|Heterosexual Marriage Ban Next?|
|Written by Steve Young|
|Tuesday, 11 November 2008|
Steve Young mulls the future of marriage in California in the shadow of Proposition 8.
November 11, 2008 – Hollywood (SteveYoungOnPolitics / apj.us) – While California gays lick their wounds over ballot measure Proposition 8 passed Tuesday, which amends the California Constitution to define marriage as a heterosexual act, there are some who say this opens the door for what would surely be a controversial court finding.
“It’s both a legal and moral domino,” said SYOP law professor, Dan Webster. “As soon as heterosexual men and women began having heterosexual sex with each other, it should have come as no surprise that one day everyone would think they had a right to sex, including gays. Morally, the family values groups have seen sex as an after-marriage event. Ergo, e pluribus unum, it follows that even those who financially backed Yes On Prop 8 - Mormons, Catholics, Focus on the Family - would agree that those who have sex should only have it under the legal and moral tenets of marriage. Since under the Constitution there is no prohibition of sex, the only way to keep cetain segments of the public - like homosexuals - from getting married in their pursuit of happiness, is to prohibit marriage altogether, including for heterosexuals.”
One group is taking it one step further, planning to place a proposition on the ballot criminalizing marriage. Referencing Article VIII of the Constitution - dropped from the formal document due to space concerns-an attorney for If We Can’t Have It No One Can, a civil rights body that pursues Jeffersonian intent, said that Thomas Jefferson “clearly wanted all people to have the same rights in their pursuit of happiness.”
“To ensure equality from what Jefferson called ‘pissants who want to urinate over everyone else’s freedoms,’ Jefferson had called for Constitutional safeguards,” said IWCHINOC attorney Alex Hamilton, referencing the recently discovered ‘Constitutional Notes To Ben: Articles That I Didn’t Get In Before Going To Press.’”
“Under Article VIII - Aequalitas Nihil Prorsus (Absence Equality, Nothing At All), Jefferson wrote to Ben Franklin: “There will be those pissants who will want to urinate over everyone else’s freedoms and in that doing will use the very document that decrees freedom. To impede any attempt to do so, those who seek to take away the rights of others shall then have those same rights seized from them forthwith.”
“In actuality,” said Webster, “that principle is already secured under The Declaration of Independence - All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator to unalienable rights which include the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson just wanted to place in a deterrent to cover for infringement of freedoms by one group over another under what Jefferson, not known for holding his tongue, called ‘poppycock mumbo jumbo.’”
Focus on the Family head, Dr. James Dobson, believes that denying certain freedoms he deems “inappropriate” is his God-given and Constitutional right.
“Freedom has its limits,” said Dobson. “Not for me but to those I regard as less than me. You can’t yell fire in a movie theater, and you can’t yell homosexual-marriage in a country. Actually you can, but not if I’m running it.”
Webster believes that not a ban on heterosexual marriage could eventually lead to an effort to ban families.
“When you’re dealing with constitutional freedoms, nothing is off the table,” said Hamilton.
Dobson doesn’t see Hamilton’s threats as an impediment to his life-long effort to ensure family values.
“If we need to stop having families to protect family values, then so be it,” said Dobson.
Steve Young is Webmaster of Steve Young on Politics, author of "Great Failures of the Extremely Successful" and his "All the News That's Fit to Spoof" appears on the LA Daily News Op-Ed page every Sunday… to the left of Bill O'Reilly's column… really!
|< Prev||Next >|