Another fraud on the ballot this year is gay “marriage.”
Marriage has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise in unions between a man and a woman.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that law has not been based on logic but on experience. To apply a mountain of laws based specifically on experience with relations between a man and a woman to a different relationship where sex differences are not involved would be like applying the rules of baseball to football.
The argument that current marriage laws “discriminate” against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior.
All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior. What other purpose does law have?
While people may be treated the same, all their behaviors are not. Laws that forbid bicycles from being ridden on freeways obviously have a different effect on people who have bicycles but no cars.
But this is not discrimination against a person. The cyclist who gets into a car is just as free to drive on the freeway as anybody else.
The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry. Many gays have already married people of the opposite sex. Conversely, heterosexuals who might want to marry someone of the same sex in order to make some point will be forbidden to do so, just as gays are.
The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined — and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?
Despite heavy television advertising in California for “gay marriage,” showing blacks being set upon by police dogs during civil-rights marches, and implying that homosexuals face the same discrimination today, the analogy is completely false.
Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus because they were black. They were doing exactly what white people were doing — riding a bus. That is what made it racial discrimination.
Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation.
Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else's business. Now they are asserting a right to other people's approval, which is wholly different.
None of us has a right to other people's approval.
And last, but not least, as Catholics (you and I), we're obligated to understand our faith. The Catholic Church is very clear on the fact that there are several non-negotiables which we must not support; abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem cell result, euthanasia (and I can't remember the last one).
Go to any orthodox Catholic website and you can find more info. A good forum is Catholic Forums.
But this is simply not true. Marriage is not a set of legal obligations. It is a set of privileges bound with a legal commitment. And the commitment part isn't all that powerful any longer.
Also, one of the reasons the California Supreme Court ruled the way they did when they allowed gay marriages is because the California constitution does encode marriage as a "right".