OpEdNews Op Eds

Gays, God, and Government: Self-righteousness in the State Capitols

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Become a Fan
  (48 fans)
 by Walter Brasch 

            The mantra of almost all conservatives—it makes no difference what political party they belong to—is to keep government out of their lives. But, they don’t mind government interference when it plays to their biases and bigotry.

 

            For example, it’s perfectly acceptable for the government to enter one’s bedroom if the purpose is to ban homosexual activity and—horrors!—gay marriage. In Pennsylvania, political conservatives and religious fundamentalists thought the existing state law against same-sex marriage was vulnerable to a constitutional challenge, and wanted something more permanent—a constitutional amendment to “preserve” the sanctity of marriage.

 

            Having heard the call—and an opportunity to score with his constituents— State Sen. John Gordner unleashed his horse and charged into battle, thrusting his sword of righteousness into every hole that could allow for same-sex marriage. The proposed amendment sailed through the judiciary and appropriations committees, of which Gordner is a member, and onto the Senate floor where the Republican-dominated Senate was expected to pass it and forever preserve what they believe is the sanctity of marriage.

 

            “We do not want to take away any existing rights that gay and lesbian partners have,” said the senator from Pennsylvania’s rural northeast. Nonsense, said Sen. Vincent Fumo of Philadelphia. “When you enter this language into the Constitution, you’re begging to overthrow Devlin and everything else,” said Fumo. Devlin v. Philadelphia assured that same-sex rights were permissible as long as there was nothing to create a “functional equivalent of marriage.” A constitutional amendment could eliminate all benefits, Fumo pointed out. With tongue-in-cheek reasoning, Fumo thrust home his concern by suggesting an amendment to the proposed amendment. If same-sex marriage destroys the institution of marriage, why not ban all divorce, he suggested.

 

            As a windstorm of protests emerged, the senators ran for the shelter of political expediency. Since the state’s House of Representatives probably wouldn’t waste its time on such an outrageous display of public pandering, the Senate tabled the bill and blamed the House. This is the political “two-step.” The senators could continue to spout moral and religious bigotry while blaming some else for the problem.

 

            A week after the Pennsylvania Senate’s blunderbusses blew up in their face, California became the second state, after Massachusetts, to throw out a state law against same-sex marriage. California’s law was passed in 2000 by 61 percent of the voters.

 

            In an overview of the issue, Chief Justice Ronald M. George, a Republican, noted, “[An] individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation.” In his majority opinion, George cited a 1948 California case that overturned a law that banned interracial marriage. “An individual's sexual orientation—like a person’s race or gender— does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights,” he wrote.

 

            This is not an activist/liberal court that conservatives so frequently blame for what they see as all of the nation’s problems. “The decision was a bold surprise from a moderately conservative, Republican-dominated court that legal scholars have long dubbed ‘cautious,’” noted the Los Angeles Times.

 

            The religious right and conservative movements aren’t bending over and taking their defeats. They’re gathering signatures to place onto the November ballot a constitutional amendment to forbid same-sex marriage. That amendment would be more powerful than any state law. Ironically, such a constitutional amendment may be unconstitutional.

             Twenty-six states have laws that ban same-sex marriage, and Florida already has a proposed constitutional amendment ready for the November election. For conservatives, apparently, there isn’t enough governmental intrusion when it comes to continuing bigotry.              [Walter Brasch is professor of journalism at Bloomsburg University and president of the Pennsylvania Press Club. His latest book is Sinking the Ship of State: The Presidency of George W. Bush, available through amazon.com. You may contact Brasch at brasch@bloomu.edu or through his website at: www.walterbrasch.com.]   

 

www.walterbrasch.com

Walter Brasch is an award-winning journalist and professor of journalism emeritus. His current books are Before the First Snow: Stories from the Revolution , America's Unpatriotic Acts: The Federal Government's Violation of Constitutional (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Twelve Angry White People: Jury Nullification in a Pennsylvania Coal Town

Baffled, Befuddled, and Bamboozled: Penn State Trustees and NCAA are Sinking

Truckin' to Treason: The Hot Air of Secession

Former OEN Managing Editor Files Lawsuit Against Philly Police, City. Charge: Constitutional Violations in Her Arrest

Keystone XL, Through Transcanada, Uses Eminent Domain to Seize Texan's Land

Rush to Judgment: Talk Radio's 'Truth Detector' Blows a Fuse--Again

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
4 people are discussing this page, with 8 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Considering that new laws, terms, and definitions ... by Losfer on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 at 9:44:52 AM
If the churches want to limit marriages to those b... by Shirley Bianchi on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 at 11:00:59 AM
Then please explain the ones who go back and forth... by Losfer on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 at 11:51:28 AM
The debate is still on.Some gays claim to be born ... by Bob Gormley on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 at 1:05:46 PM
You are a homophobic bigot.Shirley has it right...... by ingiro on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 at 2:21:21 PM
You headling your comment with an insult and use d... by Losfer on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 at 4:10:18 PM
Genetics do not make minorities...majorities do. &... by ingiro on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 at 4:51:21 PM
Please, pray tell, what civil rights that I have a... by Losfer on Thursday, May 22, 2008 at 5:23:10 AM