Printer-Friendly Version

Gay Rights--Separate But Equal?
By Lisa Fabrizio
March 4, 2004

First Rosie O. and then the Village people of New Paltz, New York. It seems that an early spring has turned quite a few young men's (and women's) fancies to thoughts of love--and marriage to each other.

The timing of this abrupt rush toward gay connubial bliss is disconcerting to many on the left who do not want a discussion of this issue taking place during an election year but, like the groom at a shotgun wedding, they have little choice. They fear that most Americans are against same-sex marriage and that the nightly parade of blushing bridegrooms (groombrides?) across America's TV screens will doom them come November.

We know that the majority of Californians are against it as in March 2000 two-thirds of them passed Proposition 22 defining marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome, gallantly assuming the roles of all three branches of government, has declared that law unconstitutional and thus begat the purple conga-line at his own personal Chapel of Love.

The toothsome Newsome and his fellow "civil disobeyers" have concluded that gays have somehow been denied their unalienable rights guaranteed by the "equal protection" clauses in the state and federal constitutions. More darkly, they've invoked the sacred scripture of the Declaration of Independence in support of their claims.

That sublime document does indeed state that all men (as in mankind) are created equal and from this premise do all state and federal "equal protection" claims spring, and until reliable scientific evidence proves otherwise, this includes homosexuals.

Many seek to include gay rights under the umbrella of the civil rights movement. This is patently ridiculous and insulting, as American black slaves were denied their rights as a result of the behavior of the states that condoned that abhorrent practice, which is to say through none of their own. Gays claim that they are being denied their equal rights but base their special status on their own sexual behavior. How then does this square with their claims of equal protection?

Regardless of their gender, race or religion, gays have and deserve the same rights as any other Americans. What they do not and must not have is the right to break the law. They may marry as they choose under the laws of the land. But, just as they may not marry within their gender, I may not marry within my family (although that would solve those awkward in-law problems).

The U.S. Constitution mentions only race, color, "previous condition of servitude", sex (as in gender) and age (18) as conditions on which the right to vote cannot be denied and states that all who are born and naturalized here are citizens. Nowhere else does it specify the definition of a citizen other than to guarantee the right to the free exercise of religion for those who wish to practice it.

The California Constitution narrows the right to freedom of religion in Article I, Section 4, adding, "This liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State." Polygamy as practiced by early Utah Mormons was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 19th Century along those lines as being odious and harmful to society. If the rights of religious practitioners--specifically protected by the Bill of Rights--must be held subservient to the law of the land, by what manner of reason can gays demand an exemption to those laws?

As of now, 38 states have passed laws to protect traditional marriage and some are considering civil union proposals to accommodate a practice which was, rightly or wrongly, illegal some short years ago. Suffice to say that gay "lifestyle choices" have been tolerated and even promoted (especially in the public school system) as to be in the mainstream of American life--as is evidenced by the decriminalization of sodomy and the glut of gay programming on TV and elsewhere.

Today thousands of companies (including the Big Three auto makers, Fedex, Microsoft, GE and IBM) and many government entities offer benefits to same-sex couples and gays may acquire others through legal partnerships. Apparently these are insufficient to gay rights activists who demand nothing short of full acceptance of their sexual mores and seek to accomplish this by co-opting traditional marriage.

Thanks to other doings in California regarding the place of God in our society, these matters will carry weight with many voters. Should these two issues collide in the minds of those voters, the Preamble of that state's constitution might be a useful guide: "We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution."

--------------

Lisa Fabrizio is a freelance writer whose work has appeared in World Net Daily, Toogood Reports and Washington Dispatch and lives in Stamford, CT. She can be contacted at mailbox@lisafab.com

--------------------

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.