Civil rights are not based on human desire

By Tom Quiner

Gay marriage is all about civil rights.

That was the premise of a letter writer in this morning’s Des Moines Register:

“If Pottawattamie County Republican Chairman Jeff Jorgensen wants to know, “Why can’t we vote and decide this issue for ourselves?” regarding same-sex marriage (“Obama Makes Marriage a Swing State Issue,” letters, May 16), here’s his answer: It’s none of his business. Nor mine. Nor anyone else’s.”

I’m not sure he’s thought the issue through. Suppose a man wants to marry a ten year old boy. Is that our business?

He continues:

“In a democracy, you do not get to vote away someone else’s civil rights. That’s not part of the deal. Jorgensen’s argument is the segregationist argument from a half-century ago: The majority gets to decide what rights it wants to bestow on a minority. Well, those days are gone.”

Is a person’s desires a civil right? It never has been in the past. Civil rights was predicated on race, gender, creed, not human desires. Human desires are sometimes disordered, as in the case of a man who wants to marry a ten year old boy.

The letter writer concludes:

“I’ve never been a big fan of Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, but he has shown a lot of courage in protecting our constitution from this type of tyranny.”

In fact, Senator Gronstal subverts democracy by preventing a vote on the foundational institution of Western Civilization: marriage.

The marriage debate has nothing to do with civil rights. People with same sex desires have always been free to marry according to society’s definition of marriage.

The debate is all about definition, and Democrats won’t even allow us to debate.