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.

No Comments

  1. irishsignora on May 20, 2012 at 8:59 am

    As always, I agree with your take, Mr. Quiner. Interestingly, I was just getting ready to look up your blog, because I saw this little horror this morning:
    http://newwaysministryblog.wordpress.com/2012/05/20/cardinal-calls-for-equality-of-heterosexual-and-homosexual-relationships/

    I devoutly hope this is someone’s idea of a sick joke, or that some context by the Cardinal was taken grossly out of context.

    • quinersdiner on May 20, 2012 at 9:27 am

      I don’t trust coverage of these types of stories until I read the full text. Nonetheless, there have always been voices from the Left within the Church wanting the Church to bend to the will of the Culture instead of the Spirit. It takes a strong, Spirit-filled Pope to withstand the trends that emanate from the Left.

  2. NotAScientist on May 21, 2012 at 12:32 pm

    “Is a person’s desires a civil right?”

    Is a person’s sexual orientation only a ‘desire’?

    The science says no.

  3. Kurt Johnson on May 21, 2012 at 9:14 pm

    Your use of a 10 year old boy is a straw man. The real issue is between (or among) consenting adults. We protect our children in part by not allowing them to make many decisions on their own because we believe others may take wrongful advantage of them because of their immaturity and lack of knowledge and experience. We do protect the desires of adults as long as they don’t use force or fraud against others. For example, government protects my desire to speak and my desire to practice my religious faith as I see fit – as long as I don’t use force or fraud against others.

    Our government should not discriminate against the activity of consenting adults who do no harm to others.

Leave a Comment