Devout religious believers often deplore the “moral relativism” of liberal/progressive thought, claiming that absolute moral standards, as defined by their sacred scriptures, are necessary to establish a permanent, unchanging set of rules for society.
The Declaration of Independence supports the idea of unchanging rules in its opening paragraph: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
These rights, sometimes called “moral rights,” are distinguished from the legal rights defined in the Constitution. Nevertheless, they were deemed to be permanent and unchanging by our founders, in the same sense that believers in the Bible would quote their beliefs based on scripture. I think virtually all Americans would emphatically affirm their belief in these “unalienable rights.”
But something happened in California recently that suggests that the definition of “unalienable rights” in the Declaration is subject to revision when it comes to certain groups of people, in spite of the “all” in the above quotation. Proposition 8 was approved by 52% of California voters. It prohibits marriage between any California residents except couples consisting of one man and one woman. This Proposition was supported mainly by Christian voters based on their reading of certain Biblical passages which condemn homosexual love.
It is self-evident that denial of the right to marry is a denial of the explicit right to the “pursuit of Happiness.” Our society is based on the recognition of the bonding of individuals for life, and many of the legal and social institutions of our society…inheritance, property rights, child custody, financial obligations, and many other social traditions and rituals are based on the recognition of marriage. To deny this to a class of citizens is clearly to deny them “pursuit of Happiness.”
How can it be that the same people who preach about the horrors of “moral relativism,” and the need for rigid, unchanging rules for society, are so eager to revise the “unalienable rights” of some individuals? For them, it seems that “moral relativism” is only a derogatory term when it applies to deviation from the Bible. But any revision of the rules of society that brings it into line with Biblical dogma is to be praised and supported. Do I detect a hypocritical double standard here?
Defenders of Proposition 8 could claim that the founders of our nation who wrote those words in the Declaration did not include women or slaves in their definition of “all men.” In those times, neither women nor slaves were allowed to vote, and their equality was constrained in many other ways. So they could argue that “revision” of civil rights is necessary as society changes. What they ignore is that those revisions have been in the direction of realizing the aims of the founders. Abolitionists, women’s suffragettes, and civil rights leaders have labored unceasingly to expand that equality, never to restrict it, as Proposition 8 does. There have been setbacks, when the forces of intolerance and racism reversed the wheels of human rights progress. This is one of those times, apparently. But I am confident that the march towards true equality for all citizens will resume.
Now that a legal attack has been mounted to invalidate Proposition 8, its supporters defend it by claiming that it is the “will of the majority” of the voters. But the framers of our Constitution were careful to set up a system of checks and balances to prevent just such a violation of civil rights. The courts can invalidate bad laws, whether they are passed by a legislative body, or by popular vote. As a legal scholar said recently, “Unpopular decisions (by the courts) are the price of constitutional rights.”
The battle in the courts will be fought over arcane legal issues, but the moral issue I have raised here is one that should give a stomach ache to those who swallowed the fraudulent and deliberate disinformation campaign waged by the supporters of Proposition 8…and maybe even a much-needed bout of diarrhea.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 388
One is based, very simply, on the harm principle, and says we must not hurt others--including, of course, by depriving them of their right to pursue happiness through marrying the person they love.
The other one is based on a number of instincts and gut feelings--fear, disgust, a sense of superiority, desire for control, etc, --and on projecting the ideas inspired by these into something respectful--for example, religion. The second approach is the true relativist, but without realizing it--it looks for justification of its primitive judgments in holy books, or the sayings of wise men--and rejoices when it finds some good quotes. It glosses over any part that doesn't fit or even contradicts its obsessions.
I hope the courts will fix this--it should be self-evident that the majority can't just vote the rights of the minority out of existence.
Too many times people (those who would use a verse here and there in a book written by man, translated by man, and edited my man) don't simply use this book, the Bible as a way to decide right and wrong in their lives but feel they have some right to demand that everyone else does to.
Now as to the right to marry the person you love. Gonna do a little devil's advocate ehre. What if you love more than one person at the same time? What if all parties are fully informed and consenting to this? We do have laws that prohibit polygamy? I am not really certain why we do, again a moral enforcement issue I think. And no I would not partake in this practice even if it were legal.
I find it ridiculous when people will pull one quote from the bible to serve their cause or side, where as most can be countered with quotes/verses from the same book. I mean if we are to live exactly word per word by the bible then are we then to sell our children into slavery and take our elderly to the village to be stoned to death. Ummm I don't think so.
