Response to Orson Scott Card article
Homosexual “Marriage” and Civilization
A little dialogue from Lewis Carroll:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”
The Massachusetts Supreme Court has not yet declared that “day” shall now be construed to include that which was formerly known as “night,” but it might as well.
By declaring that homosexual couples are denied their constitutional rights by being forbidden to “marry,” it is treading on the same ground.
Actually, Mr. Card, a key difference here is that expanding the legal definition of marriage would have the added benefit of belatedly removing unwarranted discrimination from the term – you know, equal rights and all that. It’s kinda hard to see such a benefit in the whole day/night thing. Your analogies need a little work.
Do you want to know whose constitutional rights are being violated? Everybody’s. Because no constitution in the United States has ever granted the courts the right to make vast, sweeping changes in the law to reform society.
I hate to break it to you, but that last sentence contained nothing to support your answer to your own question. All it did was identify a right the courts don’t have. It made no mention of any particular constitutional rights that anyone has, let alone any which are being violated. Perhaps you’ll be able to identify one at some point in your lengthy commentary?
And by the way, “vast, sweeping changes in the law to reform society” seems a bit over the top, if all you’re referring to is extending the option of marriage to the relatively small percentage of couples who are of the same gender.
Regardless of their opinion of homosexual “marriage,” every American who believes in democracy should be outraged that any court should take it upon itself to dictate such a social innovation without recourse to democratic process.
It isn’t dictating a social innovation, it’s allowing those who wish to participate in one to do so, rather than letting the majority prohibit them from doing so. If anything, the latter would be an abuse of the democratic process. Again, it helps to be precise.
And we all know the course this thing will follow. Anyone who opposes this edict will be branded a bigot;
Lord knows, gays and lesbians have certainly never been branded with disparaging labels, have they?
any schoolchild who questions the legitimacy of homosexual marriage will be expelled for “hate speech.”
Good luck connecting the dots on that claim. But even if it turns out to be true, the proper response is to oppose Read the rest of this entry »