The following is an excerpt from a post by Pastor Voddie Baucham when Iowa faced the homosexual marriage issue back in '09. I wanted to share the part where he addresses the fallacy that homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue. Click on the title link to read the entire article.
ERROR #1
HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE IS A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE
Right off the bat the Iowa decision jumps on the “Gay is the New Black” bandwagon. They followed the logic of leading homosexual advocates who argue that homosexuality is not only a “Civil Rights” issue; it is morally equivalent to blackness. As a black man, I am insulted by this line of reasoning. As a thinking man, I am amused. However, as an Constitution-loving American, I am frightened when I see it in legal decisions. The Iowa Supreme Court argued:
In the first reported case of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Iowa, In re Ralph, 1 Morris 1 (Iowa 1839), we refused to treat a human being as property to enforce a contract for slavery and held our laws must extend equal protection to persons of all races and conditions. 1 Morris at 9. This decision was seventeen years before the United States Supreme Court infamously decided Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 15 L. Ed. 691 (1856), which upheld the rights of a slave owner to treat a person as property. Similarly, in Clark v. Board of Directors, 24 Iowa 266 (1868), and Coger v. North West. Union Packet Co., 37 Iowa 145 (1873), we struck blows to the concept of segregation long before the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954). Iowa was also the first state in the nation to admit a woman to the practice of law, doing so in 1869. Admission of Women to the Bar, 1 Chicago Law Times 76, 76 (1887). Her admission occurred three years before the United States Supreme Court affirmed the State of Illinois’ decision to deny women admission to the practice of law.
Notice all the references to “Civil Rights” cases. Notice also that their argument begs the question! They do not ‘prove’ that homosexuality is a Civil Rights issue; they assume it. There is no Constitutional Right to sodomy. Moreover, homosexuals are not deprived of their Civil Rights in marriage, because they have the same rights in that regard as every American. That’s right... HOMOSEXUALS HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY! What they don’t have the right to is same-sex marriage. This, however, is not a right, but a definition. Hence, the court addressed the wrong issue. Listen to the emotion and philosophical presupposition in the argument:
It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual.
Incredible! The Supreme Court of Iowa is basing its opinion on what is “unappealing to a gay or lesbian person.” This is not jurisprudence; this is social engineering. Unfortunately, the court knows that most people will never read their decision, and those who do are so awash in the relativism of the culture that they will not recognize the overreach. What’s worse, most people will view the court’s action as heroic and liberating. But wait... there’s more:
Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation, and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute. Instead, a gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class—their sexual orientation.
In other words, a right that you cannot enjoy is no right at all. Imagine this phrase applied to other sexual deviants. “Thus, the right of a [pedophile] under the marriage statute to enter a civil marriage only with a person [of legal age] is no right at all.” This is utterly absurd. However, we have been so inundated with the “Gay=Black” mantra that most people don’t even blink. What happens when the polyamorists wear us down?
This is a hallmark of the homosexual lobby. Just say it enough and people will begin to believe it. We have judges in Iowa who have said that a persons behavior (homosexual sodomy) is equivalent to a person’s ethnicity. By the way, Michael Steele, the new head of the RNC, made the same argument in his interview with GQ Magazine. This is an echo of the statement of Julian Bond, former head of the NAACP, who said:
“African Americans... were the only Americans who were enslaved for two centuries, but we were far from the only Americans suffering discrimination then and now,” Bond said. “Sexual disposition parallels race. I was born this way. I have no choice. I wouldn’t change it if I could. Sexuality is unchangeable.” (Ertha Melzer, “NAACP chair says ‘gay rights are civil rights’, ”Washington Blade, Apr. 08, 2005)
The justices have clearly been influenced by this type of thinking. They even refer to “sexual orientation” as an “immutable characteristic” later in the decision. I am sure there are thousands of “Ex-Gays” who would be glad to testify on this point. However, I would venture to say the ‘verdict’ was in on this issue long before there was any testimony. The Justices are making law based on the assumption that homosexual sodomy is a Civil Right.
My blackness is an immutable characteristic; homosexual sodomy is not. There is no established, irrefutable evidence that people are born homosexual. Even if such evidence existed, it would no more make homosexual sodomy acceptable than a domestic violence gene would make brutality against women acceptable. Additionally, comparing homosexual marriage to so-called inter-racial marriage (a term I reject since though there are many ethnicities, there is but one race finding its origin in Adam) is an absolute farce. Loving v. Virginia, for example, was not about a re-definition of marriage. Instead, it was a recognition of the fact that black men and white men (like black women and white women) are essentially the same. Therefore, denying a black man and a white woman (or vise versa) the right to marry is truly denying a god-given, unalienable. This was a recognition of the manhood of black men and the womanhood of black women as image-bearers of the Most High God. Marriage itself did not have to change as a result of the Loving decision.
