LA Times Editorial Needed Some Fixing

This part, at the end, is totally right on about his embarrassingly muddled, unworkable position:

Obama claims not to support such discrimination, but his views on the issue are an embarrassing muddle; he opposed Proposition 8, California’s same-sex marriage ban, yet says unequivocally that he believes “marriage” is strictly between one man and one woman.

Obama is caught up in semantics, apparently believing that gays and lesbians should be allowed to engage in civil unions with all the rights of marriage, as long as they aren’t called marriages. That’s an evasion that was rightly rejected in May by the California Supreme Court when it overturned a previous ban on same-sex marriage, because such semantic distinctions tend to cast doubt on a union’s legitimacy.

Yes, that was rightly rejected, because as long as the same-sex union had the same rights but a different name, it made no legal sense and was merely hurtful.  And Obama is certainly confused, as I said in my last post, he needs to be enlightened and corrected that same-sex couples should not have equal rights to both-sex couples.  But this diary is about this editorial, and where the LA Times goes wrong:

They make an egregious fault by misrepresenting and obfuscating Rick Warren’s statement about not wanting to call sibling couples married, or child couples married.  His point was not about the unions themselves, or the relative wrongness of them, but exactly what he said: about calling the unions marriage, and giving them the legal rights of marriage.

Warren, who has infuriated many by equating homosexual unions with incest, child molestation and polygamy, is entitled to his religious beliefs.

grr, he wasn’t raising religious objections, he was talking about civil law and giving perfectly civil reasons for it.  (Unless they are saying that incest and child molestation are purely relgious issues, which I doubt)

President Obama is too, but on Tuesday he swore allegiance to a document quite separate from the Bible: the U.S. Constitution, which forbids all forms of discrimination. Obama showed how clearly he understood that in his inaugural address, when he said: “The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.”

Yes, all are equal, and everyone’s “full measure”, with their better half of their history chosen by God, is equally worthy of carrying forward from generation to generation.  Obama is totally right here (unless he is thinking we should choose everyone’s better genetic history to carry forward to the next generation, which is a scary thought).  The LA Times is brainwashed and can only see it this way:

It is impossible to adhere to those principles while also proposing that some citizens should have fewer rights than others for no better reason than the majority disapproves of their sexual preference.

Way short.  It’s not about their sexual preference, the better reason they are seeking is their right to procreate together.  It turns out that “it is impossible to adhere to those principles” of everyone being equal, and also believe that some people only have a right to procreate by going to labs that will genetically modify their gametes for them so that they can have children like straight people can.  Those principles mean that everyone has an equal right to have children with their unmodified gametes, not that there must be a right to go to labs to have our genes modified so we can procreate with someone of the same sex.  Being only of one sex, and being unable to procreate with someone of the same sex, is not a medical problem that obligates us to find a cure.  It does not even require us to even tolerate anyone attempting to overcome it on their own dime.  It’s unethical, unsafe, wasteful, and destructive, and is a death blow to equal rights.  It is a good and beneficial requirement that everyone should have to partner with someone unlike them in a binary and complementary way, someone who is as necessary to them as they are to their partner, in order to reproduce.

[poll id=”



About John Howard