The World According to Tiff Sniff

Meandering ponderings and wonderings on the state of things.


A rewrite of part of the U.S. Supreme Court opinion from Loving v. Virginia, changing only any word currently referring to race to a word referring to sexual orientation:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the sexual classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious sexual discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of the same sex resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious sexual discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia (California/Florida) prohibits only homosexual marriages involving gay persons demonstrates that the sexual classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain Heterosexual Supremacy.

And no, I don't think "protecting the sanctity of marriage" qualifies as a legitimate overriding purpose.  There are far more important actions we can, and should, be doing to protect marriage, beginning with starting with our own marriages within in the church.

And I do see a great irony in the actions of the people of the state of California in this: for example, Ellen DeGeneres married her girlfriend Portia DiRossi in a lavish ceremony.  At the time, it was legal and sanctioned by the state.  Now that legality has been taken away, and guess what's left - the memory and the fact of the lavish ceremony.  In other words, the "sanctifying" part of the marriage.  So yes, homosexuals (for the time) can't legally marry in California, but they can still choose to commit to each other in a purely spiritual and emotional way.  And isn't that what really gets the pro-hetero-marriage crowd all in a tizzy?  

1 Responses to “Rewrite”

  1. # Blogger Brian Littlefield

    well, no. people will do what people will do. but providing a government-sponsored legitimacy mandates recognition (under protest or otherwise) of such a union as a valid entity. Christians (and, I would argue, Darwinists, believe it or not, but for different reasons) must believe that homosexuality is an aberration - a sin - because it violates so many principles and statements in God's word that it cannot be seen any other way by someone who believes God. To force Christians to recognize it as a valid institution is to actually deprive them of one of the basic foundations of their faith - to believe and act upon the idea that some things are cut-and-dried "wrong". Don't fool yourself for a minute that the "separation of church and state" only applies unidirectionally. The original intent of the first amendment was to keep the government out of church affairs, and not vice versa. And the government should not make laws which prohibit the free exercise of Christian religion, including the right to believe and express publicly that something is wrong. Just imagine what would have happened if the colonists had been unable to speak out against the King and his insane decrees against them. Oh, wait, they were.....and revolution followed.  

Post a Comment

© 2006 The World According to Tiff Sniff | Blogger Templates by GeckoandFly.
No part of the content or the blog may be reproduced without prior written permission.
Learn how to make money online | First Aid and Health Information at Medical Health