Iowa: Homosexual Marriage Moves to the Midwest
| date | Apr 6, 2009 |
|---|---|
| author | Voddie Baucham |
ERROR #1
HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE IS A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE
Right off the bat the Iowa decision jumps on the “Gay is the New Black” bandwagon. They followed the logic of leading homosexual advocates who argue that homosexuality is not only a “Civil Rights” issue; it is morally equivalent to blackness. As a black man, I am insulted by this line of reasoning. As a thinking man, I am amused. However, as an Constitution-loving American, I am frightened when I see it in legal decisions. The Iowa Supreme Court argued:
In the first reported case of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Iowa, In re Ralph, 1 Morris 1 (Iowa 1839), we refused to treat a human being as property to enforce a contract for slavery and held our laws must extend equal protection to persons of all races and conditions. 1 Morris at 9. This decision was seventeen years before the United States Supreme Court infamously decided Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 15 L. Ed. 691 (1856), which upheld the rights of a slave owner to treat a person as property. Similarly, in Clark v. Board of Directors, 24 Iowa 266 (1868), and Coger v. North West. Union Packet Co., 37 Iowa 145 (1873), we struck blows to the concept of segregation long before the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954). Iowa was also the first state in the nation to admit a woman to the practice of law, doing so in 1869. Admission of Women to the Bar, 1 Chicago Law Times 76, 76 (1887). Her admission occurred three years before the United States Supreme Court affirmed the State of Illinois’ decision to deny women admission to the practice of law.
Notice all the references to “Civil Rights” cases. Notice also that their argument begs the question! They do not ‘prove’ that homosexuality is a Civil Rights issue; they assume it. There is no Constitutional Right to sodomy. Moreover, homosexuals are not deprived of their Civil Rights in marriage, because they have the same rights in that regard as every American. That’s right... HOMOSEXUALS HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY! What they don’t have the right to is same-sex marriage. This, however, is not a right, but a definition. Hence, the court addressed the wrong issue. Listen to the emotion and philosophical presupposition in the argument:
It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual.
Incredible! The Supreme Court of Iowa is basing its opinion on what is “unappealing to a gay or lesbian person.” This is not jurisprudence; this is social engineering. Unfortunately, the court knows that most people will never read their decision, and those who do are so awash in the relativism of the culture that they will not recognize the overreach. What’s worse, most people will view the court’s action as heroic and liberating. But wait... there’s more:
Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation, and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute. Instead, a gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class—their sexual orientation.
In other words, a right that you cannot enjoy is no right at all. Imagine this phrase applied to other sexual deviants. “Thus, the right of a [pedophile] under the marriage statute to enter a civil marriage only with a person [of legal age] is no right at all.” This is utterly absurd. However, we have been so inundated with the “Gay=Black” mantra that most people don’t even blink. What happens when the polyamorists wear us down?
This is a hallmark of the homosexual lobby. Just say it enough and people will begin to believe it. We have judges in Iowa who have said that a persons behavior (homosexual sodomy) is equivalent to a person’s ethnicity. By the way, Michael Steele, the new head of the RNC, made the same argument in his interview with GQ Magazine. This is an echo of the statement of Julian Bond, former head of the NAACP, who said:
“African Americans... were the only Americans who were enslaved for two centuries, but we were far from the only Americans suffering discrimination then and now,” Bond said. “Sexual disposition parallels race. I was born this way. I have no choice. I wouldn’t change it if I could. Sexuality is unchangeable.” (Ertha Melzer, “NAACP chair says ‘gay rights are civil rights’, ”Washington Blade, Apr. 08, 2005)
The justices have clearly been influenced by this type of thinking. They even refer to “sexual orientation” as an “immutable characteristic” later in the decision. I am sure there are thousands of “Ex-Gays” who would be glad to testify on this point. However, I would venture to say the ‘verdict’ was in on this issue long before there was any testimony. The Justices are making law based on the assumption that homosexual sodomy is a Civil Right.
My blackness is an immutable characteristic; homosexual sodomy is not. There is no established, irrefutable evidence that people are born homosexual. Even if such evidence existed, it would no more make homosexual sodomy acceptable than a domestic violence gene would make brutality against women acceptable. Additionally, comparing homosexual marriage to so-called inter-racial marriage (a term I reject since though there are many ethnicities, there is but one race finding its origin in Adam) is an absolute farce. Loving v. Virginia, for example, was not about a re-definition of marriage. Instead, it was a recognition of the fact that black men and white men (like black women and white women) are essentially the same. Therefore, denying a black man and a white woman (or vise versa) the right to marry is truly denying a god-given, unalienable. This was a recognition of the manhood of black men and the womanhood of black women as image-bearers of the Most High God. Marriage itself did not have to change as a result of the Loving decision.
Comments