Home › Opinion › Opinion Columnists
Larsen: A matter of law and rights
Same-sex marriage critics seem to prefer tyranny
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS
More from Opinion Columnists
The religious right and its conservative allies cannot have it both ways. They cannot stand righteous on the principles of the U.S. Constitution and then use that document to deny rights to other citizens.
Yet, they gird to do just that because the California Supreme Court, in its ruling that struck down the ban against same-sex marriage, upheld the tradition of justice that has been the hallmark of this nation — protecting the rights of all citizens, even from the tyranny of a misguided majority.
Those who most vehemently object to the idea of allowing same-sex marriages quickly expose not only their extreme prejudices but their lack of knowledge about the Constitution.
The day of the court's ruling, Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Council, told the Los Angeles Times that the court cannot find, after all these years, that the state constitution "magically protects what most societies condemn."
The Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, founder and president the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny, said in a May 16 Christian Newswire press release: "Homosexual activists are relentless in trying to normalize their abnormal lifestyle."
In a May 19 Christian Newswire press release, Walter Hoye, president and founder of the Issues4Life Foundation, said: "The California Supreme Court ruled in favor of same- sex marriages and in so doing turned its back on both the will of the people and clearly biblical teaching."
Two trains of thought run through most criticisms of the ruling — that same-sex relationships are abhorrent and must be condemned, and that the court has thwarted the will of the people.
Nothing much can be done about people using their prejudices and religious beliefs to frame a moral code that is either personal or part of groupthink. People have just as much right to be misguided as they do anything else.
Unfortunately, those of extreme religious beliefs then feel the moral code to which they ascribe cannot be challenged, even as they challenge others' moral codes, because, after all, theirs is based on biblical teaching.
The fallacy here is in believing that morality is an absolute. It has never been and never will be an absolute. One need only look back 200 years when the slave trade was allowed, or back 90 years when women were denied voting rights, or back 42 years when 16 states still outlawed interracial marriage. If no room exists for change, if people cannot see errors in their thinking, then individuals cannot grow, society becomes static and freedom slowly dwindles.
The California Supreme Court took the moral high ground in its ruling on same-sex marriage. It did not, as the critics contend, thwart the will of the people because it is not an absolute, either. The will of the people stops the moment it infringes on the rights of others, just as one man's right of free speech stops at the door of another's house.
Chief Justice Ronald M. George succinctly and eloquently framed what should be the definitive answer on same-sex 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."
Thus, the state Supreme Court also reminded all of a very important consideration: Marriage is a secular legal institution — a contract between two people that allows them certain legal benefits denied those who are not married. That marriage is secular and a legal institution does not infringe on people elevating the idea of marriage to a sacred duty and defining marriage in religious terms. But no matter how sacred some believe marriage to be, a couple still need to obtain permission from the state through a secular license to wed.
But the religious right and its conservative allies want marriage in all its forms to conform to the religious ideals they infuse it with. They will attempt to do this via a constitutional amendment on California's ballot in November that would codify the definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman. The Star reported May 16 that legal experts believe such an amendment, if passed, would trump the high court's ruling.
Enshrining a denial of civil rights in constitutional law would be as much a moral travesty as enshrining in constitutional law a denial of a minister's right to sermonize on what he believes is sin.
The California high court upheld equal justice and civil rights for all. Critics of the ruling come dangerously close to replacing the rule of law with the tyranny of the majority. Citizens should applaud the court and, at every turn, reject tyranny in any form.
— Richard Larsen is a deputy opinion page editor at The Star. His e-mail address is rlarsen@VenturaCountyStar.com.
Posted by cslaurie on May 27, 2008 at 7:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I rather doubt that sodomites were given many rights by the framers of our constitution. Possibly the only right considered was the right to a fair trial - considering their sexual practices were and are a felony in most states ie. sodomy, bestiality and oral copulation.
Posted by laura_54321 on May 27, 2008 at 7:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Great editorial. Thanks.
And, no, cslaurie, "sodomites" were not given rights by the framers. Neither were women, black people, or native Americans. That's the point of the editorial, which you should try to read again.
Posted by Freedom1 on May 27, 2008 at 7:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Great post "cslaurie." Our once cherished "civil rights" has simply become whatever anyone wants and whenever they want it or it's discrimination.
Posted by wallace on May 27, 2008 at 7:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"The fallacy here is in believing that morality is an absolute. ... The California Supreme Court took the moral high ground in its ruling on same-sex marriage."
It's clear, Larsen has no idea what he's talking about in this typically irrational rant.
Homosexuals have always had the same right to marry as every other individual, subject to the exact same set of limitations.
There is no right to have same-sex relationships recognized by the state.
Posted by sdetatae on May 27, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you for your thoughts, Richard. I have heard so many people arguing based on religion & morals. It is nice to see someone else taking a look at how we argue this issue & why the decision was made.
Posted by del on May 27, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The tone of some of the above comments confirms Larson's thoughts on the matter.
Good editorial Mr. Larson.
Posted by Jacksprat on May 27, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good editoral, but might I just add one thing how do we know that they the critic of this rule are the majority? We don't and now if they try to go to the ballet million of dollars will be spent on both side for something that should not be on the ballot.
