Equal Protection Under the Law

Is not being able to marry someone of the same sex a denial of equal protection under the law? That is the claim of the same-sex marriage advocates. Homosexuals are denied equal protection under the law and are therefore treated as second-class citizens because they cannot marry whomever they want.

Equal Protection under the Law is an explicit appeal to the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (emphasis mine)

The first thing to notice is that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly mentions persons. As Constitutional scholar John Eidsmoe has stated,

"equal protection" means that persons similarly situated are to receive equal treatment.

Let us suppose that A, having completed his undergraduate work with a D- average and a score of 127 on his LSAT (Law School Admission Test), sought admission to a state law school, as did B with a 4.0 average and an LSAT of 750. If B were admitted to law school and A was rejected, A would not have a basis for complaining that he had been denied the "equal protection of the laws." Why not? Because there was a rational reason for choosing B and rejecting A: his superior grade point, and his superior aptitude scores.

In other words, equal protection clause does not prohibit all discrimination. It prohibits only discrimination that lacks a rational basis. Had A been rejected because of his race, he would have a basis for complaint, because race is not a valid basis for discrimination. Had A been rejected because of his religion, A again would have valid basis for claiming denial of equal protection by a state institution. But A could not claim denial of equal protection of the laws if there was a valid or rational basis for choosing B and not choosing A.[1]

So the equal protection clause pertains only to individuals not to relationships. If it applied to relationships then practicioners of polygamy and polyamory could also claim they are being treated as second class citizens. Yet, these are relationships in which same-sex marriage advocates overwhelmingly (it's not even close) refuse to allow the equal protection under the law.

Homosexuals are quick to say that sexual orientation is no different than race and therefore is not a valid basis of discrimination. They claim homosexuals are born that way. What way? They are born with a sexual desire for the same sex. The unstated truth is that they are also born with the sexual organs for the opposite sex. This fact is ignored because it reveals the inherent contradiction with which homosexuals are born.

They uphold the subjective feelings while ignoring the objective physical part of their nature. Yet, skin color is an objective characteristic of our human nature. Claiming sexual orientation is the same as race is to say a subjective (by definition, one that can only be confirmed by the subject) characteristic of our human nature is the same as an objective characteristic such as skin color while ignoring the objective characteristic of gender.

Therefore homosexuals, as individual citizens, are similarly situated in regards to marriage in that they have every right as every other citizen to enter into a marital relationship as long as they adhere to the same criteria as every other citizen is obligated to follow: marry someone of the opposite sex.

In demanding the opportunity to marry someone of the same sex, same-sex marriage advocates attempt to redefine the Fourteenth Amendment from protection for persons to protection for relationships.

Clearly, every relationship is not similarly situated. Same-sex marriage advocates implicitly concede this fact every time they refuse equal protection to polygamy and polyamory .

[1] John Eidsmoe, "The Christian Legal Advisor, Baker Book House: 1984, p.173.

The "Gays Can't Marry" Myth

Same-sex marriage advocates claim they are fighting for the right for homosexuals to marry.

The fact is homosexuals have always had the same rights to marriage as every other citizen. They simply must adhere to the exact same criteria to which every other citizen must adhere, that is, everyone can marry someone of the opposite gender who they are not too closely related and to which both meet any age requirements.

Homosexuals counter that this criteria discriminates against them because they cannot marry whomever they wish. But no one has the right to marry whomever they wish. You cannot marry a nine-year old. You cannot marry your sibling.

In fact, same-sex marriage advocates do not want those types of relationships to be recognized as marriage, either. In other words, they are perfectly fine with promoting marrying whomever one wants as long as it only applies to a same-sex relationship.

Once the argument their arguments are applied to other types of relationships, same-sex marriage advocates suddenly have no problem discriminating.

Innocence

Last week, I responded to the website, Victims of Christianity, which claims that Christianity causes "overt physical harm" (see Victims of Christianity?).

The second example that the site's author, Mark Smith, provides is of the Rev. Kyle Lake who was electrocuted in a baptismal fount. Smith states that Rev. Lake is one of the people "who would have all been better off, if religion were not in the world." So a tragic accident becomes the fault of religion.

I asked the question: How many people died in car accidents today? I guess they "would have all been better off, if [cars] were not in the world."

Smith provides a response page where he responds those who have challenged him. One person wrote regarding Lake's death that many hundreds of people were affected by the death of this young pastor." (The words in red are highlighted on Smith's site showing Smith's emphasis).

