Denver Post’s erroneous support of gay marriage
Shortly after President Obama’s public endorsement of homosexual marriage, the Denver Post praised Obama in an opinion article. Although not a full defense of homosexual marriage, the Post offered a two-fold rationale for such an ignoble endorsement: it is the same as inter-racial marriage and it is a fundamental right.
As for the first point, the article noted, “we could easily see the high court, if it finally gets a gay marriage case, substituting sexual orientation for race in making the same argument to nullify statewide statutory bans and state constitutional amendments.”
A simple thought experiment demonstrates the glaring weakness in such thinking. Consider the fact that pedophilia is already being promoted as something less than wicked sexual deviance by psychiatrists and health professionals (by the B4U-ACT group in particular).
Could not the American Psychiatric Association change their mind on this issue as they did with homosexuality? There is nothing inherent in the ever-changing world of social sciences, psychology and the like to prevent such a radical reversal. Earl teens need to learn about the variety of sexual experience, why not give them the experience before they settle into one position?
Thus, with the same reasoning, pedophilic marriage could be a “right”. Why cannot a thirteen-year old obtain marriage? Or one could substitute multiple partners and the like.
The editorial also claimed, “gay marriage is different. This is a fundamental right to equality that should not be contingent upon how it polls.”
No proof is offered to defend this assertion. Why should anyone take their word that “this is a fundamental right to equality”? Taken at face value, this reasoning can justify any and all immoral activities.
Furthermore, in such a multi-cultural society, a “fundamental right” is not a given. Why is this a right and not marriage of children? What is the ground of this right? How does one discover it? Do rights ever change? In an evolutionary scheme, for instance, in another generation such a right might become a requirement for all or no longer a right.
The deeper issue of the justification of rights has never been fully dealt with in the public arena. Such justification was a given in the Declaration of Independence (Nature’s God, Creator, and Supreme Judge). This is no longer a given. There is nothing other than legal tradition anchoring any legal rights today. And laws by fiat that favor liberals can one day favor conservatives.
At the end of the day, this defense for homosexual marriage is a paper tiger. It always sounds good in the court of public appeal to shout “rights” but it is not good to continue to shout and never settle down into a substantive debate.