Wednesday, May 16, 2012


“My question is where does this stop?”

Marriage Laws
Kansas is the latest front in the culture wars. As of late, the left has decided that people really do like their positions on abortion, homosexuality, and so on, and have been pushing their social agenda pretty hard in an election year. As a Democratic Party strategist said on Tameron Hall's MSNBC show President Bush in 2004 talked about "gay marriage, gay marriage all day long," so turn about is fair play. Clearly the man is historically challenged, but that's their strategy right now and they think its a winner.

In Hutchison City Kansas, they passed an anti-discrimination ordinance which covered sexual preference and included churches:
However, the measure was scaled back in an effort to win enough votes for passage. The revisions to the ordinance will only prohibit firings or evictions based on their sexual orientation, while a provision was cut that also would have guaranteed access to public places, such as churches.

As it stands, churches that don't make their facilities available to the public would not be affected by the new measures, and it would not cover same-sex marriages, which are illegal in Kansas.
“Same-sex marriage is banned in the Kansas Constitution, so let’s clear that up right away,” [Thomas Witt, executive director of the Kansas Equality Coalition] said. “You’re not going to see gay marriage in the anti-gay churches of Hutchinson, it’s a ludicrous notion. People are not bothering to educate themselves on what the law actually says or are outright lying.”
Now, aside from the anti-war Democratic Party voting Westboro Baptist Church I don't know of a single church in America that would bar its doors to someone based on their sin. That's sort of what churches exist for: to accept sinners through its doors, otherwise it would be empty. However, there are parts of this report which are not exactly factual.

It is true that Kansas is one of the 32 states which by a large margin voted to ban homosexual "marriage" so they are not legally recognized anywhere in the state. However, this ordinance would cover these events were they legal. The ordinance says nothing about the constitutional amendment or Kansas law one way or another. So it is false to claim the ordinance would not require churches to perform homosexual "marriages."

In truth, it actually would do so, were the constitutional amendment not in place. And once the Defense of Marriage Act is removed from federal law, then the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution will almost certainly be used to force other states to recognize homosexual "marriages," and it is almost inevitable that a supreme court case will declare all constitutional amendments to ban these events will be declared null and void, because they violate the constitution.

In which case, the ordinance will require churches to recognize and perform these ceremonies. The alternative scenario of course is that civil unions are created and nationally mandated, then the governments will start only recognizing these unions, making church-based weddings a ceremony with no official recognition or benefit.

Of course, the nation could come to its senses before then and stop all this. At Volokh Conspiracy, Jonathan Adler asked a good question: If same-sex marriage is so popular, why does it lose at the polls? As I noted above, 32 states now have passed amendments to their constitution or laws which define marriage as being one man, one woman. They did so by large margins; even the state of California, one of the most leftist in the union, passed a constitutional amendment of this kind.

Yet if you ask a poll about it, why it seems like everyone is fine with homosexual "marriage!" So why the discrepancy? The truth is, it is estimated that President Obama's "I like gay marriage" statement gave him a bump in likely voters by 13%, but a loss of 26% - double his gain. So there's some evidence that despite the young hip internet crowd's overwhelming support on this topic (and spite toward anyone who even questions it), America as a whole isn't particularly for it.

The thing is, many times in the past I've seen or heard people ask "how could we have gotten here??" on various topics. How did the government get so big. Why does it take a $300 license to be an interior designer? How did it become okay for kids to dress like prostitutes?

And the answer is always "like a frog in a pot of water." Little by little, small things were allowed, because they weren't worth fighting over, they were too small, they were passed by because you'd seem like an entrenched curmudgeon for opposing them. Small bills, little ordinances, shifts in society and culture, the little things that add up slowly until they turn into a mountain. It doesn't happen over night. It happens in little ways like this.

No comments: