|
Gays Discriminate, Too
Gays
want the same marriage rights as heterosexuals. But
you don't hear them arguing to sanctify polygamy,
incest or pedophilia.
A
new state law prohibiting a civil union or any
equivalent relationship between members of the same
sex has stirred lots of passion and numerous
demonstrations in Virginia. Emotions have gotten in
the way of clear thinking on the subject.
The
statute prohibits only “a civil union, partnership
contract or other arrangement between persons of the
same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or
obligations of marriage.” Nothing new or radical
there. It doesn’t ban all contracts between
homosexuals, only those that purport to extend the
privileges or obligations of marriage.
Attorney
General Jerry Kilgore published a formal opinion
concluding that the statute prohibited only those
contracts between members of the same sex that are
exclusive to the institution of marriage. It does
not affect other arrangements, such as joint bank
accounts, medical directives and business
partnerships.
Homosexual
activists cried “discrimination” and organized
protests against the measure. They labeled
“hateful” those who voted for it, and painted a
picture of doom and gloom for all homosexuals in
Virginia.
In
fact, the law is intended to preserve, and has the
limited effect of retaining, the traditional
definition of marriage. Nothing more. Nothing less.
It was prompted by the new activist agenda of
homosexuals who want government to officially
embrace unions of persons of the same sex.
The
activists’ exaggerated claims about the
statute’s impact is a continuation of a pattern of
political action to force their agenda on the rest
of the public. When any opposition is voiced, it is
met with charges of “gay-bashing” and
“discrimination.”
The
new law banning civil unions is no more
discriminatory than the position of the homosexual
activists who insist that they be allowed to marry
as they choose, but that others such as bisexuals,
polygamists and transgender persons be denied the
same opportunity. Should we call these homosexuals
“bisexual-bashers?”
If
Virginia extends the right to marry or form civil
unions to two homosexuals, on what legal or moral
principle can it refuse to do so for three
homosexuals, or for a bisexual and a partner of each
gender, for any grouping of persons who claim to be
committed to each other for life?
The
very homosexuals who contend that the majority of
Virginians have no right to impose their moral
judgment on them by denying them the right to marry
or to enter a civil union are quite willing to
impose their own moral judgment on persons having
sexual preferences different from their own. Their
actual motivation is probably political. They are
well aware that they can’t succeed politically if
they are lumped together with polygamists,
bisexuals, transgender persons, pedophiles, those
who want to engage in incest and those of every
other sexual preference.
Unless
we favor anarchy, we cannot avoid moral judgments.
We draw lines based on value preferences and moral
judgments all the time in our laws.
The
point here is that homosexuals are prepared to make
moral judgments, too. They are quite willing to
discriminate against others whose conduct they say
is morally unacceptable.
History
does not provide a single example of a healthy,
stable society without a set of coherent moral
standards. This doesn’t mean we need a
Taliban-like regime. But even the homosexuals who
oppose the new law banning civil unions acknowledge
that making moral judgments is inevitable.
--
July 12, 2004
|
