The nation has watched for about a week now as Los Angeles gives homosexuals marriage licenses which are in direct violation of a law which was recently passed for California which defines marriage as between one man and one woman. I'd like to weigh in on this because I think it's hardly beating a dead horse to say things no one else has said about an issue that is talked about a lot.
The main defense of this flagrant violation of the law is this: the constitution gives equal protection under the law. Not giving marriage to gays is not equal, therefore it is not constitutional. But instead of going through the court system, some people are doing whatever they want. People are flocking to "get married" while they still can. And the mayor is behind it all. Few people will speak out about it because no one wants to step on toes.
This is flawed and I'll tell you why. We have a forum for these people to discuss their views, and a mechanism that grants them power to attempt to get their way: the courts. As was pointed out on "The O'Reilly Factor" just now by a guest, the proper way to do this is to attempt to get a license, be turned down and sue. This is the lawful way to do things in this country. The civil disobedience / equal protection under the law argument is a shaky one because the same argument can be used to justify suicide bombings, and abortion bombings, and worst of all, pedophilia and statutory rape. You don't believe me? Here's why I believe it.
We are attempting a proof by contradiction, so we assume the negation of what we're trying to prove, that is, that this is a perfectly legal thing to do. That means that if you disagree with the law, and have an argument that you think is a good argument that points to an unconstitutional conflict, you don't need to wait for the courts to strike it down, you can do what you want and call it civil disobedience and a civil rights issue. Good buzz words...very effective.
Case 1: Suicide bombers frequently bomb because they are jihadists. In other words, they are acting within their religious beliefs. Now, our society grants a person Freedom of Religion, moreover, one could argue that preventing suicide bombers from bombing is a violation of Seperation of Church and state. Now, maybe you don't like it, but that's because you're just biased..this is an equality issue, it's a civil rights issue.....am I pushing the right buttons yet? This is a contradiction, but I'll go further.
Case 2: The abortion clinic bombing counterargument is even more effective. Pro-Lifers believe that fetuses are people; people worth defending. Thus, an abortion doctor is, in the eyes of the Pro-Lifer, killing a defenseless person. He's not just a murderer in our eyes. He's a mass murderer. You can laugh at us for this belief if you want...because this is a civil rights issue, and we're just waiting patiently for some respect. Now, I believe the law says that one can kill people to defend others. Police do it all the time. A man may kill an attacker who is trying to kill his wife. Now, maybe you disagree about the fetus being a person. But...that's okay because I disagree that marriage can be for gays because marriages in my mind are already defined (and have been for millenia) as between a man and a woman. Implicitly! Now, if we are to follow the Los Angeles pattern, you do what you want and I'll do what I'll want and we'll both blow our martyr horn of Civil Disobedience...and everyone will feel guilty for discriminating against us...right? What about equality man?!?!This is a contradiction. But I'll go further.
Case 3: Lets take another example. This is the clearest of all. The pattern for the homosexual marriage argument is that the law has failed to provide equal protection, equal rights for gays and straights. This argument cuts both ways...for everyone...equally. That includes 15 year olds. Or will we discriminate based on age? Maybe you think they can't make these decisions. That's exactly the kind of presumption that they hate. Why don't we just assume that people can take care of their own sexuality? We don't need "morality police" (ding!)! We don't need people violating the privacy (ding!) of the bedroom do we? If we will grant these freedoms to consenting adults, will we deny them to consenting children? This is a contradiction!
Let me make it clear! I don't believe that pedophilia or statutory rape or abortion clinic bombings or murder for religion, whether with a bomb or otherwise...I don't believe that any of these things are right. They are wrong. But the same reasoning that you went through to know this applies everywhere.
Reason is a double edged sword. Learn to wield it well so that you do not get cut. Not that anybody will do anything to you if you don't.....
~Ensis
