Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Frank Turek :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Preposterous Premise for Gay Marriage
by Frank Turek
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
What was the biggest suprise of Election Day?



            After the passage of Prop 8 in California, homosexuals are still howling that they don’t have “equal rights.”  Hopefully, the California Supreme Court will respect the equal rights of voters by affirming Prop 8 because the howls of homosexuals are false.  The truth is every person in America already has equal marriage rights!

            We’re all playing by the same rules—we all have the same right to marry any non-related adult of the opposite sex. Those rules do not deny anyone “equal protection of the laws” because the qualifications to enter a marriage apply equally to everyone—every adult person has the same right to marry.  

            Homosexuals want the court to believe that because of their sexual desires they are a special class of persons that is being discriminated against. In other words, they think that sexual desires guarantee people special legal rights.

            That’s a preposterous premise!  It would mean that men born with a desire for many women (i.e. most men) are having their rights violated because marriage laws provide no means for polygamy.  Likewise, it would mean that people desiring to marry their close relatives don’t have “equal rights” because our marriage laws have no provision for incest. And bisexuals could object because existing marriage laws don’t allow them to marry a man and a woman! 

            If desires alone guarantee someone special rights, why no special rights for pedophiles and gay bashers?  The answer is obvious—because desires, even if you were “born” with them, do not justify behavior, do not make anyone a special class, and should have no impact on our laws (see Born Gay or a Gay Basher: No Excuse). 

            Laws encourage good behavior or prevent bad behavior. Desires are irrelevant.  We enact all kinds of laws that conflict with people’s desires.  In fact, that’s why we need them!  We wouldn’t need any laws if people always desired to do good, which is why James Madison wrote, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

            So there should be no legal class of “gay” or “straight,” just a legal class called “person.”  And it doesn’t matter whether persons desire sex with the same or opposite sex, or whether they desire sex with children, parents, or farm animals.  What matters is whether the behavior desired is something the law should prohibit, permit or promote. Those are the only three choices we have when it comes to making law. 

            We already permit homosexuals to pledge themselves to one another “till death do them part.” They can privately commit themselves to one another in every state, and in California domestic partnerships give them all the benefits of marriage. But that’s not enough for homosexual activists. They want homosexuality to be promoted and endorsed by getting the government to call it “marriage.” That way they can get the social approval they want and use the law as a club to beat homosexual values into our school children, businesses, and charities. 

            Sorry, but there is no “right” to have any sexual relationship officially called “marriage” and have it granted benefits by the state.  We have government-backed natural marriage because it benefits the country greatly, especially children, and because we voted for it!  Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Frank Turek is the award-winning author or coauthor of three books including Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone and I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. His TV show airs Mondays at 8 pm ET on DirecTV, Channel 378. To learn more visit www.CrossExamined.org.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
GOD'S punishment for homosexuality
GOD destroyed cities for the act of same sex activities. Sodom and Gohmorow(sp) were destroyed and all the people with it. GOD never meant for two same sex individuals to come together as one, in the manner that a husband and wife does. It is each persons choice to choose the sex of their partners, but GOD doesn't smile down on you, any more than He did Adam and Eve for disobeying Him. Still, you are the one who will be held accountable for your actions. You owe no one an explanation, but GOD, and you WILL stand before Him someday. Good luck.

As you said anderson...
"The function of the courts are to interpret law, rule on points of law, not make law according to the whims of social justice majors."

Or more to the point their function is to interpret the CONSTITUTION!! They are not bound by legislative law but ONLY by the Constitution and you know that as well as I do, and there most certainly IS a BIG difference in the two in some cases!

And they did NOT ‘make law’ on the whims of social justice majors as you said above! They made a ruling based on the CONSTITUTION just like they are required to do!! They did not invent a law Anderson! They simply applied the Constitutional law of Equal Protection and applied that to determine the validity of Prop 22! Their finding was that Prop 22 violated the Equal Protection clause so it was overturned.

In the end it does not matter that you don’t agree with it. They did their job and interpreted the Constitution, it is as simple as that.

You disagree with their decision which is your right; it does NOT however change the fact that they did their job to apply Constitutional law to make their ruling.

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.