Good post.
I revel in the fact that fair minded people such as Bert feel that injustices have been written into law and that he has highlighted a specific violation of Constitutional violation. The issue of same sex marriages is but one example of religious jurists at work.
California has had a proposition approved for legislation that will fall to the test of Constitutionality.
Aniko said ..."I hope the courts will fix this--it should be self-evident that the majority can't just vote the rights of the minority out of existence."
The courts WILL fix this .
full story...... http://www.truthout.org/112008D
It's a sad reflection on those who claim the moral high ground, that they only feel they can do so by considering themselves better and trampling on the rights of others.
I will be so proud when the courts overturn 8.
Let us all reclaim, revitalize, and rejoice in the return of the constitution--the way it was meant to be interpreted.
Let us all turn our backs (carefully) on those who would attempt to legislate their morality on other citizens. For, therein lies the path to fanatic, self-destructing government.
Great article, Bert. Bravo!
Blessed Be!
Wilka
Hypocritical, inconsistent, illogical - all these apply in this case. I agree with Michael that we're knee deep in laws that are biased toward religious conservatives, but we don't have to add to them.
Leviticus 18:22 is the Bible verse that Xtians use to justify their homophobia. But Leviticus 11:10 says that eating shrimp, oysters and catfish is also an abomination.
I would like to see a ban on eating shrimp, oysters and catfish become a referendum issue in California. It would help point out the absurdity of making Bible based judgments into laws.
Michael...It's not knee deep...we're drowning in the stuff!
Deborah...you raise a very good point about the prohibitions of polygamy and polyandry. I have commented elsewhere here on Gather that I think both should be legal, as long as the participants are consenting adults. The only place polygamy is currently practiced in the US is in northern Arizona and southern Utah, where fundamentalist sects that have been excommunicated from the LDS church hold barely adolescent girls in virtual white slavery, marrying them to middle-aged men who pay their parents for them, and then keep them pregnant, living in trailers, collecting welfare.
Michael and Gary...Hey, you guys, lay off the shellfish! Don't give them any ideas!
I was talking to my daughter after the election about it. She made a very wise comment:
"Human rights should never be put to a popular vote."
I concur.
I'm wondering...do all Christians exempt themselves from the "laws" of the Old Testament? Are the laws and directions of the Old Testament only observed by Orthodox Jews?
If not...how do Christians decide which laws or directions from God to observe? Which of the Old Testament laws are observed and which are ignored...(like the dietary laws)
(Sue...I'm just messing with you...)
Moreover, legitimizing gay marriage would have a positive moral effect on society in at least two other ways besides gay demographics. Gay persons would likely marry someone more appropriate for them instead of hurting someone of the opposite sex by marrying them. And gay marriage would bring more commitment and add more love to the world.
We jeopardize our future as a healthy and moral society if we don't make room for gay marriage.
"Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (Matthew 5:17-18)
There is that which is Right to do; and then, there is that which is not.
There is something VERY poignant that I would like you to take notice of; your article has thus-far scored 10/10. An example of that which is Right, and that which is Wrong, wouldn't you agree?
Michael is playing my favorite game...using Biblical quotes to show the absurdity and inconsistency of Biblical dogma. It is easy to do, and great fun if you have a sadistic streak, which apparently both Michael and I do.
Verie...I agree. Acceptance of the gay lifestyle is inevitable. We no longer need to "be fruitful and multiiply." Rather the opposite. The planet is massively overpopulated. Gays may be the ONLY people who are pursuing lifestyles that actually promote our survival.
Sue B...I understand your defensiveness about the attacks on Christians, but from my point of view, we atheists have been subjected to MUCH WORSE from Christians...or people who claimed to be, anyway. I must add that I know some "true" Christians who are tolerant and do not push their faith on everybody else. My observations, though, are that, in general, the more devout a Christian (or Muslim or whatever) the less tolerant they are. The more likely they are to claim that only THEIR religion is right, and everybody else is in a handbasket headed for you-know-where.
SheWhoTalks and Listens...Thank you for your thoughtful and perceptive comments. You are absolutely right that human nature drives us to coerce others to "be like us." Religion is, after all, a human construct, so it should not be surprising that it shares that basic human trait. I really appreciate your understanding of the fact that, even if Christians find homosexuality abhorrent, they should recognize that others feel differently, and they must...and here I disagree slightly...ACCEPT the gay lifestyle...not merely TOLERATE it.
