Saturday, November 15, 2008

Gay rights and fairness

Earlier today, I was just watching an interview on CNN with a senior lawyer from Lambda Legal, a gay rights activist group. The Lambda lawyer was arguing that gay marriage is a constitutional civil rights issue because if one group can be treated unfairly, all groups can be treated unfairly.

Treated unfairly? Is that now the standard for what is constitutional?

Is it fair that the NBA can discriminate against "vertically challenged" people? Is it fair that the NFL can discriminate against slow people when they choose running backs, or against small people when they choose linemen?

Is it fair that most women are not big or fast enough to play in the NFL? After all, people can't help it if they are too short, or too small. It is a genetic thing!

That fact is that life is not fair, and we do not have a constitutional right to "fairness."

But the Constitution is fair in that gay people have exactly the same rights as everyone else. The Constitution simply does not give anyone the right to marry someone of the same sex.

The fact that some people are not attracted to people of the opposite sex is unfortunate and sad but this fact does not change the Constitution.

Suppose, however, that the country decides that same-sex marriage is a constitutional civil rights issue after all (i.e. after failing to see this for over 200 years!), and that people should be allowed to marry others of the same sex just because they are attracted to each other.

What about people who are attracted to their sisters or brothers? If the Constitution protects the rights of everyone else to get married, why not brothers and sisters?

Or what about a mother and her daughter? If the Constitution protects the rights of everyone else to get married, why not mothers and dauthers?

What about those who are attracted to multiple partners? Does the Constitution protect their right to get married? (Some people are already arguing for polygamy).

And what what about perverts who are attracted to children? Should they be allowed to marry children? Is that a Constitutional civil rights issue also?

You might think these are absurd examples, but it makes little difference what you think is absurd. When same-sex marriage is considered a constitutionally protected civil right, it will be impossible to consistently argue against all these other "alternative lifestyles." And if you think no one in America wants these "rights" you are deluding yourself.

But so what? Who cares as long as no one gets hurt? No one except children raised in all these experimental arrangements, that is.

2 comments:

Kevin said...

Well written post.

professor ed said...

Yes, I agree with Kevin, definitely a well written post. However you left out one category: would this new interpretation of the constitution allow a citizen to marry his/her dog, cat, pig, cow, etc.?