Letters to the Editor
-
not true
It seems to me that following the "thinking" of the majority opinion, anyone having children should be forced into marriage.
Sorry, that's not at all what was said nor was it in any way implied. You're reading the thinking in reverse in a rather wishful manner. I understand, but you're not helping yourself with that.
The ruling basically acknowledged that there is a procreation encouraging element to marriage, as everybody already knows. It also acknowledged that the purpose is not to force anyone to procreate but to create a friendly environment for that. There was no implication it would ever be forced even if possible or that it would be restrained only to those definitely intending to procreate.
Put simply it says one function of marriage (of several) is to privilege those considered more desirable for procreating in a preferred man+woman configuration, according to popular sentiment. Since marriage is an all or nothing deal as it currently stands, the court ruled it’s possible to argue that not all of the elements of marriage can be awarded to all people, i.e. gay couples.
None of this is should be exactly surprising as the general public view.
What this does affirm is that winning gay marriage all at once and overnight affirmation of gay parenting is dead. However, there are also economic, social enhancing, and child beneficial elements to marriage which are more easily argued in the short term for LGBT unions and more politically possible. Again, why that's the smarter course now and why pursuing outright gay marriage is counter productive.
Now, the definition of what's desirable certainly can change in time, particularly if done incrementally. But, that is an inherently political question and the courts have no authority to rule on that.
-
"Ex-gays"
I said:
All the evidence, sociological, psychological, and biological, quite clearly demonstrates that homosexuals, like heterosexuals, have an innate and unchangable preference for a specific sex.
A.J. replied:
Tell that to the thousands of ex-gays out there. Yes, scream, stamp your feet, call them names (talk about bigotry!), but the fact remains that thousands and thousands of people have changed. Yes, some try and fail, but you don't judge things on failures (otherwise AA would be out of business). You judge it on the successes--and there are way more than you would realize just by reading the MSM. (Talk about bias!)
Response:
A.J., I suggest reading the American Psychological Association's document: "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality". Not only does it address the "ex-gay" lie, but it addresses parenting and other aspects relevant to this discussion.
There is no scientific evidence to support the notion that people can change their sexual orientation. People have control over their sexual behavior (to some degree*), but not their orientation. Homosexuals pretending to be heterosexuals due to social prejudice is exactly the result of so-called "reparative therapy". It's not therapy at all. Instead, it's predatory quackery.
The APA has 150,000 members. Dr. Hooker found, in the 50's, that homosexuality is not a disorder. She was the first researcher who chose to study homosexual men who had no prior history of mental illness. Prior researchers studied mentally ill homosexual men and made an illusory correlation between mental illness and homosexuality. Social prejudice does not create disorder. The problem is the prejudice itself, not its target. Homosexuals have no legitimate reason to seek to change their orientation, and they can't, just as heterosexuals cannot become homosexuals.
*While people have quite a bit of control over their behavior, they do not have total control. Only approximately 1% of the population has no sex drive. The rest of us do not have their total control over sexual behavior. Our biological imperative, which favors one sex or the other depending upon our innate orientation, makes it impossible to have a 50/50 choice regarding the sex of our partner(s). The existence of a preference precludes the possibility of truly free choice, else everyone would be bisexual.
-
two peas in a pod...
Nardwilly - "homsexual" ???
No name - read the Constitution. "...the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness.."
But really, thanks for your opinions. I think a lot of people enjoyed the laugh.
-
Equal Protection, the 14th amendment, and citizenship
Someone wrote:
Original Intent: Hogwash. Where the 14th Amendment says "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", that is original intent. But what does "equal" mean? What does "protection" include? Who is a "person"? Courts - and society - have changed the answers to such questions, and rightly so. A narrow interpretation of "original intent" would allow slavery and would fail to give women the vote. The original words have evolved to expand our liberties. As they should.
---
Here is the full first section again:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Since there are two sexual orientations (homosexual and heterosexual), and thus two forms of pair bond (same-sex and opposite sex), it's unconstitutional to deny citizens of one of the two orientations the right of marriage, so long as that right exists for the other.
Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not disorders, are innate, and are immutable, so there is no rational basis for excluding one set of citizens from marriage. In fact, that's an unconstitutional degradation or revocation of citizenship. Even if sexual orientation were not innate and could be changed, there would not be a strong justification for keeping the right to marry in its current state: a special privilege. That sexual orientation is innate and is immutable, combined with the critical truth -- homosexuality is not a disorder, makes it impossible to argue rationally for unequal treatment of homosexuals, including non-citizens.
Remember the mantra "no taxation without representation"? That is the heart of the 14th Amendment. That the founders had slaves and didn't treat women equally is irrelevant. Homosexuals are American citizens.
The interpretation of the 14th Amendment isn't an arbitrary matter, just as truth is not created by perception. So long as the amendment stands as written, the truth of its interpretation is singular and must be found by objective consideration.