I know that is asking a lot, but I think we all need to accept contrary beliefs. I am as guilty as anyone here. I tolerate Christian beliefs, but I have not learned to ACCEPT them. I don't mean that I have to BELIEVE them...any more than I would ask you to become gay. But we both need to recognize the value in people of different beliefs and lifestyles.
We all have a long way to go to achieve acceptance of contrary ideas, and until we do, conflict and animosity will be the fruits of our intolerance.
Your comments, as usual, verge on the simplistic when it comes to your Bible-based beliefs.
But listen closely to what SheWhoTalks is saying, because she is light years ahead of you in her understanding of these issues. You are a caricature of Christian intolerance, and she is a thinking Christian who sees the need for...well, at least tolerance, if not acceptance.
I don't pay any attention to the ratings, M-J. Really, I don't, and for good reason. Many trolls come by and attempt to drag down the ratings of people like me who publish controversial articles. If I worried about ratings, I would work on articles about word games and "What are the ten things that you think are most important in the world?" Or whatever.
You know me well enough by now to know that what I publish here is not designed to get ratings, don't you?
I think the religious right is going the same way as the Republican Party. A little more rope should allow them to finish themselves off.
Interesting thing happened here last week (I think it was last week). A jury found the granddog or dragon or whatever that disgusting person is called responsible for a crime one of his followers committed because he taught him hatred. I've heard of a couple of other cases. How many will it take before we can use it as a precedent and hold religious leaders responsible for the hatred they teach?
We had a similar case here on the west coast a few months ago when a fundamentalist preacher commanded his flock to pray for the death of some people who were questioning the political involvement of his church. In fact, I wrote an article about it.
Here is the link.
Haggard was one of several Christian leaders with whom our President George W Bush spoke each week....for inspiration and guidance.
But...get this: Oral Roberts University is a multimillion-dollar tribute to the man and his fundamentalist hypocrisy.
Well, that would depend on how you sliced the pie, how you decided to word your case, if you will. But the question always remains; Who are you to tell me there are no absolute truths? On what are you basing that conclusion? Who are you to tell me I am wrong, for telling another they are wrong? How come you can do this thing, but I must not?
Humans don't have the sort of omniscience nor impeccable judgment which would be required to know what would ultimately result in the greatest good for the greatest number, or what does the least harm to the least number, or whatever way one wishes to parse such things. I can't call my view of such things anywhere near complete, and neither can any other human. That's kinda the basic premises of "majority rule" (of whatever size ; )
What would one say to a proposal to do away with "clothing" laws, as in, indecent exposure? A substantial number of people may like to go about naked at times, for various reasons. Others are not harmed by that, so why not freedom be the rule, the good, the right? Why ought those who don't wish to allow people the simple freedom to NOT place things on their own body, be called wrong, and judgmental, and imposing their moral dogma on others?
Right?
I see a clear contradiction on the part of those who say others are wrong, for saying others are wrong. I don't know what makes them take up the badge of moral judge, and begin claiming that they can speak rightly of what others ought to think and do, while simultaneously condemning those who dare to do such a thing. My mind has some basic safeguards against such double-talk, and doublethink.
Actually, John, this article does not take a position on the question of "absolute" truths. The point of the article is that those who DO take such a position, and deplore "moral relativism," are perfectly willing to modify the established moral codes of society to fit their religious model. As others have pointed out, this makes THEM the moral relativists.
But I agree with you that the human intellect (and all of its constructs, including ALL religions) is not sufficiently wise to make a set of immutable rules governing human conduct for all eternity that will be universally beneficial.
That is why laws change and social codes, rituals and traditions vary over time and geography. I think most people would share that view.
Except for the ones who read their ancient sacred books and believe that all the answers are there.
That's hilarious Lew...
"Actually, John, this article does not take a position on the question of "absolute" truths."
Yes it does. And you demonstrate that quite nicely with your last statement;
"That is why laws change and social codes, rituals and traditions vary over time and geography. I think most people would share that view.
Except for the ones who read their ancient sacred books and believe that all the answers are there."
Don't piss on my boots, and tell me it's raining, please.
But my point had to do with where you get off telling other people they are wrong, for telling other people they are wrong? Why is it peachy keeno for you to impose your morality on others, but they are not to do anything of the sort? Would it not be wise to grant all the same right to use what criteria they find significant to such matters?
Would you feel it just fine if the majority decided that those who do not believe in God, or that He knows best, ought not express their views on moral issues? Would that not seem kinda arbitrary to you, as a member of a free society?
