The accusation that opponents of same-sex civil unions want to impose their morality on the citizens of Connecticut while its advocates do not is sheer hypocrisy. Every earnest, heart-felt exhortation to right the wrong of denying recognition to these same-sex couples is an appeal to moral obligation. Every appeal to “civil rights,” especially a right that has never been previously recognized, is an appeal to morality. When McDonald and others say it is “wrong” to require same-sex couples to “justify to the outside world the love they have in their hearts” they are making a moral argument.
If this isn’t a moral appeal what is it? They certainly aren’t appealing to legal obligation. If a legal obligation already existed there would be no reason for a bill. No, advocates are looking to create a new law based on an alternate morality. To pretend anything else is the propagandist’s big lie.
At least Lawlor is more honest, “This was a discussion about public attitudes and private attitudes towards homosexuality. That is really what is at the heart of this … That’s what it is all about. And recognition of same-sex marriage is the most symbolic acknowledgement that homosexuality simply appears to be a normally ocurring phenomenon in nature.” Lawlor is seeking to regulate private attitudes toward homosexuality. He is imposing his views on the morality of homosexuality without apology.
Now, I want to be clear on my position. I am not complaining about the effort to legislate morality, though legislating private attitudes is out of bounds. Morality-free legislation is a myth. It is the hypocritical accusation that one side is imposing morality while the other is not that angers me. The “imposing morality” shibboleth is really about alternate moralities: invalidating a religiously-informed, natural-law-based, or objective morality in favor of an evolving, sentimental, culture-response morality. The latter is no less imposed than the former, in this case its enactment is the culmination of a long, politically sneaky manipulation.
Let’s be very clear what happened here in Connecticut. An openly gay chairman of the state Senate Judiciary Committee, with his allies, forced this issue on the state, congratulating himself that “the people” were acting while at the same time ensuring that the people have no opportunity to express their opinion in a non-binding citizens’ referendum.
The citizens of Connecticut have not been clamoring for a civil unions bill. In fact, the best analysis of previous polls is that most have responded to this issue with a big yawn. We have been apathetic, never believing that it would become a priority for the state. Yet, McDonald and other lobbying groups have made it so. And, today the state Senate is voting on McDonald’s bill.
Democrats accused President Bush of using a marriage and family ammendment as a wedge issue to divide Americans and to energize his base. It ought to be blatantly clear to everyone that the wedge is in the hands of McDonald and his allies.
He has made me respond. Me and many others who have been stirred to flood the legislature with phone calls, emails, and letters.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Have you been making a lot of calls and writing a lot of letters? I didn't realize that. Have you gotten any responses?
Yes. We received a response from our state Senator Thomas Herlihy. I think I posted about his response a few weeks ago. He supports the bill because he thinks it's a matter of "civil rights." I am embarrassed by the stupidity of the comments he made during the debate, today.
We got a response from our state representantative, Ferrari, who says he will vote against the bill for many of the same reasons we've articulated. His letter gives evidence that he actually read our arguments, rather than it being just a form letter.
We have not had any response from Governor Rell.
Post a Comment