"I personally think it is time that we as a nation get past distinguishing people on the basis of sexual orientation, and that a grave injustice is being done to people by making these distinctions," Olson told me Tuesday night. "I thought their cause was just."
Personally, I agree that we "as a nation get past distinguishing people on the basis of sexual orientation." It would be nice if Mr. Olsen tried that approach himself, especially as it applies to this issue.
The arguments for same-sex marriage often focus on overturning the discrimination against homosexuals (in addition to the argument that suggests that marriage is a right, not a privilege, as I detailed in an earlier post).
The issue of same-sex marriage has nothing to do with sexual orientation, although many who support it are championing "gay marriage." That, however, is how we bypass the problems of unintended consequences (by sidestepping them accidentally or intentionally).
It would be discriminatory (and an intrusion of privacy) to suggest that homosexuals cannot marry, or that Blacks can't marry Whites, or tall people can't marry short people, etc. What the law says is that a marriage must consist of a man and a woman. It doesn't go beyond that to apply a religious or moral test (although there is a health screening test in some states as well as an "adult" requirement), a racial test, or a sexual preference test. It applies equally to all... as would same-sex marriage.
In order to avoid discriminitory practices, we need to apply rules universally, and California has in this case. It is discrimination in marriage that "gay marriage" advocates are wanting (or they're avoiding the sticky issue that homosexuals can marry today, as traditional marriage is not denied to homosexuals).
Same-sex marriage is denied to everyone in California, regardless of sexual orientation, just as opposite-sex marriage is available to all, regardless of sexual orientation.
Calling it "gay" marriage doesn't avoid the obstacle, nor does the revised term in describing it, as opposed to legislating it, mask the deception of those who make the argument that way. If same-sex marriage is made lawful in a state, it doesn't and can't restrict same-sex marriage to "between homosexuals" anymore than opposite-sex marriage can be restricted to "between heterosexuals."
How would you enforce such a restriction... have a "gay test"? So if someone's favorite singer is Judy Garland, then they can have a same-sex marriage, but if someone prefers Nine Inch Nails they can't?
How ridiculous.
(For the humor-challenged, that was a joke.)
It isn't "gay" marriage. It is "same-sex" marriage that we're arguing about. Sexual orientation is irrelevant, as it would be impossible (as well as peculiarly invasive) to ask or determine factually someone's sexual preference as a prerequisite to issuing a marriage license.
I doubt that homosexuals who are in opposite-sex marriages would welcome such a requirement.
Be careful what you ask for... you may get it.
H/t Instapundit.
Posts