Your lack of awareness of God, does not render your opinion about the Books anything more than your opinion there is no God (which just so happens to be a rather small minority opinion in your society). If there is a God, as the large majority is aware, there can be no rational basis for saying He could not cause a Book to exist with His instructions or advice in it. It just ain't that hard for an all powerful Being, to do stuff like that.
Is there a double standard here JK? Where do you get off telling people that they are wrong? Or...if you are supporting the majority who makes a moral determination of how others should live...where do ALL of you get off telling people that they are wrong?
"Your lack of awareness of God, does not render your opinion about the Books anything more than your opinion there is no God (which just so happens to be a rather small minority opinion in your society)." The popular consensus has nothing to do with the validity of a belief or a belief system.
What do you say?
A. You feel guilty because you are guilty, or, B. You are as ignorant as your beliefs prove you to be. You've understood my point, and hate the idea that those who are Right, and yet disagree with you, are not nearly as vindictive as those with your "mindset," who take pleasure in hateful acts such as yours. Fools who believe as you do would have destroyed the ratings on an article of the opposite view. Darkness cannot exist in the Light, and your vindictiveness is exposed.
You cannot discern what is Truth, so I leave Truth to those with Discernment. Leave the Bible out of this; it is Society who decides what defines Marriage, and they have decided. Thank your fellow Obama supporters for me, and for this; they are the "HATERS" who've pushed the Proposition 8 Initiative to success. Isn't "karma" a bitchy woman!
What makes you think the majority of the population believes the way you do. Often I tell the Book believers I believe just so they will leave me alone.
And, factual results. Check the number of states that vote DOWN any attempts to make homosexual "marriage" Law.
But when we put it into a political structure, I tend to go with Aristotle's book of Politics, in that politics have to be what is best for the society. So ok on that note, the only facts showing that gay/lesbian unions that raise kids are dangerous, are from fundimental religious studies. Open ended studies have not shown any real effect, besides short term confussion about sexual relations (gay or straight). Which right now, many of the pubic schools in the US cause the same with their forced Gay/lesbian classes. So in effect I am not convenced that it is that bad, but more of a community issue that needs to be adressed.
It is in effect the same when you look back at the early years of interracial (black/white) relationships. We all heard the same thing, I know I did. Anyhow the only issue was not so much the parents, as it was the kids that had a hard time. Other kids of single races often harrassed these mixed kids, to no end. I have heard that a number of the kids at one time (don't know about now) were harrassed just like the mixed kids were, and yes that does cause harm.
I have no problem with the Civil Unions, as they give equal rights to the Gay/Lesbians, and at the same time should keep tension down in the community.
And, neither does a majority "have a problem" with "unions." Radical homsexuals, however, do. This is not about "rights," this is about the homosexuals intention to RE-DEFINE Marriage.
The dietary laws are still followed by some Christian sects, and the Seventh Day Adventists are one of these. Roman Catholics had a Church Law that forbade consumption of meat on Fridays, and certain other days they deemed Holy Days. It was considered a mortal sin, punishable by eternal hell should you have eaten meat and die before you went to Confession. Good thing for some that Confessions were held on Saturdays, so if you made it through the 24 hour period, you could still have the chance to save yourself! Our catechisms were filled with all kinds of hypothetical situations like what you might do should you be in the company of a Protestant friend who ordered a hot dog on a Friday. Of course, why would you be hanging out with a Protestant, anyway?
It was, however, this kind of letter of Law that Christ came to fulfill because, as it's stated in Mark 7:15, "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man."
Also, the same and more in Mark 7:18-23
"Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man."
I believe that the Law of Love dispenses us from the dietary laws and proves that those laws are not important in God's assessment of us as worthy. We have become worthy through the sacrifice of Christ in obeying the laws of love as he taught us. There are some Christians who do not believe that these verses and others release them from the dietary laws, however.
Do I believe that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman? Absolutely! However, as I've said many times, I know I didn't choose my heterosexual proclivities. It's easy for me to impute my so called values on others when it isn't any sacrifice for me to say that marriage is a sacred institution between man and a woman. It's certainly not going to destroy my happiness that I can't marry some woman. It sort of ties in with the comment I made to Michael. If I didn't like shellfish or pork, it would be very easy for me to say that all Christians should abide by OT dietary laws.