Smith responded:

"Mark Smith here} Why should any Christian that knew him be "affected" by his death??? IF they REALLY believed all the hype about heaven and such, then they SHOULD be overwhelmed with joy at Kyle's "promotion" to a better position. The FACT though, that Christians cry at funerals just as much as anyone else proves Christians, deep down inside, really don't believe their own propoganda. Deep down inside you know the truth, that this life is all there is, and you cry at that
realization."

What Smith misses is that Christianity teaches that we are relational beings. Human beings are in relationship with each other and with God. When someone dies we cry, we mourn the loss.

In fact, Jesus wept at the death of Lazarus ... right before he raised Lazarus from the dead! Just because Rev. Kyle has obtained a "promotion" and is alive, we still mourn the loss. It is a tragedy. But tragedy does not have meaning unless there is value. What gives human beings value? Other human beings? If so, then human beings can also assign non-value those over whom they have power. Suddenly, some human beings are defined as property as per the Dred Scott decision or parasites as per the Nazis regarding those they deemed undesirable.

The atheist has the same problem. Why does the atheist cry at someone's death? Why does Smith believe there is even the concept of an innocent. The concept of innocence is moral language. If human beings are merely the results of evolutionary processes then there is no such thing as innocence. There is only the survival of the fittest. In the whole of the cosmos, human beings would be no different than amoebas.

"The FACT though, that [atheists] cry at funerals just as much as anyone else proves [atheists], deep down inside, really don't believe their own propaganda."

Deep down inside Smith knows the truth, that this life is not all there is. His very objections to Christianity depend on a transcendent moral standard given by a transcendent moral stahdard giver who has stamped each and every human being with transcendent value. And when the transcendent value is violated, deep down we know.

That's why Smith objects. Deep down he knows human beings have value and that value means that human beings must be treated in a way that acknowledges that value.

Smith's atheistic worldview cannot explain that. In objecting, Smith reveals that he really doesn't believe his own propaganda.

The Secession of West Virginia - June 20, 1863

From the Library of Congress's Today in History page:

On June 20, 1863, West Virginia became the thirty-fifth state in the Union. The land that formed the new state formerly constituted part of Virginia. The two areas had diverged culturally from their first years of European settlement, as small farmers generally settled the western portion of the state, including the counties that later formed West Virginia, while the eastern portion was dominated by a powerful minority class of wealthy slaveholders. There were proposals for the trans-Allegheny west to separate from Virginia as early as 1769. When Virginia seceded from the Union in 1861, the residents of a number of contiguous western counties, where there were few slaves, decided to remain in the Union. Congress accepted these counties as the state of West Virginia on condition that its slaves be freed. "Montani semper liberi," "mountaineers always freemen," became the new state's motto.

What is interesting about West Virginia is the way in which in became a state. Abraham Lincoln and many in the North did not believe that states had the constitutional right to secede. So, in 1861, when states in the South began seceding from the Union, the North viewed this as an unconstitutional act. Lincoln had support from the North to save the union. The support for ending slavery would come later.

Those in the western regions of Virginia opposed their state's secession in 1861 as illegal. Throughout the year they met and the voters in the western counties voted to create their own state. In 1862, the new state approved a new constitution and on June 20, 1863 Congress admitted West Virginia into the Union under condition that slavery would be abolished in West Virginia.

The irony of history is that the Union said states could not secede (i.e. leave the Union) but allowed West Virginia to seceded from Virginia and the Confederacy.

For more information:
History of West Virginia website
Summary of Statehood for West Virginia

Victims of Christianity?

The following claim about Christianity appeared in the comments section of an article about Oregon Senator Gordon Smith on oregonlive.com. The individual is responding to another poster regarding same-sex marriage:

'It's about fairness and equality, not religion (which also includes the right to not be reiigious). "God" has nothing to do with this. The history of Christianity is largely one of slaughter. I recommend you Google "victims of christianity" for enlightenment.'
Posted by Layne on 06/18/08 at 10:28AM

The poster went on to discuss the marriage issue which I may address at another time. My comments, however, will address his claim that "the history of Christianity is largely one of slaughter".

First, I would encourage everyone to engage Layne's Google challenge. Take the very first site that comes up titled "Victims of Religion" by Mark Smith. The first is the victims of the Jonestown massacre. An example of religion but hardly an example of Christianity.

The second example is of Rev. Kyle Lake who was electrocuted in a baptismal fount. Smith states that Rev. Lake is one of the people "who would have all been better off, if religion were not in the world." So a tragic accident becomes the fault of religion.

How many people died in car accidents today? I guess they "would have all been better off, if [cars] were not in the world." The Rev. Lake example is silliness. Tragedies happen. This example reveals more about the Smith's motivation - namely his hatred of God - than it does about religion.

