McMINNVILLE, Ore. (BP)–While Massachusetts lawmakers were locked in a legislative wrestling match over the issue of gay “marriage,” San Francisco’s top elected official was dealing with the same issue in a very different manner. On Feb. 12, Mayor Gavin Newsom defied California law and ordered city staffers to sanction same-sex “matrimony.”
In defending his unilateral decree, Newsom said, “A little more than a month ago, I took the oath of office here at City Hall and swore to uphold California’s Constitution, which clearly outlaws all forms of discrimination.” He added, “There is no rationale for discrimination against any individuals in California.”
Newsom’s carefully planned ploy will score points with homosexual activists throughout the United States. If he has political aspirations beyond San Francisco, which some say he has, his civil disobedience will result in much-needed financial support by gays from sea to shining sea.
The move by Newsom also will force the debate over same-sex unions into the California court system where it will be settled by judges. Given the fact that polls indicate a majority of Americans are against the idea of homosexual “marriage,” the judiciary is where the proponents of same-sex unions want the issue to be decided, by fiat, thus circumventing the political process and the will of the people.
When asked to vote on the nature of marriage, even liberal-leaning California has rejected homosexual “marriage” as acceptable. In 2000, the Golden State electorate approved a ballot measure that defined marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman.
Beyond the political grandstanding and blatant gay activism, it is worth noting the rhetoric Newsom employed to justify his action. The mayor declared “there is no rationale for discrimination against any individuals in California.” If Newsom’s statement is correct, the least of California’s worries is homosexual “marriage.”
The statement, “no rationale for discrimination against any individual,” opens the door for the legal sanctioning of a variety of behaviors that heretofore have been verboten.
According to the mayor, the origin of homosexuality is irrelevant. Whether it is genetic or simply a matter of choice, Newsom believes the California constitution affords to those who are homosexual the right to marry.
By Newsom’s reasoning, or lack thereof, marriage licenses must be made available to poly-amorous bisexuals who desire to wed. If two men and one woman, or vice versa, want to marry, in the mayor’s world they cannot be denied because there is “no rationale for discrimination” against them.
What about a brother and a sister wanting to wed? California law currently forbids such a relationship. However, Newsom has already established he has no regard for the Golden State’s statutes pertaining to marriage. How can he deny the sanctioning of an incestuous union if there is “no rationale for discrimination?”
Would the mayor of San Francisco issue a marriage license to a person wanting to wed his or her pet? Don’t scoff at the idea; I have in my files a newspaper account of a man from Maine who maintains he is married to his dog. If Newsom believes “there is no rationale for discrimination against any individuals,” then he must allow zoophiles (those who are attracted to animals) to marry their pets.
Newsom’s statement is as foolish as it is arrogant. The American Heritage Dictionary defines discrimination as “the ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.” Moral discrimination is a necessary component for an orderly society. Without it, no behavior can be considered perverse.
Like it or not, America is embroiled in a culture war. Radical secularists like Mayor Newsom refuse to make moral judgments on any behavior. The same arguments they use to advance the cause of homosexuality can — and will — be used to support any and all aberrant behavior.
If they prevail in forcing same-sex “marriage” on the American public, what will be next?