Some months ago the California Supreme Court Ruled the right to love and marry the person of your choice, and have that love returned regardless of their gender was a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT under the California Constitution.
The California Constitution contains an Equal Protection Clause modelled directly on the U.S. Constitutions 14th Amendment. This is the amendment that promises "all persons within the jurisidiction of the states - the Equal Protection of the Law" It was implemented in 1865 following the end of the Civil War and also erased other Constitutional mistakes such as the "3/5th of a person" clause which led to the Dred Scott decision, where the Taney Court Ruled that the (Original) Constitution did not apply to Black people.
In 1896 the Supreme Court decided the re-define the 14th Amendment to allow for "Seperate But Equal" accomodations between the races (starting from a situation involved segregated portions of a train, and a black man who protested being taken out his seat and moved to the "Black section")
The court said this...
..If he be a white man and assigned to a colored coach, he may have his action for damages against the company for being deprived of his so called property. Upon the other hand, if he be a colored man and be so assigned, he has been deprived of no property, since he is not lawfully entitled to the reputation of being a white man.....
A black man wasn't entitled to something a whtie man had - simply because he's not a whtie man.
Last Tuesday California Repeated Plessy and said that Gay people aren't entitled to what Straight People have - the right to love and marry. We've turned the clock back over 100 years. Good job people, way to move "forward."
The 14th doesn't say the only straight people will have equal protection - it say s ALL People.. Gay people are still people right?
Plessy wasn't fixed until Brown V Board of Education - over 50 YEARS LATER.
On the basic issue of what is Right and what is Wrong - Prop 8 was a tragic mistake, and like Plessy it will not stand.
But we have other issues to address in the meanwhile, such as why did this happen? It is hate? Is it Fear? Is it Righteousness?
Many devout people feel that homosexual is nothing more than a "sinful lifestyle choice". They point to Leviticus 18:22
..You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination...
Under Levitcus and "Abomination" is punishable by death. But it doesn't stop there as the West Wing Character President Jed Bartlett pointed out in the very first episode of that series.
..Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. ["When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. ](small chuckles from the guests) She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, and
always clears the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath, Exodus 35:2, clearly says he should be put to death [Six days shall work be done,but on the seventh day you shall have a holy sabbath of solemn rest to the LORD; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death] Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important, 'cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes us unclean, Leviticus 11:7. [And the swine, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you.] If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?..
Leviticus says the a child who talks back to his parents has commited - you guessed it - an ABOMINATION. Should that child be put to death?
But here's the rub - the Bible in John Chapter 8 also says this:
.. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her. 10 Jesus looked up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" 11 She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again." 12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." 13 The Pharisees then said to him, "You are bearing witness to yourself; your testimony is not true." 14 Jesus answered, "Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true, for I know whence I have come and whither I am going, but you do not know whence I come or whither I am going. 15 You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one...
Jesus ministered to the sick and to the criminal. If being a homosexual *Is* a sin and crime, Jesus would have been the first to offer out his hand in friendship.
Where doesn't that leave those who claim to be following along Jesus' path?
Do you condemn or do you forgive? Do we tear people down, or do we build them up?
Here's another point, people who argue that being gay is a "choice" feel that the 14th Amendment shouldn't apply simply because it isn't a racial or gender issue. You can't choose or change your race (unless you're Michael Jackson) so the protections in place for these people under equal protection shouldn't apply to gay people. Besides the fact that the California Supreme Court ruled in exactly the opposite way, the larger point is this -- isn't being a catholic vs being a protestant, or a episcopalian or jewish or muslim or buddhist a choice? Isn't that choice clearly and obviously protected by both the 1st *and* the 14th Amendment? (All Persons Right?)
And how about this, what if it isn't entirely a choice at all?
Last year 60 Minutes did a special investigating the causes of homosexuality and found that science has found that it appears not to be "taught" (so we don't need to worry about what people are telling our children in school - little Johnnie isn't gonna come home in a dress and LIKE IT just because someone "double dog dared him"!!) but it isn't neccesarily genetic either. As of the time of this report, hormonal differences, stemming from varying levels in the womb of the mother seem to be the best source and have been replicated in laboratory settings - even two genetically identical twin brothers were interviewed. One was straight, one was Gay - and it wasn't something he "learned", it was just who he was and had been since birth.
http://60minutes. yahoo. com/segment/68/gay_or_straight
So with that in mind, what the heck did California - and several other states - actually *DO* this past Tuesday?
I think it was a Hate Crime. I think it was a not so subtle form of intimidation and yes - emotional terrorism. But then that's just me- or is it?
Vyan
No comments:
Post a Comment