The fact is that although I know how I feel about this issue, I haven't given it enough thought to make a decision that I can say I am completely for or against the proposition in line with my Christian beliefs and in line with the beliefs I have about government control over one's personal life. There are so many nuances that need to be considered before I can give you any definitive answer.
At any rate..I yield to your vastly broader knowledge of the Bible. My confusion over how and to what degree the Old Testament is observed or its laws followed, its stories believed...by modern day Christians will evidently never be cleared up as each Christian seemingly has free reign to pick and choose as he/she sees fit. While this is understandable...the problem of self contradiction becomes an issue as many Christians attempt to use bible verse in what ever need suits their purpose at the moment.
As an example...back to Bert's post. It is the Christian cry of love and understanding that contradicts their condemnation of homosexuals. It is the spirit of a non judgmental tenet that contradicts the judgment of the Christian's fellow man's actions as sinful...when those actions are those of love and commitment to another fellow human...
I don't understand the rationale.
*What, then, do you say is the POINT in Male and Female? Do you say, then, that there does not exist a "better," and a "best?"
Do you say that the MOTHER of the Child brings nothing that the Father has not, already?
Do you say that the FATHER has nothing to bring, that the Mother has not already provided?
At the county fair should I insist on my right to enter my corn to be judged with the sheep because they both have 'ears'?
Should I insist on my right to use the Lady's Room because, I too, have bodily functions that need an outlet?
This is an attempt to redefine what 'marriage' is, plain and simple. . .
-Mark
Well, I don't know that I would agree with "at the moment" but there are certainly interpretations of the Word of God that are different among Christian sects and even among those within the same sect. I think that most do adhere to whatever interpretation they hold and don't waiver from that randomly, at least none who would consider their faith a serious matter.
"It is the Christian cry of love and understanding that contradicts their condemnation of homosexuals... I don't understand the rationale."
I understand how you don't understand that, Michael, and it's one of the reasons that, without having given this much more consideration than I have, I can't make a firm statement on the proposition. We are taught to love the sinner, but not the sin. This also makes it impossible for me to be firm without further study and prayerful thought. It's just not that simple, at least not to me.
Perhaps if you allow it to be simple, it can be simple...follow what you said earlier.."The two greatest commandments, loving God and neighbor, are the fulfillment of the Law."
That sounds very simple to me.
"We are taught to love the sinner, but not the sin."
Then by all means...love the sinner...his sins are not yours and are not yours to judge.
Among many other considerations, I have to think of children. I think of all the statistics of children raised with only one gender who have had poor starts in life because of that. I don't know that it's fair to children to have two parents who are of the same gender. Especially where boys are concerned, can two women raise a boy with all his emotional and psychological needs met to a degree where he will be as complete and whole as a boy raised with a good role model of his gender? Sure, you can say that divorce happens and many boys are raised by mothers who have fulfilled lives, but there are many who have suffered for this too. That's unfortunate and it happens, but when we can control that, should we also encourage it? You can also say that some boys are raised with bad male role models as fathers and that's unfortunate too but, once again, should we encourage the scenarios where more boys will be raised at risk because they didn't have a good male role model? There are numerous ethical issues like these that I have to consider first.
And of this You can be certain: I respect You, and Your position.
Interesting stats! I want to take a look at how they derived these. I think it would also be interesting to know the proportion of Gays to non-Gays in those races.
I just can't resist saying that it might be more difficult for some to find any wrong in decisions of the minorities so many steadfastly support without question, and with such fervor.
I'm not THANKING anybody for the ratification of prop 8. But your statement seemingly indicates that Christians do not include Blacks and Hispanics Obama supporters in their number.
As usual, your statements and questions are monotonic.
You ask me what is marriage? Read the article. Many, many people get married for other reasons than having children, M-J. And many gay and straight couples adopt children.
You say that not only Christians voted for Prop 8. Blacks and Hispanics did too. WOW! Now that is an interesting statement. Apparently you don't consider blacks Christians. Black churches might tend to disagree with you there. And Hispanics? Mostly Catholics...but I guess you fundamentalists don't consider them Christians, do you. Your intolerance is showing, M-J...and maybe even a tinge of...you know...that dreaded "R" word.
Sue's point about homophobia not being confined to Christians is certainly true. Some of the supporters of Prop 8 were certainly non-Christians. But, despite M-J's assertion that blacks and Hispanics are not Christians, I will venture the opinion that MOST of the support for Prop 8 came from Christians. Certainly, most of the money to run the campaign did. That has been well-documented...and much of it came from Religious Right Wing organizations outside the state of California.
