The Scottsbluff (NE) Star-Herald printed my response to a letter to the editor. (The letter appears in the print edition and behind a paywall in the electronic edition.)
(Cue the pitchforks and torches at a village trustee’s house.)
The text as it appears in the paper is below the orange creampuff. The letter is a response to an on-going debate in the paper over Nebraska’s prohibition of same-sex marriage.
(If money is now free speech, why is prostitution illegal?)
History of Constitution Has Been the Expansion of Rights
Since Adam Harris (June 20) holds forth that same-sex relations are a lifestyle choice, are opposite-sex relations also a lifestyle choice?
Even if seventy percent of Nebraskans want to deny equal treatment under the law, that decision isn’t constitutional. Biblical arguments against the morality of marriages have no place in a secular constitutional republic.
It is fortunate that the Danbury Baptist Association argued so passionately for the separation of church and state in the Bill of Rights. In their day, Baptists were a minority, and they were exiled, jailed, or killed for their beliefs. Baptists were acutely aware of how religiously-inspired laws can be used to oppress rather than liberate.
Every Confederate secession document cited the Bible to maintain slavery, as did miscegenation laws.
If a Dixie state put up minority equal rights for a vote in 1965, discrimination would have passed by a wide margin. Saying "seventy percent supports it" does not make it just. Rights are not determined by popular vote. That is the nature of a constitutional republic.
I’m still waiting to hear a secular argument for the unequal treatment of taxpaying citizens.
Loving v Virginia held marriage a fundamental right. A right is not fundamental if the law can be used to deny marriage because some feel it is "icky." My sister's same-sex marriage in no way affects my opposite-sex one.
Many churches today recognize that fundamental right. To deny them would deny their freedom of religion.
No one is forcing others into same-sex marriages. They are asking for equal treatment as outlined in the XIV Amendment. No one prohibits you from "standing by your morals," but you do not speak for all. Demanding equal treatment is not “pushing an agenda.” Enshrining discrimination in law is not love.
In seeking to create a more-perfect Union, the entire history of the Constitution has been the expansion of rights (excepting the misguided and religiously-motivated XVIII Amendment).
We are a better people than that. Our nation is the first founded on the principle that all are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights, the first nation based on the Rule of Law and not on religion. As our society continues to advance and evolve, it continues to root out those dark corners where there are those that would deny rights to others they hold for themselves.
James A Kulacz
Broadwater
______________
Mr. Harris’s original letter appears below (Scottsbluff Star-Herald, June 20):
Nebraskans are standing by their morals
To the Editor:
Well, I’ve finally had enough; even though I held my tongue (and pen) even while your paper has continually and intentionally promoted the gay and lesbian lifestyles in our faces for the last several weeks/months/years. You (Star-Herald) have now allowed one of your editorial staff, Bart Schaneman, to openly promote the homosexual lifestyle. Even going as far on Saturday to suggest that Nebraska lags behind in equal rights and common sense, and that Nebraska is always slow in making progress (as he defines it).
Mr. Schaneman suggests that polls show that the majority of Americans support the gay and lesbian lifestyle and agenda. I would suggest Mr. Schaneman to look at a real poll—the Nebraska election poll results in 2000—when Nebraskans overwhelmingly rejected same-sex marriage and the recognition of such by amending the Nebraska State Constitution by a whopping 70 percent margin.
I am confident that when Nebraskans voted in 2000 they knew what they wanted. They wanted their state to set their standards high and be as free of same sex marriage and the recognition of it as possible. Nebraskans felt that was the best for Nebraska, and firmly voted for it.
What Mr. Schaneman asks us to do is to put our beliefs and morals aside and have an anything goes society.
What Nebraskans said in 2000 is that, no we are not going to be a state and community that says anything and everything is OK. Nebraskans said we will stand up for what we know in our hearts, in our minds and our souls to be right. Thank God for Nebraska and for Nebraskans.
This subject has many deep seeded [sic] feelings on both sides of the issue. It is not my intention to denigrate other peoples’ views. In fact, my Christian faith compels and commands that we love one another. But loving one another does not mean that I have to lie down, turn a blind eye and let unbiblical truths and actions go on without calling them out as being wrong. Just as God/Jesus did when they encountered it. Read Romans Chapter 1 if you need to confirm it.
I know in Mr. Schaneman’s mind, Nebraskans are slow in common sense. Mr. Schaneman says, come on, everybody’s doing it, but my parents taught me better than that. I like to think of Nebraskans as being enlightened, taking seriously our responsibility to live out our faith and honor His word so it all makes good God sense and good common sense.
Adam Harris
Scottsbluff
Fri Jun 27, 2014 at 12:07 AM PT: Since I wrote my letter to the Star-Herald, a number of new letters have come out in support of marriage equality in Nebraska, either supporting my position or opposing Mr Harris's. As it turns out, the idea of equal rights doesn't seem to be a liberal or conservative position, but a fair one.