Thursday, August 18, 2005

The ways gay marriage undercuts human rights

By Tim Leslie -- Special To The Bee
Published 2:15 am PDT Sunday, August 7, 2005

Although gay marriage proponents saw their AB 19 decisively voted down this summer in California's Assembly, they have used a rule-bending shortcut to advance their bill to the Senate anyway as AB 849. While technically legal, the maneuver flouts the legislative process. More significantly, it highlights a central tenet of the effort to redefine marriage: Discard any rule, authority or standard that does not give gay marriage proponents what they want.

Those advocating gay marriage often do so with good intentions, believing they are championing human rights. Unfortunately, their efforts push in the opposite direction. By discarding the foundations of human rights, gay marriage proponents ultimately work against those rights.

In California, redefining marriage requires tossing the vote of the people. Sixty percent of Californians voted in 2000 to protect marriage through Proposition 22. Legislators may pretend Proposition 22 meant something else, but to an honest observer the drive toward gay marriage shows disdain for the people's authority.

Likewise, gay marriage proponents must discard Judaism, Christianity and every other major religion's teaching on the topic. No doubt, some clerics willingly twist the clear teaching of their faiths. But as the vast majority of religious leaders confirm, redefining marriage would set aside millenniums of clear moral instruction.

Redefining marriage also demands dispensing with virtually every culture's historic standard of marriage. Certainly, history has seen aberrations of marriage. But the overwhelming consensus always has been toward marriage as a lifelong relationship between a man and a woman, one capable of producing and nurturing children.

In addition, redefining marriage means overlooking the vital complementary qualities of male and female in anatomy, psychology and childrearing. Of course, traditional marriages often fall short of what they should be. But even a simple understanding of sexual anatomy or the importance of both fathers and mothers for children demonstrates how gay marriage discards the beauty of human design.

Finally, redefining marriage requires ignoring the law written on every human's conscience. Many would disagree, of course, and I respect their right to do so. But regardless of how Hollywood and others try to reshape our moral values, gay marriage discounts what we know to be right in our heart of hearts.

As in all of life, discarding fundamental principles carries consequences. In dialoguing with gay marriage proponents I often ask, "After allowing gay marriage, on what basis would you draw the line against polygamy between consenting adults?" I have yet to hear a real answer. There simply isn't one.

Some gay marriage proponents understand this. Homosexual activist and writer Michelangelo Signorile describes the goal in the December-January 1994 Out Magazine as "to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution that as it now stands keeps us down."

Yet here is a disastrous catch for those who imagine they advance human rights by redefining marriage: What standards remain once you've discarded democratic rule, transcendent truths, historic cultural standards, human design and even honesty with one's own conscience? The only authority remaining rests on the whims of those in power.

Today in California, gay-friendly judges and legislators hold that power, and their whims could usher in a brave new world. But as the 20th century bears terrible witness, the whims of the powerful are no safeguard for human rights. If nothing stands higher than power - standards that judge its exercise and set its boundaries - we live in a world where might makes right. That is a dangerous realm to inhabit, especially for groups that have known oppression.

Opponents of gay marriage must unswervingly protect the human rights of all people, regardless of their lifestyle choices. For the sake of these rights, we must also stand firm in defending the bedrock standards that serve as their foundation.

About the writer:
Assemblyman Tim Leslie, R-Tahoe City, can be reached at assemblymember.leslie@assembly.ca.gov

4 Comments:

At 7:23 AM, Blogger Walter Hensley said...

Mr. Leslie,

With all due respect, all that you have done here is to justify a series of predjudices using "tradition" as a code word for unquestioned assumptions or ignorance.

The intent of the Consitution's First Amendment is to protect minority rights against the tyrany of the majority. Granting rights to a minority never infringes on the rights of the majority. It could more easily be argued that granting those rights to minorities increases freedom for all.

What you seem to be advocating is the "freedom" to replace American democracy with a "Constantinian Christian" version of sharia. For those who don't know, "sharia is the totality of religious, political, social, domestic and private life."

That, sir, is un-American. I hope your voters take note.

 
At 4:44 PM, Blogger Tom Platner said...

Rep. Leslie,

Thank you for your common sense, practical interpretation of homosexual marriage and its proponents.

The plain fact they choose to ignore is that Prop. 22 cannot be overturned by the legislature. It can only be overturned by by a vote of the people and these homosexuals know they will never succeed if the people of California vote on this issue.

Amazing how the homosexuals cry discrimination against their rights yet do the same when it comes to my religious rights.

 
At 4:47 PM, Blogger Tom Platner said...

Rep. Leslie,
Thank you for your common sense, practical interpretation of homosexual marriage and its proponents.

The plain fact they choose to ignore is that Prop. 22 cannot be overturned by the legislature. It can only be overturned by by a vote of the people and these homosexuals know they will never succeed if the people of California vote on this issue.

Amazing how the homosexuals cry discrimination against their rights yet do the same when it comes to my religious rights.

 
At 11:13 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

Mr Hensley,

Gays are not a minority, unless guys that like Icecream are a minority.

People are classified as male or female. Gay Guys are still guys and regardless of whether guys that like Ice Cream, or Guys that like Blondes, or Guys that like Guys, they can marry the same qualified female that any other male with likes can.

Just because some Males have peculiar tastes does not mean he is a minority.

Group Rights are not specified in any Constitution. Only individual rights and the last time I checked Gays are a group that has peculiar tastes and as such are not being descriminated against unless saying that they can marry anyone they wish is what every male should be able to do.

I can't marry my neighbors wife. I cannot marry my mother, I cannot mary a 12 year old. No male can, regardless of his personal likes or dislikes. He is still a male just like I am a male except for his pequilar tastes in sex.


FAR.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home