The past week has had me pulling my hair out reading the conservative backlash against Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision that California’s Proposition 8 banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. Conservatives often cite the Constitution, limited-government, personal responsibility, freedom, etc. But now they’ve been hooked in the mouth by their hypocrisy.
The truth is, conservatives believe in the freedom so long as they agree with what you are doing, and that’s not freedom at all. As many conservatives tend to be Christians, they seek to legislate their morality onto the masses; this is, quite clearly, the origin behind the anti-gay marriage movement. Now, while the lay conservative may cite the Bible (“If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” Leviticus 20:13) more professional conservatives, the ones that know we do not operate under the Christian Republic of America, must attempt to circumvent their religious motives and argue from another avenue. In doing so, quite clumsily I might add, they further prove their ignorance on history, the Constitution, and law in general and inadvertently admit their hypocrisy and bigotry for all the world to see.
Take this, from a post on RedState:
Judge Vaughn Walker’s Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision is being hailed as a sweeping victory for same-sex marriage advocates and crushing blow to supporters of the traditional definition of marriage as it has been since the existence of the institution.
Notice the word “traditional.” Where in the Constitution does it denote that we must enshrine tradition into our laws? If I recall correctly, slavery was a tradition for quite some time. Traditionally, women weren’t allowed to vote. If we are to protect tradition we must immediately revoke women’s right to vote and enslave all people of African descent. Clearly, this is not what the author wants. What he really means is the Christian definition of marriage. He cannot admit to this, however, lest he be a theocrat.
Other rants just make me laugh, such as this post also at RedState in which the author, in a fury of anger, contradicts himself several times:
There is absolutely zero evidence that the people who drafted and ratified the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution intended to prohibit the people of the United States from being able to recognize though the democratic process what marriage is – a union of a man and a woman.
I find poetic irony in a conservative – the breed of politico that never leaves home unarmed of the “America is a Republic, not a Democracy” meme – espousing “the democratic process” aka mob rule. Or is he:
For reasons of pro-creation and parenthood, to start with, but also for reasons of faith and morality, for some of us, any marriage other than such a union can never be, whatever society says, a “marriage” at all.
At this point I cannot contain my laughter, and confusion abounds. As the author points out, society is not fit to tell him the definition of marriage. But it is fit to define marriage through a constitutional amendment. Uhm…
Looking more locally on the radar, Steven Osbourne writes at Bearing Drift:
…theoretically the federal government could tell the Catholic church that the equal protection clause applies to married men who wish to join the ranks of the Catholic priests, despite the fact that the Catholic church restricts that office to celibate members. Although this example may seem far fetched, what Judge Walker has done here has opened a door that could lead to much more government control over religious institutions, which would be a violation of the first amendment.
His ignorance here is astounding. The Walker decision stated that the government, as an issuer of marriages, cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation. Nowhere does it state, imply, or give way to the possibility that the government can intrude into private religious practices.
Conservatives are supposed to believe in freedom and liberty for all. Clearly, such is not the case.