Albert Mohler on Same-Sex Marriage in California
Dr. Mohler responds to a LA Times editorial which noted that same-sex marriages meant "these couples stand together as full citizens at last":
Full citizens at last? These Americans were not full citizens at 5:00 pm on June 16, 2008, but they were a minute later when they were granted legal marriage applications?Mohler's logic is predictably impeccable. Read the whole thing, and be thankful that there will be a ballot initiative in CA this November. Though similar to Proposition 22, the California Defense of Marriage Act, which voters passed into law with a 61% majority in 2000, this 2008 ballot initiative (with a similar majority vote) would amend the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.This leads to other urgent questions. Who else is now being denied full citizenship? Does this mean that others denied access to legal marriage as the recognition of their sexual relationships are being denied status as "full citizens?" Would the editors dare name who these might be?
This editorial is further evidence of a phenomenon that is now standard in many circles -- the assumption that all moral and legal discrimination is wrong. That is a disastrous assumption. Civilization requires discrimination between right and wrong behavior, what is legal and what is criminal, what is celebrated and what is condemned.
Of potential concern, however, there are some reports that support for same-sex marriage in CA has grown in the last 8 years.
Comments
Mohler's article spends a lot of time picking on the LA Times' poor word choice regarding citizenry, which I think is a distraction. His real point is that some kinds of discrimination are necessary - but he only uses traffic safety as an example, and there's something fundamentally different about traffic safety and homosexual marriage.
At the end of the article, Mohler quotes a passage from the LA Times' that appeals to the idea of the rule of law (vs. tyrrany of the majority). When arguing that something is not tyrrany of the majority, it can be a tough case to make. Pointing out that we rightly discriminate against speeders doesn't cut it.
Mohler has almost failed to even try to present an argument for voting for the upcoming proposition - he merely demonstrates that there might exist such an argument. I almost can't blame him, though, it can be a very tough case to make to someone who isn't already planning to vote for it.
Posted by: Erik Haugen | June 20, 2008 10:23 AM