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.