California's Prop 8 Struck Down by Judge

So let me get this straight....when the people vote to add an amendment to their constitution, it becomes part of the constitution and therefore "constitutional", right?

So how can it be that one lone judge, or even a panel of judges, has the authority to declare the people's amendment as "unconstitutional"?  I don't get it.

Thoughts of Government Sanctioned Gay Partners

Listening to a discussion on the radio this afternoon intrigued me and made me realize that I had not yet fully developed my thoughts on gay rights. The issue raised by the host was, “Even if I disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons, what is the problem with ‘civil unions’? The fact the someone is gay does not affect me or anybody else.”

A civil union would be an officially state recognized union, thus providing all the civil benefits typically associated with marriage. Government workers would therefore be able to put their partner on the insurance. It’s possible that private businesses would soon be required to provide the same benefits to gay partners.

So how do you make the argument against civil unions and homosexuality without bringing religious principles into the debate? Well, you can’t really, so even as I attempt to do so, I find it impossible.

When it comes to insurance benefits, I don’t have a problem with insurance companies making their own policies regarding “dependents”. If one of the partners is legally a dependent of the other… then fine…as long as that dependent status applies to all forms of dependent scenarios. For example, let’s say you have two old invalid aunts living together to share the costs of living. And say one of the aunts has a health insurance policy. As long as the second invalid aunt can be put on the policy, then I don’t have a problem with gay partners being on the same insurance policy too. Do insurance companies do this? I doubt it. Again, “dependency” is the key. The dependent partner would also have to be a dependent for tax purposes and all other legal purposes.

As far as ones sexual preference not affecting the rest of society, I do not agree. While the impact is far subtler than say…murder, there is still an impact of homosexuality on society.

First and foremost, gay people cannot reproduce. That has a direct impact on society. I have written before that my litmus test for legislating morality is this… “Does the issue at hand perpetuate a good society?” If it does not, then government should be able to legislate against it. Thus, issues like abortion, homosexuality, and drugs can be legislated against in order to perpetuate a good society. Defining “good” with all the moral relativists out there should be a treat and it brings in that dang religious discussion that everyone tries to avoid!

Side Discussion: My basic rule of thumb about government intervention on any grounds is that the government (defined as ‘rule by force’) should really stay out of everything possible. The basic role of government should be national defense, the punishment of injustice, and the issuance of a uniform currency. So even when I say the government can legislate moral issues, I am walking a very fine and dangerous line. America has long relied on a common sense of “good” that was pretty well unanimous amongst its citizenry for nearly 200 years (Thank you American Heritage class!). Now that common moral sense has been eroded. This erosion is due to the more common justification of evil practices, or in other words, God’s commandments are being ignored.

Another issue related to homosexuality’s affect on society is the evangelization of gayness (I love the religious connotation of the word “evangelization”, especially when ironically used with something so apparently anti-religious). It is in the nature of man to recruit others to believe as they do (just like the purpose of this blog is to make everyone believe exactly like I do). There are great efforts on the part of gay organizations to recruit more people to be gay and to accept homosexual lifestyles. That has an impact on perpetuating a good society.

I argue against gay rights regarding adoption of children using the same principles discussed above. In spite of their qualifications, gay parents are raising a generation that is compelled by its rearing to accept a negative lifestyle.

A look at statistics regarding the longevity of gay relationships would be interesting. It would also be interesting to look at the affects on the children of gay parents who separate. I wonder how it compares to traditional marriage and relationships.

All this being said, people with homosexuals should be treated with dignity and respect as fellow human beings and children of a loving Heavenly Father. I also do not deny that conventional marriages and parenting are also full of negative issues, again mostly due to the erosion of the common sense of “good”. I am just as concerned for societies sake because of the dangers related to co-habitation, divorce, abuse, and so forth.
My final premise is this…Government endorsement should be never be the tool of justification for any form of sin.