for wording it in general terms in the original comment as I never intended for it to sound the way it did. Also, for the record I am not gay just in case you or anyone else reading this thinks I’m fighting for some “gay agenda” or for personal reasons or whatever.

    The “implications” that you say gay marriage will have are nullified when the issue is looked at the way I feel it should be. If this is an issue of equality, as I believe it is, then this is not an issue for states or anyone else to decide. Recognizing that everyone in this country is created equally (that phrase sounds very familiar) does not leave room for some states to say “No they aren’t”. If we recognize what our Constitution ALREADY says then all states will treat gay people equally and you won’t have the state-to-state issues that you raised. Slavery infringed on basic human rights by treating people differently because of something superficial which had no negative effects on anyone else. For that reason it was not an issue for states to decide, but rather an equality issue. In the same way, gay marriage is a matter of discriminating against someone because of how they choose to live their private life which has no effect on other people. It’s not an issue for states to decide and it’s not a matter of losing “…our voice and our freedom”. The voice of the people, even it were the majority, should never be allowed to treat another human as unequal. The only freedom I see being lost here is that of the ones being discriminated against. It’s an issue that the supreme court needs to hear so they can INTERPRET our Constitution and finally end the inequality that so many face right now.

    You also point to an article on American Thinker (I really have to get you to read some non-neocon stuff) that asks several questions. There are several arguments brought up that fail to make key distinctions. There is a huge difference between 2 consenting adults of the human species and animals or minors. If two adults both decide they want to live a certain way then no, I do not have a right to tell them otherwise without taking away their civil rights. Personally I don’t want to marry another man, my sibling, my mom or multiple wives (1 yelling at me is enough thank you!). Just because I don’t agree with it doesn’t mean I have the right to tell someone else not to do it. If both are of legal age then it does not affect me at all. A lot of gay marriage opponents love to say it will destroy the sanctity of marriage, but I’ve never heard an explanation of how that would happen. What I have seen is how the rising divorce rate among heterosexual couples has caused more and more young people to change the way they view marriage to the point that it’s no longer seen as a lifelong commitment among many people. To me, seeing a family, especially with young children, ripped apart by divorce does much more damage to the “sanctity of marriage” than a lasting relationship among two people that don’t fit your “traditional” definition of marriage. This topic was actually brought up to John McCain at a meeting in Nashville, TN yesterday and, as usual, he did not answer the question. He repeated that he’s against gay marriage (even us slow Tennesseans figured that out by now) and refused to address the question of how divorce rates are affecting the sanctity of marriage or what he would do to change that trend.

    You posed a question along the same lines as that article: “Is there any difference between discriminating against one’s skin color or disabilities and discriminating against one’s personal choice of lifestyle?”. The answer to me is very clearly, no, there is no difference as long as that choice of lifestyle does not infringe on anyone else’s rights and does not harm anyone else which in this case it does not. When it comes to animals and minors it’s a different case. Not because I’m picking and choosing, but because there is a clear difference between those 2 and the others mentioned above. Aside from being another species all together animals cannot consent to a sexual relationship. Similarly, based on current laws minors cannot legally consent to a sexual relationship with a legal adult. Unlike the previous examples there would not be 2 consenting adults engaging in the lifestyle therefore the rights of the animal or child are superceded by the need to protect them from something they cannot intelligently consent to. Just as a heterosexual relationship between an adult and a minor (whether it’s a teacher, relative, stranger, whatever) can have damaging emotional effects on the minor, a homosexual relationship of the same type can have the same effects. In that case it has nothing to do with the sexes involved, but rather the effects it has on the minor and that’s why it should not be allowed in either case.

    On the topic of religion I agree that you did not explicitly bring religion into the discussion. I commend you on that because it is something the vast majority of gay marriage opponents resort to. I do, however, believe that while you didn’t bring it up explicitly it is likely at least one of the factors that drives your opposition to gay marriage. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that. Spiritual beliefs drive the moral values for many people. The problem comes when personal spiritual beliefs are allowed to decide secular issues that affect others. They are after all “personal” beliefs and as such should mold how an individual person conducts their life, but not be used as a basis for laws that affect other people in a society, many of whom hold different beliefs. Like I said, you appear to be one of the few that can at least present non-religious arguments for this topic and that’s refreshing no matter how much I disagree with you.

    In response to my comment that you are in no way affected by the CSC ruling you again brought up the issue of losing our voices, democracy, freedom, etc. I pointed this out above, but just wanted to reiterate that my belief is the exact opposite. This is not an issue that should be decided by the people because it is an issue of basic equality among all people and no one group, no matter how large, should ever be allowed to say a smaller group is unequal to them. To pass laws and amendments to that effect is what I see as a horrible blow to our Constitution and great American culture of freedom and equality.

    Finally, on the topic of impeaching Bush and ending the war in Iraq I believe we have some miscommunication. You are correct that logically those two topics have nothing to do with gay marriage. The point I was trying to make, as I mentioned at the beginning of this comment/thesis, is that you claim we should honor the will of the people when it comes to gay marriage, but not honor the will of the people on other issues such as Bush and Iraq. Bush was elected by a majority (at least to the 2nd term), but a majority now believe he is not doing a good job. As for Congress having a lower approval rating I would agree that if we were to follow the will of the people they would be gone to. I’m sure I’m unhappy with them for different reasons than you, but I know if less than 30% of my coworkers were satisfied with the job I’m doing I’d be at home right now searching for a job.

    Having said all that I know I most likely won’t change your views on anything and don’t expect to, but I do feel it’s important to present the other side of that argument. If nothing else maybe you and or other readers can at least gain some understanding of how proponents of gay marriage feel and where we’re coming from. Once again I do apologize for calling you a hypocrite in a general way instead of being specific about the one thing I felt you were hypocritical about. I do enjoy your blog, your sarcastic sense of humor on lighter subjects and I look forward to more passionate and respectful discussions in the future.

    Comment by Thomas — June 3, 2008 @ 3:51 pm

  2. Well said.

    Comment by Tacita — November 10, 2008 @ 4:02 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: