Posted by
Playful Walrus on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 7:34:56 PM
First, some good news, as reported by staff writer Jessica Garrison:
Opponents of a campaign to ban same-sex marriage in California said Tuesday that a new poll shows them in danger of losing -- unless people step forward with more contributions to pay for No on 8 television commercials.
Of course, it could be a fundraising ploy. Notice the paper it still using the word “ban” as if Prop 8 would prevent couples from holding ceremonies, considering themselves married, and having others consider them married. That isn’t accurate.
"The Mormon Church teaches that we should be building families," said David Melson, assistant executive director of Affirmation, a group of gay and lesbian Mormons. "Through measures like Proposition 8, they are working to tear families apart."
Prop 8 will not tear a single family apart. This is a red herring.
Then there’s a piece in the paper’s blog, The Dish Rag, on Leonard Nimoy’s thoughts on Prop 8, since a "Star Trek " costar has very publicly taken advantage of the California Supreme Court’s decision.
”Absolutely NO on Prop 8 because I believe that gay people have every right to get married and share their lives. George and Brad have been together for many years. They have every right to be together in any way they choose.”
Sure they do, but they don’t have the right to force the rest of us to give them a marriage license. Prop 8 will not prevent George and Brad from continuing to be together and keep their vows.
Then there’s an opinion piece by Nathaniel Frank, senior research fellow at the Palm Center, author of the forthcoming Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America.
He knocks Palin for using the word “choice” in regards to homosexuality.
Calling homosexuality a choice is the time-tested way politicians signal their belief that it is the wrong choice.
You know, you can believe something to be a choice and still think it is okay to make that choice.
Typical was a Washington Post opinion piece saying that "no one would choose to be part of a marginalized group whose members have to sue their way to basic rights."
Basic rights? I didn’t realize that the right of homosexual people to speak freely was being infringed. Whomever is doing the infringing is doing a really poor job of it. Last I checked, Tammy Bruce was exercising her Second Amendment rights - no lawsuit necessary. When I vote, nobody checks to make sure I’m heterosexual. Which basic rights would these be?
Why should equal treatment of gays and lesbians hinge on whether they have chosen or inherited their identities?
It shouldn’t. But let’s not confuse feelings and identities with chosen behavior. They are not the same thing. People choose to date, enter into a relationship, live together, etc.
Finally, he gets to it:
How one responds to these stirrings may be largely a matter of choice, just as one may choose whether to act on a belief or whether to practice a faith. But American institutions properly protect our right to practice the religion that speaks to our soul. Why not champion a homosexual's right to honor erotic, romantic and emotional callings in the same way, so long as doing so doesn't harm others?*
I agree. I don’t interfere in such choices. My limit comes when I am asked to give my approval or affirmation. That's when I say "no".
*(If I’m forced to pay for someone else’s health insurance, then it does harm me if they are engaging in unhealthy acts with their bodies. Ideally, everyone should be responsible for their own health insurance - and free to behave as they wish so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.)