The site does provide other examples where innocents were harmed or killed by those acting under religion including Christianity. Let me offer several thoughts.

First, was the perpetrators in each of the crimes acting consistently with the code that they claim they are following? The only time the code can be accused of being the source of barbarism is if, in fact, the code is the source of barbarism.

How does Christianity whose founder taught his followers to "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Love your enemies" teach barbarism? So, where Smith does offer examples of those following actual Christianity (rather than cults or other religions) it is actually examples of people acting inconsistently with the code they claim to follow.

We do not fault the Hippocratic Oath, which provides a rigid standard of conduct for doctors, because some doctors act inconsistent with it.

Second, the site holds up atheism as the answer to religion's barbarism. Time for the Facts! Take a look at The Guinness Book of World Records under Genocides and Massacres (1996 edition):

• The atheistic Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot massacred a third of Cambodia's 8 million people.
• The atheistic regime of Mao Tse Tung massacred 26.3 million Chinese between 1949 and 1965. The US Senate Judiciary Committee estimated that the number between 1949 to 1971 between 32.25 and 61.7 million.
• Hitler murdered 6 million Jews and countless thousands of others.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn estimated the loss of life under Lenin and Stalin at 66 million.

The crimes committed in the name of Christianity, while a blight, pale in comparison to the human carnage and destruction resulting from ideologies that had no room for God. And my examples are only from the last century.

Lastly, Layne and Smith claim that what religion has done is wrong and there are innocent victims to prove it. That is moral language. Religion ought not do those things. In fact, one ought not join a religion.

The claim is that religion has violated a transcendent standard of right and wrong.

Yet, if there is no God then there cannot be a transcendent standard of right and wrong (i.e. a moral standard that applies to everyone, at all times, in all places). Morality, then, becomes a personal preference of each human being.

If that is the case then Layne & Smith have a moral view and the religions he rails against also have a moral view. Who are they to tell religions that their actions are wrong. How do they claim these were innocent victims. Obviously, the perpetrators did not view those harmed as innocent victims nor thought their actions immoral.

In essence, Layne and Smith are saying everyone must adhere to their (i.e. Layne and Smith's) personal preferences of right and wrong. They have elevated their own view of morality to a transcendent standard.

Who are Layne or Smith to say that their personal moral preferences takes precedence over others? They have no grounds in which to condemn anyone.

All that is left are the irrational rantings of those who hold Christianity up to the very transcendent standard of right and wrong that they say doesn't exist.

Bad Argument for Abortion - Part II

In an online discussion forum, person A (not their real name) asked, "How many anti-abortion supporters on this board have adopted an unwanted child?"

Person B responded, "Probably not many. One of the things I despise more than anything are these 'group homes' that bring in pregnant women, especially teens, and 'help' them so they won't terminate their pregnancies. After the baby is born, it's adios and good luck!"

Here's my response:

Person A, how does whether anti-abortion supporters adopting an unwanted child change whether the child is a human being? It may show they are inconsistent but it does not change the child's nature or the question if it is worthy of life.

Person B, you state: "One of things I despise more than anything are these 'group homes' that bring in pregnant women, especially teens, and 'help' them so they won't terminate their pregnancies. After the baby is born, it's adios and good luck!"

How did these girls get into these group homes? Did the group homes kidnap them? No. The women (and yes - especially teens) come to them on their own accord. The homes give them love, many for the first time. These are women who have no where else to turn. All many of them wanted was love and the man said "sure baby I'll love you, just put out." And when the girl gets knocked up the guy leaves.

These girls want their babies, and the homes provide them with suppport, shelter, and programs to prepare them for the responsibility of living on their own as a parent.

Far from saying adios and good luck these homes give these girls a foundation upon which they can grow, get out of their dependence upon others and give their lives hope. And many of these girls will tell you years later that they are very thankful for the impact these homes made in their life.

I find it interesting that person A lambasts anti-abortion supporters if they do nothing (like adopt unwanted children) and then person B lambasts them when they do something (like help pregnant women).

Bad Argument For Abortion - The Unwanted Child

Time and again, when I have argued against abortion, abortion supporters will mention the unwanted child. Not allowing the unborn to be aborted will bring an unwanted child into the world.

My response to those making this claim is this: can I kill the unwanted toddler?

If not, why not? If being unwanted is justification for being killed and the toddler is unwanted then we should be able to kill the toddler. Yet, except for extreme examples like Peter Singer, no abortion supporter has ever supported the killing of unwanted toddler.

What is the difference between the unwanted human being inside the womb and the unwanted human being outside the womb?

