Monday, February 17, 2014

Outlawing culture

Same-sex marriage madness is gaining momentum. The impeccable moral giants in black robes have their beloved precedent, courtesy of Judge Vaughn Walker, to force public advocacy of perversion. It’s not a matter of if, but when, Justice Anthony Kennedy writes the Supreme Court opinion redefining marriage as between two consenting hedonists. My money is on 2015, but by then it will be a formality, as, but for a handful of bigots, Republicans will have called for a ceasefire in liberals’ war on tradition, so they can focus on the economy and government spending, on which their record is impeccable of late. Just kidding.

In the last 2 months, the redefinitionists have picked off Utah, Oklahoma, Kentucky, and Virginia. Virginia is symbolic because that’s where the landmark case overturning anti-miscegenation laws on equal protection grounds started. Overturning “bans” on same-sex marriage relies on the same equal protection argument. Constitutional law professor Carl Tobias says:

The ruling is groundbreaking for Virginia in some ways like Loving v. Virginia (the case that legalized interracial marriage), but we have a long way to go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Redefinitionists like the professor here rely on a false equivalence of sexual “orientation” and skin pigment. Skin pigment, or race, is a fixed, easily recognizable, biological trait. Sexuality, on the other hand, is fluid, not fixed or easily recognizable, and subject as much to “nurture” as to “nature.” A 1992 National Health and Social Life Survey found 3 out of 4 boys who thought they were gay at 16 years old changed their mind by the time they were 25. Did the definition change, or did their sexual preferences change?

Because of this, gay people are not, in legal jurisprudence, a suspect class; therefore, discrimination in the public interest, such as on the traditional, gendered definition of marriage, is allowed. Case closed.

Foremost, though, skin pigment means nothing at an individual level. Race speaks to who we are “on the outside”—that is, not at all. Sexual orientation speaks to the content of our character, to borrow from homophobe Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. It includes a murky gray area of impulses and attractions, which individuals can and have—for thousands of years—controlled for the benefit of society.

Is this not what culture is, a common mode of civil behavior to which we publicly tame our gravest faults, to get over ourselves? If I’m horny all the time, isn’t that part of my sexual orientation? If so, how are expressions of my horniness not protected in all scenarios by the redefinitionists’ equal protection logic? You can imagine how a country that enables inherently flawed individuals to “be themselves” in the purest sense would quickly descend into anarchy.

Michael Sam is not the first gay NFL player. Jason Collins is not the first gay NBA player. They’re the first ones to express their problematic sexual natures without feeling any obligation to others to hold themselves back.

To show that I’m not picking on gays, I’ll use a heterosexual example. There are straight guys who take yoga class. I know because I used to be one of them. Yoga class is as close as you get to an all-women’s environment without explicitly forbidding men’s participation. Anyway, I did not announce on the first day of class my sexual interest in the women there. Naturally that would have disrupted the class. I respected the people there and I was not so vain as to bend the culture to my personality.

That’s how you gain acceptance as an outsider. Civility goes a long way.

No comments:

Post a Comment