December 19, 2008

California preacher has lots of gay friends

But how many pedophiles, he isn't saying

A number of observers on the political left have expressed degrees of concern with self-styled God-spokeperson and megachurch proprietor "Pastor" Rick Warren's comparison of gays with pedophiles.

While it's true Warren likened gay couples to child molesters and it's also true that the comparison is outlandish and wildly insulting on its face, there are at least two important distinctions overlooked by most of those observers.

Pedophilia is an aberrant psychological condition and plenty of pedophiles are already legally married. They just aren't married to children. And when it comes to sexual — or even contractual — relationships involving children, the question of consent arises.

Because as a matter of fundamental legal (and psychological) principle, children aren't even capable of extending consent. Whereas among adults, consent is not an issue. It's a given.

Nevertheless, the ongoing debate over gay marriage is not so much a question of sexuality or even consent but of equality and civil rights, two other fundamental legal principles.

And the civil rights and bonds sought by many gay people are no different than those enjoyed by anyone else. It just so happens that those bonds are sought by two people of the same gender. All of their other goals and aspirations may be identical to those of other legally married couples, including child rearing and even child bearing.

Take a look, for example, at this assembly of New Jersey plaintiffs.

In a number of the same sex marriage cases litigated throughout the country, States have asserted, in opposition to SSM, that State's compelling interest in fostering procreation. Frankly, it's just about the strongest argument they have.

Except nobody ever said that gay couples can't procreate, either through surrogate parenting or adoption.

Nor has any State forced more "traditional" couples to procreate who otherwise might decide not to — or even have intercourse, for that matter. In other words, women and men, regardless of their sexuality, are still able to fulfill those State objectives if they so desire. Or not. They remain free to make those choices.

Much in keeping with the U.S Supreme Court's 1967 unanimous opinion in Loving v. Virginia, it took a judicial decision in California to recognize the constitutional right of gay people to enter into the same type of civil arrangement that the widely admired Britney Spears was able to freely enjoy for as long as 55 whole hours.

Former Paramount Studios head Robert Evans enjoyed it so much he did it seven times with nary a peep from the religious rightists.

Yet "Pastor" Warren, allegedly at the personal behest of noted civil libertarian and community organizer Jesus of Nazareth, helped lead the efforts of Californians to rescind that right on November 4.

That alone should preclude him from sharing the inaugural podium with the president of all Americans a month from now, in my opinion. But that's Barack Obama's decision, and he can take his political lumps for it. And he will. And he should. And he deserves to.

Warren's position is not a "principled decision," as some might suggest. That Warren views consensual, adult gay relationships through the same antediluvian blinkers that he does those who would commit first degree sexual assault of a child, which carries a 60-year prison term in Wisconsin, is instead strong evidence that his position is one of a foolish and unprincipled ignoramus.

As for Obama's selection of Warren to intone some species of abracadabra during the chief executive's installation next month, we don't yet know of its exact content. But Warren says he plans to "pray God's blessing on the office of the president," so obviously it's not going to make the slightest bit of difference one way or the other.


Anonymous said...

I know your doing your lefty thing but I also suspect you know that homosexuals are not the same as heterosexuals and that the equality argument fails.

Anonymous said...

LOL @ Anony

Also, men from Nevada are not the same as men from Arizona. The argument that they should have equal rights fails.

illusory tenant said...

A friend of mine just called me and asked me, "What does that anonymous comment even mean?" I had to confess, I have little idea. Probably "Gays are gay," or something.

Anonymous said...

Clutch and IT -

nice try but your arguments also fail.

illusory tenant said...

Actually, Anonymous, Clutch was using your argument. Apparently that's what it took to demonstrate its unsoundness to you.

Anonymous said...

Actually, IT, usually I do not fall for such foolish arguments.

Nevertheless, I still think there may be hope for you because once you direct your logical thinking in the right direction, we will agree on numerous things.

Yes, I do think you do think logically, when you are not thinking sarcastically.

The big difference between us is that you hope there isn’t life after death while I hope there is. Everything else follows.

Display Name said...

If we just follow the logic, all will become clear.

Other Side said...

Yes, I do think you do think logically, when you are not thinking sarcastically.


illusory tenant said...

Can't I do both?

AutismNewsBeat said...

I'm giving Obama the benefit of the doubt on this Warren thing. Eight years of Anonymous and Bush have left our country in the worse shape it's been in 70 years. To get the US back on track will take a Uniter® who can gain cooperation and trust from all sides. Warren is a peace offering to the missing chromosone wing of the GOP. It doesn't mean we'll soon be sending gays to re-education camps in Wasilla, or registering their names in a federal database. Understood in these terms, bringing Warren and his coalition of barking loons into the discussion is similar to engaging the religious fundamentalist leaders of Iran.

Emily said...

...bringing Warren and his coalition of barking loons into the discussion is similar to engaging the religious fundamentalist leaders of Iran.

I do hope you're right.

As for our anonymous commentator, I strongly suspect "troll" - either that, or a complete block against actual logic.