Juvenalian Judgements: A Forced Glass of Harvey Milk

Just like every other member of the “Religious Right” in the state, I was nervously awaiting the court’s ruling on whether or not the California ban on same-sex marriage violated the U.S. Constitution. Lo and behold, the liberal judges decided that it was, in fact, OK for the gays to get married. Great. What next? Are the Dems going to allow people to marry animals? Are we all going to be forced to share our beds with furniture? These liberal judges have gone too far with this one.

I, for one, think gay marriage is wrong. Why? Well … because it is. And I read that it was wrong in the Bible (only the Old Testament though), so it’s clearly true. And gays are destroying the sanctity of marriage. Never mind the fact that “sanctity” means “the state of being sacred,” and “sacred” has strong denotative ties with religion, and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says that “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion.” And putting aside the fact that almost every study done on the children of same-sex couples show that the kids turn out to be more emotionally stable, happy, accepting and successful in life than the children of heterosexual couples, what about the Constitution and its right to control what we do with other people?

Let’s be honest, whether or not you agree with gay marriage boils down not to your views on the legal system, but your views on homosexuality. And the Constitution has rich history of controlling whether or not you can be gay, and who you can and cannot marry. Bowers v. Harwick (1986) showed us that the good ol’ U.S. of A has the right to determine what men can and cannot put their penises in (forget the fact that Lawrence v. Texas (2003) overturned the ruling). And before Loving v. Virginia (1967), the government had the right to keep different races from marrying each other. Forgetting that the Supreme Court has identified the penumbral right of privacy (multiple times, and in four different amendments), I think it is pretty clear that there is a bigger issue at stake: the desecration of democracy.

It’s clear what the people want. The country wants to be able to hate based on who someone loves. These activist judges are taking sides in a culture war, while completely undermining the fact the majority of voters don’t want same-sex marriage. Oh, what’s that? Polls show that upwards of 58 percent of people agree that same-sex couples could get married? Almost 3/5 of the population believes in equal rights for all? More than half of the United States feels like it’s time to end deep-rooted prejudices that discriminate solely on the basis of who someone wants to touch parts with? Oh. Well then, I guess I’ll have a Tea Party for one.

 

Justin Huft is a third-year psychology and social behavior major. He can be reached at jhuft@uci.edu.