14 March 2005

Interesting new "protection" found in Constitution

Okay . . . yet another judge has found that the Constitution says same-sex marriage must happen -- well, actually, his rationale was that not extending marriage benefits to same-sex couples violates their right to "equal protection under the law."

What are same-sex couples not being protected from? (This just screams for a satire, but I'm trying to be rational first). I think we've managed to thoroughly confuse the meanings of "protect" and "promote."

The Constitution doesn't specify anything about what constitutes marriage. Yet there are all sorts of laws on the books about who can and can't marry, some of them patently unjust and actually unconstitutional, but not in over a hundred years has anyone made a real peep about those.

As much as I oppose sanctioning gay marriage, it's not because I don't like gay people, because that's just mean, not to mention stupid; and it's not because I think they shouldn't be allowed to see each other in the hospital, because I think they should. It's not about hate or spite. It's because of the inevitable consequences of equating same-sex relationships with God-ordained marriage: adoption rights. Fight over the estate, if you will, but God has set up a framework for raising and teaching children, and He has a perfect idea of what He's doing. We're subject to that -- it's not about whether we want to be nice and helpful or mean and hurtful; it's about doing what He tells us to do.

I would say there's got to be a way to make both sides happy, but unfortunately, I don't hold out that hope for this particular issue, given the vitriol being flung around.

No comments: