The legacy of Martin Luther King

Isn't Sodomy. There is a difference between doing something and being something. All laws regulate behavior. The Rule of Law seeks to impose a regime that separates good behavior from bad behavior, sheep from goats. I sometimes find it amazing that an African American (half at least) President would find an equivalence between Gay so called 'rights' and the civil rights struggle of African Americans- who were enslaved because of their color and national origin. What Gay person has ever been enslaved in America? It is true that the religious right zealots are obnoxious. They are so full of themselves its hard to ferret out the truth from their bravado and bullying sometimes. But Constitutionally, behavioral choices are not the same thing as that which one is created with or as. One may be created gay or 'born that way' but what one does with it is ones choice. One does not have a choice of race or gender. All persons are CREATED EQUAL. So the law should honor for equal protection purposes those things given by God as human attributes, not what one chooses to do with what one has been given. All persons are created equal, but not all persons do with that creation equal things, or advance to the potential of their humanity or evolve their persons in any aspect of human endeavor equally. All persons are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights by virtue of what they are created with. All persons are not thereafter equally educated, work equally hard, apply equally their intelligence, make equally wise life choices or equally produce to the maximum of their potential. We are each unique in that regard. Some choices are a function of opportunity and some are a function of will. I choose to work not sit at home watching soap operas. I chose to go to school not be a teenage drop out single parent. It is fair, right and just that different choices bear natural consequences. Those consequences should naturally then be unequal. Gayness may be intrinsic. But acting gay sexually is not the same thing as being Gay. Being and Doing are different. The Constitutional equal protection principles do not extend to behavioral choices. It is not value neutral when it comes to behavioral matters such that it is required to consider all behaviors the same. But this is not just a Constitutional argument but also a moral one- as all law is intrinsically a moral value judgment on what is or is not right and acceptable behavioral qualities. Consider this scenario- A woman and her husband have three children together. The woman one day decides one day after years of pondering that she is disgusted with her husband and leaves him for another women. The husband now has to raise three children without his wife. The lover of the abandoning wife wants now the same spousal rights to the wife's original spousal property- half the house the family lived in for example. To be 'equal' and give the gay couple equal treatment what happens to the house- and the three kids living in it. Suppose Michele Obama has secretly had an affair for years with Valerie Jarrett and Jarrett wants half the house in Chicago. What happens to Malia's and Sasha's inheritence rights in the house? You think that odd? It happens whenver a gay man announces he is leaving for another man- as in the former Governor of New Jersey. Where do Malia and Sasha live in that case? Whose house is it? Equal behaviors are not what is meant by 'created equal.' Endowed with certain inalienable rights does not mean endowed with the right to engage in any sort of behavior or decide anything is moral one wishes to decide is moral for them in a relativistic sense. What motivated 800,000 french people to take to the streets in a massive protest 'manifestation' against the marriage equality legislation there? One frenchman told me it was a deep concern for the welfare of the children involved. ---as in the above scenario. But gayness is not condemned by Jesus anywhere in the bible you argue. Right, and neither is clubbing your mother in law with a hard sausage or eating raw cat with Miso sauce- because it was so unheard of in Jesus' day it didn't merit mention as just preposterous. Every single monotheistic religion has a prohibition against gay relations. It's not a comment on people's predispositions-it is a comment on what they do with them. Being sexual with your same gender has a strong prohibition in Christian scripture, and it merits serious penalty in the Muslim world. In Christian scripture it is classed in the same category as drunkards and fornicators. Practcing Homosexuals are expressly excluded from the Kingdom in scripture so for those bible believing scriptural adherents it has a moral component to it which cannot be ignored. If any behaviors enjoy the same equal protection as any other behaviors where is the 'limiting principle' for equal protection purposes? Where is the dividing line? The Constitutional issues are not as clear as the Inaugural speech would make it. It appeared less the moral high ground than grounds for moral confusion and Robert Bork is rolling over in his grave.