"Californians who attend church weekly voted for Proposition Eight by a margin of 83 percent to 17 percent, according to exit polls. Those who attend church occasionally voted 40 percent in favor and 60 percent opposed. Californians who never attend church were 14 percent in favor and 86 percent
opposed.
College graduates opposed Proposition Eight by a 57 percent to 43 percent margin. Those without a college degree favored it 53 percent to 47 percent."
JK...I said that the ARTICLE did not take a position on absolute truths. Go back and read it. Your quote is from a comment that I made. I didn't say that I didn't have a position on the issue. So THE ARTICLE did not say that Bible thumpers are wrong...it said they are inconsistent, and have a double standard when it comes to moral relativism.
Did you read the article, John?
Because there is no rationale in duplicity and hypocrisy.
I thought I covered that fairly completely, Bert. I also don't see any correlation to asking bad parents to divorce. Bad parents are certainly bad parents and are, in many cases, going to yield children with problems. We can't do much about damage already done. Once again, according to statistics that clearly prove that children have a better chance at success in life when they are raised by responsible, two parent families, (stats of heterosexual couples) the issue is whether we should encourage the risks imposed by raising children with only one gender. There are identity issues, for one, that any responsible psychologist cannot let go unnoticed as to their importance in the healthier psycho-sociological development of those children. You can overlook that if you care to do so, but I can't.
As I said in the article, "“Unpopular decisions (by the courts) are the price of constitutional rights.” A majority vote does NOT make a law right or moral...or Constitutional.
Because there is no rationale in duplicity and hypocrisy."
What is duplicitous or hypocritical about the rationale for hating the sin but not the sinner, Sandy? I don't suspect it would be something for which you would recognize the difference. Let's face the truth here. (I know that's difficult for you.) Your bigoted hatred for Christians, in general, supercedes any rationale for you to be able to point a finger without hysterical laughter at the irony of the idea.
I understand your position on gay parents, Sue. I don't have detailed statistics on their "success" rate, nor do I have statistics on mixed-race parents, or black parents or Hispanic parents or white parents or any other ethnic group. But I question your principle in opposing gay marriage even if statistics show that the success rate is lower for gay parents, if other ethnic or racial unions are no better. Is it ethical to single out gays, just because that is one group you can inflict your will on?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-datapage,0,6345593.htmlstory
One more time, Bert, it's only one consideration of several others. Yes, it is incumbent on me not to allow myself to decide this matter without that consideration. When I have the knowledge that I do have from statistics that give responsible, two parent families a better chance for their offspring to succeed in this world, including that of crime incidence, and I have a chance, by my vote, to preclude more incidence of a lesser quality of life for children raised in less than an environment that would enable them that success, I must consider that. I am not singling them out, but it happens to be that Gays are the ones involved in this decision, and for me to not consider this issue just because they are Gay is irresponsible and inconceivable to me.
I also think that for men to have children when they are 65 years old and older, just because they can marry a woman in child bearig years is a very selfish and cruel thing to do. Should there be legislation for men and women not to be beyond the years when they can realistically see themselves as alive and active participants in the child's life to the age of his own adulthood, and there were legislation to preclude procreation, I would also be grappling with that issue as to govenment intervention in private lives vs. the well being of the next generation.
I am doubtful about your "selfish and cruel" characterization of older folks who wish to be parents. Many grandparents end up parenting for deceased, divorced or unfit parents. Many do a fine job. Should anyone be able to say to THAT couple right over there that they can't get married and raise children? For ANY reason? Maybe they both carry a recessive gene that virtually guarantees a defective fetus. Should they be prohibited from conceiving? I am uncomfortable with any blanket laws that attempt to enforce such restrictions. This IS a free country, and people are free to do unwise, even stupid things. I shudder at the thought of a Big Brother society that looks over everyone's shoulder, wags a finger and says "no, we won't allow you to do that, because statistically...."
Your example of grandparents raising children is another example of things we can do nothing about. Surely, fate has a way of getting in beween the ideal and the not so ideal, but when we are clearly looking at legislation before us, and there is something that might be a grave concern, I have to give it some thought.
I'm not disagreeing with the way you see it, but the fact that I haven't weighed all the implications, and that I am not satisfied with making a moral and ethical decision based on the relatively little attention I've given this issue, leaves me little left to say here.
It took me years of indecision on capital punishment to take a stand that I believe is right. I just don't have the answer for this issue now. I didn't vote on this issue in my state.