The Connecticut Supreme Court today held that a state statute defining marriage as "the union of one man and one woman" violated the equal protection provisions of the state constitution.
The court observes that "[m]uch of the condemnation of homosexuality derives from firmly held religious beliefs and moral convictions." To the extent the word "homosexuality" refers to homosexual conduct, the court's observation is undoubtedly correct. The court claims not to "equate religious beliefs with prejudice," but its rhetoric belies this assertion:
- "the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians"
- "a group that historically has been the object of scorn, intolerance, ridicule or worse"
- referring to the "illegitimate reasons that gave rise to the past discrimination"
- "Gay persons have been subjected to and stigmatized by a long history of purposeful and invidious discrimination that continues to manifest itself in society"
- "gay persons have been subjected to such severe and sustained discrimination because of our culture’s long-standing intolerance of intimate homosexual conduct"
The Connecticut Supreme Court plainly has nothing but disgust for traditional sexual ethics, even those rooted in religious commitment. Such rhetoric hardly bodes well for theologically orthodox religious groups who seek constitutional protection from the growing movement to marginalize and punish them.
2 comments:
Greg Baylor stated:
Such rhetoric hardly bodes well for theologically orthodox religious groups who seek constitutional protection from the growing movement to marginalize and punish them.
Mike Heath replies:
Your point reminds me of the complaint of slaveholders complaining about their loss of property rights when the government began to protect some of the rights of black people equal to those of white people.
Do you really believe you possess superior rights justifying the continued deprivation of equal rights and protections for gay people?
Mike Heath apparently desires to equate slaveholders with orthodox religious groups who seek constitutional protection from the ever-increasing uses of government power to marginalize and punish them.
I suspect that most readers realize that this is merely a cheap rhetorical device rather than a real argument.
Nonetheless, to the extent Mr. Heath is actually trying to make a real point, he fails. The premise of his comparison and of his question was that the state of Connecticut was depriving same-sex couples "equal rights and protections." This premise is false. Connecticut conferred upon same-sex couples every benefit it conferred on marriage; it merely declined to use the word "marriage" to describe those relationships. The plaintiffs in the litigation found this affront too much to bear.
The "gay rights movement" is mostly about securing cultural *approval* of same-sex conduct. It is quite willing to use the coercive power of the government to punish those who withhold their approval. This illegitimate use of state power is a far cry from securing "equal rights and protections."
Post a Comment