Jump to navigation
The Ghost of San Francisco
R. Alex Whitlock
Tuesday, the people of the state of Texas passed Proposition 2, which constitutionally defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. As I am officially an Idahoan, I did not vote. If I could have, I absolutely, positively would have voted against. I share conservative concern over the breakdown of the family, the shift of marriage from an emotional rather than societal institution, and the sort of amoral sexuality that the public perception of homosexuals represents. Ultimately, I believe homosexuality to be sufficiently genetic and insufficiently immoral to be accepted, if not embraced, by society as a whole. Without the belief that homosexuality is something to be discouraged, I cannot support support treating homosexual relationships as differently than heterosexual ones.
I wish that more Texans felt the same way than apparently do. But they don't. And the reaction by various liberals have done absolutely nothing to change that and, in some ways, represents a real lack of desire to. Granted, people on every side of the aisle are quick to discount public opinion whenever they agree with it, but when you're dealing with majorities in even the most liberal states and supermajorities in the conservative ones, it might be more helpful to listen and try to change their minds rather than call them bigots and celebrate court-enforced end-runs around popular opinion - and then wonder what's wrong with Kansas because they vote against candidates that (allegedly) represent their financial interests.
The wave of statewide referenda regarding gay marriage is neither part of increasing religious conservatism on the part of the general public nor a sort of encroaching theocracy. It was a direct response to the apparent threat of gay marriage being mandated by the courts. Maybe it's an illogical fear because Massachusetts is a unique case, but the festivities in kicked off in San Francisco and elsewhere will haunt the cause for some time to come. It represented an enthusiastic embrace of the idea that gay marriage is a constitutionally-protected right that scared a lot of people into the arms of their ideological opponents. At the very least, it forced states to know a potential loophole that could be later used to legalize gay marriage. If you don't want gay marriage to be legalized, this is not insignificant.
This is not showboating. This is stirring up the pot. This is a perfectly logical reaction to prevent the law from being changed in a way by which there is no democratic recourse. You prevent a judge from saying "The Constitution doesn't say..." by making the Constitution say exactly that.
Even though I strongly disagree with the substance of their position, I don't disagree with their methodology nearly as much as I disagree with those that are more outraged than concerned that a clear majority of the public does not agree with them.
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobat
Observations
RAW,
#1 -- [I share conservative concern over the breakdown of the family, the shift of marriage from an emotional rather than societal institution, and the sort of amoral sexuality that the public perception of homosexuals represents.]
Whether homosexuals are, in fact, engaging in amoral sexuality isn't something I am pushed to consider. Certainly, I don't think it's any more appreciable than the number of heterosexuals engaging in amoral sexuality.
#2 - [Ultimately, I believe homosexuality to be sufficiently genetic and insufficiently immoral to be accepted, if not embraced, by society as a whole.]
For me, the jury's still out. Whether homosexuality is genetic or formative, or even neither, is something hard to say. For instance, we recently had the star of the Houston Comets come out of the closet, and she was very clear that she had "become" lesbian rather than being born that way. As for immoral, that begs its own definition.
#3 - [Without the belief that homosexuality is something to be discouraged, I cannot support support treating homosexual relationships as differently than heterosexual ones.]
- therein, apparently, seems to lie the difference. Of course, my own view sees the institution of marriage as actively encouraging something, and while I have no qualms about homosexual behavior as such, I don't see it as something to be <i>en</i>couraged.
#4 - [Granted, people on every side of the aisle are quick to discount public opinion whenever they _agree_ with it,] - I think you meant disagree?
#5 - As for the rest on the reaction, I'd have to say that I agree. A lot of society is about push and pull, and when a specific interest group crosses the line, there's a definite pushback.
One judge declares that the Massachusetts constitution doesn't specifically outlaw gay marriage, and thereby means gay marriage must be allowed, and every state looks at their constitution.
You start running ads calling people "intolerant" or "homophobes" or "bigots" or worse, and you risk backlash from those people. You start running a disingenuous campaign claiming the amendment will make all marriages illegal - and I got one of those phone calls - and you're going to see the public react.
Really and truthfully, I think the left have got this argument backwards. Your contention is that marriage is a "right" being denied: my contention is that it is a societal encouragement, created both for the smoother function of society and for the encouragement of some relatively specific behavior.
In that case, the question isn't whether homosexual acts/relationships are to be discouraged, but whether there is enough evidence to support a specific encouragement. And the Left haven't made that case yet, because they're too busy calling people bigots and insulting the very people whose votes they were (theoretically) trying to get in this election.
"You catch more flies with honey..."
Add an Observation
Comment spam is an ongoing problems that we're trying to address. Previously we required people to create accounts and log in. I am thankful to say that is no longer the case. We're giving Captcha another try and are playing around with a text-based Q&A variant of Captcha. So bear with us as we try to figure out how to best get a handle ont he problem. Please note that any comment on a post more than 30 days old will go into the moderation queue, where I will get to it when I can which could be once a week.