Posted by vwhunter on May 27, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The secular left practices hypocrisy in greater measure than the right.
Posted by cslaurie on May 27, 2008 at 1:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Laura
Wrong - Larson was speaking of laws being made by interpretation - not constitutional right.
Blacks were chattel at the framing of the constitution - legally they could have no rights. The laws were amended rather forcefully less than 100 years later. As to Indians, they were in a State of War with our Government and were not citizens. Now as to women, the only right denied was the vote - I think I have to agree with the framers based upon your reply.
Posted by amycastillo78 on May 27, 2008 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Have people forgotten that we actually had to amend the U.S. Constitution to correct sexual and racial discrimination? Amending the constitution is a little different from just letting a state court issue an opinion. There's voting, for one thing.
The idea of marriage as being only for couples who don't have the same genitalia is not simply a "religious" idea. If it were, you wouldn't see it enshrined in so many European countries' "secular" laws.
Posted by glutton on May 27, 2008 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In his article of May 27, Larsen states, “the fallacy here is in believing that morality is an absolute. It has never been and never will be an absolute.” Larsen’s problem is he makes moral judgments throughout his article. He attacks religious people and conservatives for being, “misguided,” “part of groupthink,” tyrannical, and extremely prejudiced. If there are no moral absolutes, then from what basis does Larsen make these claims? Why are they wrong while he is right? His diatribe simply equates to writing, “go Dodgers, boo Angels,” since he is making a moral statement and there are no moral absolutes.
Larsen proclaims slavery, suffrage, and interracial marriage are examples of change in American morality. This is odd, since if he simply touts change, then we could return to racism and bondage without being wrong because there are no moral absolutes. On the other hand, if he wants to cite these as examples of moral progress, it is equally strange. If there are no moral absolutes, there can be no evolution, there can only be change. In order for progress to be made, there must be a goal. Without moral virtues, there is no goal to attain to and there is only change, not progress. Larsen also writes, “if people cannot see errors in their thinking,” but if there is no absolute morality, then what counts for errors?
Lastly, Larsen claims, “the will of the people stops the moment it infringes on the rights of others.” This sounds very noble, but even he admits, “just as one man’s freedom of speech stops at the door of another.” What is he trying to point out? Each person has the rights as long as they stay out of other people’s business is great, but we arrest people for animal abuse even if it takes place in the privacy of their own home. The will of the people can raise my taxes and that not only kicks down my front door, but busts open my bank.
It is difficult to understand Mr. Larsen’s (lack of) logic. He claims some people are horrible, while claiming there are no moral absolutes. He desires morals to improve, but since there are no moral absolutes, they cannot. He wants the voters to stay out of each others’ homes, yet there are evils for which he would (I assume) demand people be arrested. I do not know if Mr. Larsen is right or wrong, but neither can he if there are no overarching morals.
Posted by Tom_Johnston on May 27, 2008 at 7:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Morals...are by their nature, subjective.
"Glutton" points out, quite rightly, that some private behaviors are not acceptable, such as animal abuse. Ok, torture of an animal is not acceptable..unless he is a muslim terrorist I suppose...
That cheapshot aside, the behavior of people in same sex marriages can't be equated with an issue such as animal abuse. The acts, and the commitment to each other is consensual.
Current law provides benefits to humans who enter into consensual intimate, domestic relationships. Prohibiting those relationships by virture of racial differences has been struck down.
Now it has been struck down for same-sex relationships...at least for a while.
The whole darn issue is by it's nature emotional.
The Law however is supposed to rise above Emotion, and rule based on, in our case, Rights that are self-evident.
Government approval of marriages is a recent construct, designed to prevent race-mixing, which has since been struck down.
This controverys of this issue IS about emotion...and I don't want to hear about "biblical law", that's hogwash.
The rule of Law was upheld in this recent decision.
Posted by glutton on May 27, 2008 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Government marriage approval was not founded as a preventative for race-mixing.
If it is about emotion and law, should current law allow polygamy? This can certainly be consensual.
Also, if it is about the law, what if the constitution of the state is changed, would you change your opinion?
Posted by caskier on May 28, 2008 at 8:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Glutton, your 5:04 PM post is awesome. Keep up the good work.
Question for everyone to ponder - why does the state need to authorize marriage in the first place? Why not make everyone enter into civil unions - no more marriage by the state? That way, I can get "married" in my church - and if you are a same sex couple you can go get "married" in an Episcopalian church - or not.
Posted by nannyfo1 on May 28, 2008 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The question in this issues is the same that it has always been. Does the state (we the people) have the right to define the terms under which we will issue a marriage license. If not, then anything goes. If so, then I suppose this November we will codify what was already passed with Prop. 22.
Posted by glutton on May 30, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
All I have to say is child abuse, sexual assault, genocide, and terrorism are wonderful threads in the fabric of our world. mmshoot can't tell me I'm wrong or sick or demented either. Since morals are subjective, there is no right or wrong and I can only be disagreed with, I cannot be morally broken.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.