Thursday, August 5, 2010

Let's Be Clear - I Don't Hate Gays, Okay?

More powerful than seven million, Judge Vaughn Walker
by guest blogger Andrew Roman

Anyone who was surprised that the will of the people of California was dismissed yesterday afternoon by an activist judge, please stand on your head.

Anyone who was shocked that an issue of public policy - a matter rightfully assigned to the people - was tossed out the window by a radical jurist, please grab your medication and return to the land of the thinking.

It should have astonished no one that Proposition 8 - the measure voted on by the people of California in 2008 to keep the millennia-old definition of marriage in tact - was declared unconstitutional by a leftist judge, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker.

(Walker did, however, issue a stay on the order while an appeal is pursued.)

See how easily the will of seven million Americans can be tossed aside like so much pocket lint?

Almost immediately after the ruling, I received an e-mail from a long-time liberal acquaintance - let's call him Emotion Man -  who wrote:
"Not a good day for America's haters, is it?"
Clever ...

... because all of us who wish to preserve the traditional definition of marriage must be homosexual haters.

There's a scene in the Godfather Part II, spoken by Michael Corleone in front of the Senate Committee, where he is reading from a prepared statement:
"I find it a great dishonor to me personally to have to deny that I am a criminal."
(Of course, he was a criminal, but that's beside the point).

This line keeps popping into my head every time I am accused of being a hater of homosexuals because of my position on same-sex marriage.

Emotion Man sent me an e-mail in response to a piece I posted back during the Anti-Proposition 8 rallies a couple of years ago.

He wrote:

"Whether you're getting your values from the Bible or not, there's no valid reason to be against gay marriage unless you hate or are afraid of gays."
I immediately saw myself sitting at that table with Michael Corleone, exasperated with the Senate Committee:
"I find it a great dishonor to me personally to have to deny that I am a gay hater."
(Of course, I am not, and that is the point).

I neither hate gays, nor do I fear them. Such thoughts don't even cross my mind.

I am, however, loath to use the term “gay marriage.” In context of the argument to redefine the traditional meaning of marriage, it is incorrect. It's a trap. The appropriate term is “same-sex” marriage. The fact that the former is often employed in place of the latter is no accident. It is as much a strategic move as it is one of ignorance. That's because same-sex marriage activists recognize how easily the traditional view can be made to sound like a position of hate and intolerance. Thus, the perfunctory conclusion one can draw about someone being against “gay marriage” is that he is against "gay people."

Dozens of likewise examples exist ...

-I have contempt for the policy of affirmative action, but because its purpose is to “level the playing field” for minorities, I must obviously be anti-minority.

-I am against most unions, but because their purpose is to make sure that fair working conditions exist for employees, I am clearly anti-employee.

Irrelevant is whether or not initiatives like affirmative action, or organizations like the labor unions, are actually doing any good or delivering on their original designed purposes.

It doesn't matter. On the Left, compassion is measured by intent, not results.

My liberal friend went on to say:
This is an issue of equal rights, and it can hardly be denied. Your thinking is not only outdated, it is dangerous. Because you and your right wing bretheren continue to deny us the right to marry, we will never be looked upon as equals.
Many proponents of same-sex marriage caterwaul about the inherent inequalities in being denied the opportunity to marry. But by definition, there is no issue of inequality in the debate, nor is there a denial of rights. Gay people can, in fact, marry. That they wish to marry people of the same sex is a separate issue and altogether inapposite to the so-called "equality of rights" argument.

No one can marry whomever they want unless it fits the very specific guideline of what marriage is - that is, the union of one man and one woman.

To illustrate the point, let's say, for example, we have a young lady named Laura who wishes to be married someday, and there are three young men courting her - one white, one black and one oriental.

And let's say, eventually, Laura falls in love with the black man and decides she wants to marry him.

If that black man is denied the opportunity by the state to marry the girl because of his skin color, then a clear-cut example of a denial of equal rights exists. (The fact that there were statutes on the books denying interracial marriage in some states at one time was an aberration. They exist no more. It should be noted that there is nothing biblically-based that prohibits interracial marriages. Additionally, there is nothing anywhere in any context in all of human history that supports or advocates marriage between members of the same sex). The equality issue, as it relates to marriage, is defined by the fact that any man - even a gay man - can marry any woman. It's not about which sex he will marry.

I repeat - no one can marry the same sex, just as no one can tie the knot with a squirrel or take the vows with a candy machine.

Remember, there are no vital distinctions between men of different races. There are, however, genuine and explicit differences that exist between the sexes - a reality that has been undermined in this society for the better part of four decades, from college campuses on through to pop culture. The predictable (and tragic) by-product has been the movement to redefine an institution that has been steadfast for thousands of years.

By propagating the idea that the marriage between two men (or two women) carries the same importance to civilization as the marriage between one man and one woman, the uniqueness of each sex is devalued, and the contrasts between them blurred.

I do not want those distinctions diluted. I celebrate and cherish the differences between men and women.

That doesn't mean that as individuals gay people are less important human beings than straight people. I would never say such a thing, nor do I believe it with even a scintilla of my being. We are all God's children.

That isn't the point.

My friend continued:
It will only be a matter of time before the old guard Bible-thumpers like yourself, hell-bent on institutional discrimination, are seen as the radical ones. Your position is indefensible.
There are a multitude of gays who do not agree with the push to redefine marriage - including the likes of Elton John, no Bible-thumper by any means. (He recently called for the abolition of religion, you may recall).

I also find the use of the word "radical" amusing, seeing as it is the millenia-old definition of marriage being challenged by a movement not even a generation old.

And just for the record ... as "radical" as this may sound, I am also opposed to humans marrying cats - and I assure you, I do not hate cats.

And if there were a movement sweeping the nation calling for the government to advocate sibling marriages, I would be just as vocal and just as adamantly opposed to it.

And if sheep could somehow speak, and a grassroots movement caught fire calling for humans to be able to lawfully wed them, I would vehemently debate them (at a barnyard of their choice) on the necessity of preserving traditional marriage.

I want only the best for all Americans. That includes homosexuals. That is as truthful a statement as I can make.

This is not an anti-gay position.

This is a pro-marriage position.

Come off it already.

(I'll have more thoughts tomorrow on this matter here on the great Proof Positive blog)


  1. Mark Levin asked a rhetorical question n his show, yesterday: If you are going to replace morality, specifically Biblical morality in law, what do you replace it with?

    It occurred to me, that in the vacuum of arbitrary moral standards, the best way to determine such things would be through a plebiscite...which is exactly what the state of California did!

    What the judge has done was to substitute his sense of morality for the judgment and morality of a plurality of the electorate.

  2. Very well said. I think the issue comes from a lack of understanding of what marriage truly is. It is much more than a civil contract, it is a three way covenant between a man a woman and God. A covenant in which he sanctions their participation in his creative power.

  3. Absolutely correct, Proof.

    If the citizens of the State of California had voted to make same-sex marriage legal, I would have certainly DISAGREED with it, but would have accepted the fact that the electorate had spoken. At that point, it would be my choice to live with it, fight for restoring the traditional definition of marriage (which would be futile), or move to a state where same-sex marriage is not permitted.

    It's simple.

    It's about the rule of law.

    There has yet to be a state anywhere in this country that has had its people vote in favor of same-sex marriage.

    My point with this piece was to take a slightly different angle and explain why I DON'T hate gays, and how I can make that claim while supporting traditional marriage.

  4. Thank you, Trestin. You are right on the mark. I could not have summed it all up any better.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.