1 post tagged “lds”

Yesterday, the CA Supreme Court overturned a law attempting to define marriage as between a man and a woman.  I feel dismayed by this ruling.  Homosexuals around the country are unsurprisingly overjoyed by this.  I do not doubt their sincerity and that most are good, decent people, but I completely disagree with the Court. Here are a few of my thoughts on the matter, explaining my perspective:

First of all, let me express my underlying beliefs on homosexuality.  I believe that homosexual behavior is immoral, among many other immoral things in this world.  Many homosexuals claim that their feelings are inborn and irresistible.  As far as the innateness of their homosexuality, who am I to contradict what they say they feel.  However, I believe that everyone is born with tendencies to commit immoral acts. Some are predisposed to indulge in pornography or to have extra-marital (due to strong yet uncontrolled sexual feelings), to drink, to steal, to lie, to lose control of their anger and abuse children, to be stupid, etc., but that does not mean that they have to be that way.  They only choose to be that way, either explicitly or by default (by doing nothing).

However, despite my beliefs about what is moral, they would not provide a good reason to disagree with the Court.  We live in a pluralistic society where people have equal rights to believe what they want about morality.

Now, my reasons for disagreeing with the Court's decision:

--4 judges (the decision was a 4-3 split) should not be the ones responsible to begin the process of restructuring the basic structure of society.  That is not their job, especially considering that the people of California overwhelming support marriage being defined as between a man and woman.  Some may say that the judges are only judging what is constitutional.  The problem is that in this case it is not cut-and-dry about what the California Constitution or US Constitution would demand.  The evidence is the other 3 judges who disagreed.  All of them were probably strongly influenced, consciously or not, by their opinions on the matter.  Those perspectives surely aided them in finding the legal bases for their decision.  Again, this is too important of a decision to let it be decided by so few people.

--the effect of allowing gay marriage is the alienation of moral judgment from the issue of marriage.  That is, in arguing for gay marriage, you inevitably state that it is irrelevant to marriage if some people find homosexuality morally repugnant.  You also argue that two adults have equal rights to marry, regardless of how they choose to live.  The problem with that is you cannot possibly ban polygamy anymore.  Why should marriage be between two people?  Just because you don't like it does not matter.  What about an incestuous relationship between a father and his adult daughter?  What if she were sterilized so that the potential of genetically deformed children is not there?  Can we block that just because we don't like it?  In reality, no you can't.  The legal repercussions of allowing gay marriage are many.

--as a matter of practicability, there is a greater potential for abuse.  Unlike the issue of race, legally speaking you are gay, because and only because you say so.  There is no independent, legally acceptable, method for determining if someone really is gay. What is to stop two male heterosexual friends from getting married just to gain tax benefits or some other advantages?  Nothing.  My critics will say that that potential abuse exists with traditional marriage.  Of course it does, but I think there are more cultural constraints on this when it is between a man and woman.

Well, that is all for today.  I will probably finish off my reasons next week.  I apologize for the length of this post, but I had a lot of thoughts.