laws that can't be overturned
By Diogenes (articles ) | Jun 03, 2006
Surprise! Massachusetts is not the most liberal state in the US, according to a survey done by...by...
Actually the Boston Herald story never does tell us who did the survey. But the story does drop an important hint, after quoting one state legislator who wonders aloud how a state that recognizes same-sex marriage can fail to be America's most liberal.
Therein lies the point of the study, said Jason Cianciotto of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, one of three liberal advocacy groups that compiled the rankings. [Emphasis Added]
“It shows there needs to be an intersection among human rights issues, including reproductive freedom,” Cianciotto said.
Now we can begin to discern the convoluted logic of this "survey," which really is a publicity stunt for gay-rights advocates. If same-sex marriage is a matter of fundamental human rights, then recognizing such unions is not evidence of liberalism. Therefore Massachusetts is not liberal-- by this standard, at least. So now we can go out to the other 49 states and tell them that they're wrong to dismiss the new Bay State policy as a liberal anomaly, because the People's Republic of Massachusetts is not liberal. Why, New Mexico is more liberal, according to this study (and please don't ask who did the study, or how they measured)! So it stands to reason that soon New Mexico will recognize "fundamental human rights," too. Although, remember, that won't make New Mexico any more liberal.
Head starting to hurt? Sorry, but there's more.
Notice that the question of whether or not the government recognizes the "marriage" of a homosexual couple is now an issue of "reproductive freedom."
You'd think that in Boston, one of the world's leading centers for biomedical research, someone might have noticed by now that homosexual acts are not reproductive. Homosexuals have the same "reproductive freedom" as everyone else, but in order to use that freedom, they must follow the laws of nature-- laws which not even the Supreme Judicial Court can overturn.
Right now I'm not "free" to run a 4-minute mile. That's not because of any legal ban; it's because my creaky old legs don't work that fast. I have the legal freedom, but lack the physical ability for the task. So I'm not invited to compete in the Olympics. (Is that discrimination? Yes. Unjust? No.) Driving my car, I can cover a mile in much less than 4 minutes. But when I do, I don't expect to be awarded an Olympic medal.
Through the wonders of modern technology and jurisprudence, same-sex couples can now introduce the world to "their" children. That fact should not distract us from the realization that, when they do what they do, homosexual couples are not using their reproductive freedom.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: -
Jun. 06, 2006 5:29 AM ET USA
Is it coincidental that serious discussion of gay "marriage" and human cloning surfaced simultaneously? Cloning would eliminate the sterility argument used against queer unions! Rudy and Roger could even arrange for the birth of "twin" clones - one from each - to complete their loving "family". Our Lord told us times like this would come .... Pray for poor sinners.
Posted by: -
Jun. 05, 2006 1:22 PM ET USA
The only way that New Mexico could be considered more liberal that MA would be if the pollsters considered only the opinions of that minority that lives in Santa Fe, also known throughout the state as 'Fanta Se' or 'The City Different'...home of the artsy, chichi crowd. Of course, perhaps not coincidentally, SF is also the home of the seat of the Archdiocese, the Cathedral-Basilica of Saint Francis. The floor is now open to snide remarks...
Posted by: -
Jun. 04, 2006 10:42 AM ET USA
This type of logic emerges from left-coasters who communicate only amongst themselves. They live within a bizarre reality system. Rather than calling down the wrath of God, we should "pray constantly" (to quote the Apostle Paul).
Posted by: -
Jun. 03, 2006 12:52 PM ET USA
In this convoluted logic partners in a same-sex "marriage" are practicing birth control: regardless of what they do or how they do it, neither partner is going to get pregnant. Now isn't that perfect "reproductive freedom"? I'm surprised these yokels haven't claimed they practice "natural family planning" because it would go against nature for pregnancy to result. I pray Almighty God soon runs out of patience and begins to exercise His own freedoms.
Posted by: -
Jun. 03, 2006 9:09 AM ET USA
The "news" story underscores the unholy alliance between the most radical elements in the gay rights movement and abortion-on-demand supporters. (It also illustrates the free favorable public relations the Boston press provides them on a daily basis.) Their attempts to portray their causes as akin to the struggle for racial equality has been rebuffed (for the most part) by black civil rights leaders, especially religious leaders ----- but you'll still see that comparison made by the press.