Writing for New York Magazine, Jonathan Chait (a supporter of same-sex marriage) describes Portman’s decision as a “moral failure, one of which he appears unaware.” According to Chait, this “moral failure” is due to the fact that Portman “opposed gay marriage until he realized that opposition to gay marriage stands in the way of his own son’s happiness.”
Chait goes on, “Portman ought to be able to recognize that, even if he changed his mind on gay marriage owing to personal experience, the logic stands irrespective of it: Support for gay marriage would be right even if he didn’t have a gay son. There’s little sign that any such reasoning has crossed his mind.”
Notice that? Chait is appealing to a moral standard (one of which he appears unaware). Chait decries Portman’s “moral failure” while appealing to logic, reason, and what is “right.” What makes Portman’s seemingly self-serving conversion a “moral failure”?
After all, isn’t looking out for one’s children noble behavior? Why must Portman think of others (or, as Chait puts it, “consider issues from a societal perspective”) to be considered moral, himself? What standard is Chait using?
Of course, Chait is appealing to Natural Law. He has rightly recognized Portman’s apparent hypocrisy. However, as I noted in my last column, by appealing to what is “right” in one situation, but ignoring it in another, he is sawing off the limb upon which he is sitting. For millennia, guided by Natural Law, civilizations the world over have deemed homosexual behavior as immoral.
No less than the U.S. Supreme has said so. As recently as 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court declared, “Proscriptions against [homosexual] conduct have ancient roots. Sodomy was a criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights. . . . In fact, until 1961, all 50 States outlawed sodomy, and today, 24 States and the
continue to provide criminal penalties for sodomy performed in private and
between consenting adults. Against this background, to claim that a right to
engage in such conduct is ‘deeply rooted in this Nation's history and
tradition,’ or ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’ is, at best,
facetious [silly].” District of Columbia
Of course, the Court reversed itself in
2003, declaring that, “The
petitioners [Lawrence and Garner] are entitled to respect for their private
lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by
making their private sexual conduct a crime.” Texas
In his dissent, Justice Scalia correctly concluded that, “Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.... [T]he Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed.”
Unsurprisingly, after gaining the legal justification for homosexual sex, the next moral domino in the sights of the homosexual agenda has been marriage. On November 18, 2003, just four-and-a-half months after the
decision, the Judicial Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled in favor of
legalized same-sex marriage. Thus Lawrence Massachusetts
became the first state in the
to grant marital rights to same-sex couples. U.S.
The Chief Justice of the
Massachusetts court, Margaret Marshal,
referenced in the ruling: “Our obligation is
to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.” Lawrence
But “mandating our own moral code” is exactly what supporters of the homosexual agenda seek to do. Again, what existing moral code are they using to justify homosexual behavior? They rarely, if ever, appeal to one. The argument is simply, there are some people who want (it makes them “happy”) to engage in homosexuality, thus “liberty of all” dictates that it should be allowed.
The majority in
Lawrence also concluded that, “[ ] gives substantial protection to
adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters
pertaining to sex.” Of course, no such conclusions have been reached when it
comes to prostitution, or polygamy, or incest, or bestiality. In other words,
liberals have decided that homosexuality deserves special privilege when it
comes to the law and “private sexual conduct.” Liberty
And thus we see the real goal of the “so-called homosexual agenda:” the legal legitimization of homosexuality across all of
all, if it makes liberals “happy” then it shouldn’t be illegal. And if it’s not
illegal, well then, it must be moral. America
(See this column on American Thinker.)
(See this column on American Thinker.)
Trevor Grant ThomasAt the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.