Carpenters In The Forehead/ A Time For Celebration of Human Rights

“Your old road is        
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.”  (B. Dylan)

Listen to the admonition of the 14^th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

“…..nor shall any State……deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

To ANY person:  in other words, neither California nor any of the fifty States is permitted to enact legislation that discriminates against its citizens.  It makes no difference whether you have black, white, or brown skin color, whether you are male or  female, whether you are heterosexual or homosexual.  You can’t pass laws or amend  State constitutions when it results in the discrimination against groups of people, even if the voters have approved such a measure.   You may not have any desire to be inclusive, but the U.S. Constitution will keep you in line and give the same rights and protections to all.

Thus it is with great pleasure that I cheer the decision handed down by a federal judge in California that throws out the attempt of that State’s citizens to deprive a segment of the population from equal protection of the laws.  What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and as of two days ago, what’s good for heterosexuals in regard to the laws of marriage is now also good for homosexuals.

To those who are so hell-bent on preventing gays from being able to marry and to have the same rights as heterosexuals, your logic defies any sensible reasoning.

Robert George, chairman of an anti-gay marriage group, was quoted in the Washington Post as stating, "Under our Constitution, the definition and meaning of marriage is a decision left in the hands of the people, not given to that small fraction of the population who happen to be judges,”

Please, Mr. George, direct me to that part of the Constitution that gives people the legal right to define marriage, and moreover, the right to define marriage in a discriminatory fashion.  I have patiently searched through my copy of the Constitution, and I just can’t seem to find the part to which you refer.  Might it be that it doesn’t exist?

And to carry the anti-gay marriage logic to the heights of absurdity, we have the court lawyer representing Proposition 8 (the amendment to California’s constitution that bars gay-marriage) making the rather outlandish statement that preventing gay marriage is “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the human race.”   According to his view of marriage, the reason for its existence as a social construct is for the act of procreating, for providing the basis of a long-lasting committment, and for raising children in a two-parent family.

So what happens if you are heterosexual and want to get married, but you are steadfastly resolute on not having any children?  Should you be allowed to be married?  What if you are in a miserable marriage and want to get divorced, leaving the children in a one-parent household?  Should couples be barred from getting divorced?  The answers to these are very obvious when we have such a dire situation of impending Armageddon if gays are given the privilege of walking down the aisle together.

If a majority of the citizens of a State decide that a marriage between different races doesn’t fit in with their definition of a healthy, legitimate marriage, what is to prevent an amendment to their State constitution prohibiting marriage between a mixed-race couple?    If you can ban gay marriages, why can’t you likewise discriminate against interracial marriages?

Does anyone really believe the prediction that the end of the human race will come about if gay marriage is legalized?  It is truly ridiculous to think that heterosexual couples will stop having children and humans will cease to exist just because gays are allowed to wed.  I guess the thought of having people of the same sex get married is enough to put heterosexual couples right over the edge and end any thought of having a child.

Are these opponents of gay marriage actually this goofy, or are they simply demagogues?  Methinks the answer is obvious.

Many claims have been mustered against gay marriage, with the explanation that such a ban is crucial to the public interest. Proving this in a trial court, however, was an entirely different matter.  While those who would deny equal rights to gays have insisted that it would destroy the traditional institution of marriage, there is absolutely no evidence to support this contention.  At the trial, evidence from innumerable studies over the years was introduced which clearly demonstrated  that gays are just as capable of long-term, devoted relationships as are heterosexuals.  In addition, there has been no effect on the number of different-sex couples who marry and have kids.  And the kids of marriages, both gay and homosexual alike, have been shown to do just fine when there is a loving environment.

There are those who cry foul and insist that the judicial system is being “activist” and should not try to undo what was voted for by a majority of the people of California.  But this is precisely the type of situation that calls for intervention in protecting the rights of minority groups against the tyranny of the majority.  No matter what the percentage of people voting for Propostition 8, it still amounted to a denial of rights for gays, and the U.S. Constitution will not acquiesce to a denial of due process or inequality in protection of the laws.

Lastly, some commentators have tried to make an issue of the sexual orientation of the federal judge who penned this momentous ruling.  There has been some emphasis put on the fact that he is gay, as if this should be de facto evidence of a biased decision.  Gay or straight, the sexual orientation of the judge has no bearing whatsoever on the facts of the case before his bench or on any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution.

If someone feels that Judge Walker should have recused himself from hearing this case, the same logic would maintain that when his case is appealed before the U.S. Supreme Court, as it surely will be, the five devout Roman Catholic justices should likewise refrain from passing any constitutional judgment.  How can they be expected to be impartial when the leaders of their faith have insisted that gay marriage is immoral?

So count me in as being very gratified that our United States Constitution once again comes through on the side of decency, fairness, and support for the human rights of all our citizens……..in other words, a social contract written as a secular document for each and every one of us.  Inclusiveness is at the heart of our civil society and in the body of our nation's laws.

It would do well for those who would use their religion as a basis for discrimination to listen, as Bob Dylan crooned in his raspy voice so long ago:

“Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.”