Bubba Sounds Off

Response to Thomas Sowell article

Now that a number of state courts have refused to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions, cries of “discrimination” are being heard.

The “equal protection of the laws” provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions.

When the law permits automobiles to drive on highways but forbids bicycles from doing the same, that is not discrimination against people. A cyclist who gets off his bicycle and gets into a car can drive on the highway just like anyone else.

Mr. Sowell, there are good, safety-related reasons for banning bicycles from highways - reasons that do not apply to gay marriage. In a free society, laws that discriminate without good reason should be overturned - even those that discriminate against actions.

In a free society, vast numbers of things are neither forbidden nor facilitated. They are considered to be none of the law’s business.

Sounds a lot like something that should apply to marital choices among consenting adults.

Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that the law had no business interfering with relations between consenting adults. Now they want the law to put a seal of approval on their behavior. But no one is entitled to anyone else’s approval.

Good. Then you apparently understand that (more…)

Response to David K. Bernard article

Bernard: Why Texans should not support homosexual marriage

God created one man and one woman to inhabit the Garden of Eden, and He created them as companions who were suitable for each other. We must uphold that ideal for marriage today, but how should we do so in modern society?

You should do so in a manner that includes peaceful coexistence with those who would make different choices for themselves. In a free society, upholding your own “ideal for marriage” should not equate to getting laws passed to restrict the options of anyone who prefers a different ideal.

Let us briefly consider the biblical teaching on this subject.

Let’s not. We’re talking about rules that everyone must live by. Biblical assertions have no place in such a discussion. If a strong case cannot be made for something independently of what the Bible has to say about it, (more…)

Response to Dr. James Dobson article

May 23, 2004
Eleven Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage
by Dr. James Dobson

An argument in favor of homosexual marriage that you are likely to hear again and again on radio talk shows, on national television, and on the Internet, reflects a line of reasoning that you must be prepared to counter. It is embodied in these kinds of questions: Why all the fuss about gay marriage anyway? And why should it matter to you if a gay couple marries and moves into your neighborhood? Why shouldn’t our definition of family be broadened and modernized? After all, what harm could possibly be done by yielding to the demands of those who say traditional notions of family are outmoded and irrelevant?

Columnist Steve Blow, in a recent edition of The Dallas Morning News, echoed some of these questions. His op-ed piece was titled “Gay Marriage: Why Would It Affect Me?” and was apparently written after he had read one of my recent newsletters on the subject. Blow wrote:

When opponents talk about the “defense of marriage,” they lose me. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family just sent out a mailer to 2.5 million homes saying: “The homosexual activists’ movement is poised to administer a devastating and potentially fatal blow to the traditional family.” And I say, “Huh?” How does anyone’s pledge of love and commitment turn into a fatal blow to families?

Mr. Blow clearly believes that the only reason for not legalizing homosexual marriage is sheer bigotry. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are very compelling arguments against marriage between homosexuals that should be considered by anyone who has not yet become familiar with the issues. Unfortunately, the American people, as a whole, have not yet thought through the consequences and measured the impact of this revolutionary concept. I could list fifty or more legitimate concerns. Let me focus on only eleven:

1. The legalization of homosexual marriage will quickly destroy the traditional family.

We’ve already seen evidence from the Scandinavian countries that de-facto homosexual marriage destroys the real Mc Coy.

Dr. Dobson, it looks like you’ve got some rather shaky standards for what constitutes “evidence”. If you’re using the expression “the real McCoy” to refer to traditional, heterosexual marriages, have all such marriages been eliminated in those countries? In fact, can you identify even one marriage that’s been destroyed by the presence of a “de-facto homosexual marriage”? And for those who prefer the option of traditional marriage, is it any less available to them than it used to be? If not, then I guess your use of the word “destroys” is a bit over the top, huh? Hyperbole is certainly a hallmark of opponents of same sex marriage. It will be interesting to see how heavily your own commentary will rely on it. In fact, we have another example coming right up …

These two entities cannot coexist because they represent opposite ends of the universe.

Nonsense. There are plenty of traditionally married couples who would have absolutely no problem peacefully coexisting with same sex married couples. If you would have trouble doing so, then that reflects poorly on you, and on your marriage.

A book could be written on the reasons for this collision between matter and antimatter, but I will cite three of them.

First, when the State sanctions homosexual relationships and gives them its blessing, the younger generation becomes confused about sexual identity and quickly loses its understanding of lifelong commitments, emotional bonding, sexual purity, the role of children in a family, and from a spiritual perspective, the “sanctity” of marriage.

More nonsense. Most young people are probably not nearly as preoccupied with this stuff as you seem to be. But those who bother to give it much thought at all (and who are not suffering from heavy religious indoctrination) probably won’t have to strain too many brain cells to figure out that it’s simply a government refraining from sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong, and leaving people alone to make their own choices. If anything, the hysteria reflected in your opening comments suggests (more…)