So the war is on: “Pa. law banning gay marriage faces 1st court challenge; lawsuit seeks immediate legalization”
What is helpful about this story regarding the ACLU’s lawsuit is that all or most of the economic excuses are obvious falsehoods.
“…the suit says, same-sex couples do not have access to a long list of legal and financial protections as do opposite-sex couples. Those include an inheritance tax exemption for widows; an automatic power of attorney for spouses in health care decisions; damages and legal recourse under workers’ compensation laws for a spouse who dies or is injured in the workplace; assistance programs for same-sex widows and widowers of military personnel and veterans; pension and survivor benefits for widows and widowers of public employees; Family Medical Leave Act provisions; and a spouse’s Social Security retirement benefits.”
While I’m not sure every one of the Federal issues can be solved at the state level, all of the state issues could be sued for without demanding a redefinition of “marriage.” Why not do that? (And why not simply give your “significant other” power of attorney without alleging you are married?). Answer, because none of these things are really the issue. Redefining marriage is an end in itself.
Consider this amazing quotation:
“‘I wanted our relationship to be respected like everybody else’s relationship,’ said Susan Whitewood, 49, who lives in the Pittsburgh suburb of Bridgeville. ‘That was first and foremost the reason for doing this. I wasn’t looking for legal validation.’”
But “legal validation” is all you get from the courts and the government. All this fight will do is make a lot of people who would not have cared much about Whitewood’s lifestyle or love-life choices will now have reason to resent her forcing her way of life on everyone else. And as the religious freedom fights cascade out of any pyrrhic victory she might win, the hostility will only grow.
Naturally, that cause of that hostility is projected onto the people who simply want to continue with the traditional definition of marriage and, in some cases, who don’t think the ACLU has the authority to demand that they spit on the teachings of Jesus. Here, Justice Kennedy’s rhetoric is a fruitful resource:
“The lawsuit was not spurred by the U.S. Supreme Court’s three-week-old decision striking down part of the federal government’s anti-gay marriage law that applies only to legally married same-sex couples seeking benefits from the federal government. But it does quote from the decision, saying that the barrier to marriage denies same-sex couples ‘a dignity and status of immense import.’”
I remember—back when Obama allegedly changed his mind about homosexual marriage, and supported it—hearing radio testimonies from homosexuals. They sounded as if Jesus himself had descended from heaven and blessed them. I have to wonder if these people expect everyone else in the world to hold the edicts of our civil government with the same superstitious awe.
It isn’t going to end that way.