The usual answer is that the toddler is an obvious human being. Then that is the question: whether the unborn is a human being.

Of course, we know from science that there is a living human being at conception. The only difference between the unborn human being and the toddler is the stage of their development and their location (inside vs. outside the womb).

Can we kill an unwanted toddler because they are not as developed as a teenager. Can we kill the the unwanted teenager because they are not as developed as an adult?

Further, what happens that suddenly confers humanness on the unborn once they pass from inside the womb to the outside world?

And who is responsible for making the child unwanted? It is those who conceived that child.

Unwanted-ness says nothing about the unborn child. It solely speaks about character of the parents .

Batting for the Other Team

The Seattle Mariners are in trouble.

Not for their pathetic play between the foul lines. Not for possession of the worst record in Major League Baseball.

No. They are in trouble for removing two women from a game because someone complained they were kissing in the stands in front of a crowd that included children.

In an AP story, the Mariners stated the women were removed "because of their behavior - which included 'making out' and 'groping' in the stands - and not because of their sexual orientation." The Mariners told the women they "could continue to kiss, but they had to tone it down"; the women refused and they were removed.

Sirbrina Guerrero claimed that she and her "date" were not groping or doing anything different than a heterosexual couple seven rows in front of them.

Unfortunately for Guerrero, two women kissing or showing affection is very different from a heterosexual couple kissing or showing affection.

Homosexuals claim they are born with a internal sexual desire or orientation toward people of the same gender. However, they are also born with the physical sexual organs that are made for the opposite gender.

Two women showing affection may be satisfying their internal desire but they are at odds with their physical organs. This is an inherent contradiction between their two natures. This is why the homosexual movement emphasizes internal subjective sexual orientation and de-emphasizes their external objective sexual orientation. They must distract from the natural contradiction with which they are born.

When a man and woman show affection, however, they are in keeping with both their internal subjective sexual orientation (i.e. a desire for the opposite gender) and also their external physical objective sexual organs (i.e. genitalia which is made for the opposite gender). There is no contradiction.

This is why people are uncomfortable with these types of public displays and why they would have to explain to their families; because their is a natural contradiction between the two natures. Some would say that is just a societal norm that is unenlightened.

The question is why would society even have such a norm in the first place? Because it is a basic fundamental observation of nature that opposite genders are made for each other. To deny that is to deny the way the world actually is (aka. reality).

Of course, the mouthpieces of the Gay "Equality" Totalitarian Movement (GET'M) dutifully attacked the Mariners.

A spokesman for the totally misnamed Equal Rights Washington stated, "Certain individuals have not yet caught up. Those people see a gay or lesbian couple and they stare or say something." Sex-advice columnist Dan Savage called for a "kiss-in" to protest the Mariners.

All of which raises a thought. Activists for the homosexual movement are offended by this. They paint themselves as victims of intolerance. But activists never concern themselves with how they are offending others.

In fact, they justify their offending of others. Those who are offended by two women kissing in front of themselves and their children are called homophobes who "have not caught up yet".

The homosexual movement long ago jettisoned their struggle for true rights and now demands acceptance. If you don't accept them unconditionally then GET'M will get you. They will call you names. They will stage "kiss-ins". They will say and do whatever it takes to destroy your reputation.

One has to wonder what names these avatars of tolerance would call you if they were not so "tolerant".

The sad part is that even if the homosexual movement manages to force everyone to accept them they'll still be missing something; coherency between their internal sexual desires and their physical sexual organs. Their nature is out of sync.

Perhaps Dan Savage can do a "kiss-in" protest against nature.

Senator Edward Kennedy

Great news!

Senator Edward Kennedy's surgery today to remove his malignant brain tumor was successful according to a statement by the surgeon as reported by abcnews.com.

I am amazed at our technological abilities. The report stated that Sen. Kennedy was awake during part of the surgery.

"after cutting into Kennedy's skull, Dr. Allan Friedman — the surgeon wielding the scalpel — had to find a pathway through the brain to get at the tumor. For this he needed the patient's conscious help to avoid damaging brain cells essential for speech, movement and other important functions."

I find that incredible. I wonder what Kennedy was thinking during this time. One has to have some level of apprehension and yet to have to stay calm in order to communicate with the doctors.

The report says that Kennedy will require further treatment like chemo. And they report that "regardless of how well Kennedy's body tolerates these treatments, he will be facing a cancer with a high rate of mortality."

Here is to Senator Kennedy's successful recovery. But if the cancer wins, I pray that Kennedy will not suffer, that the peace that is found in Jesus Christ will encompass him and his family, and that through this strength he will be a model of dignity for others facing any deadly disease.