As a consequence of two pending decisions, we may be about to accept homosexual marriage.
In 1993 the supreme court of Hawaii ruled that, under the equal-protection clause of that state’s constitution, any law based on distinctions of sex was suspect, and thus subject to strict judicial scrutiny.
Beyond these changes, Sullivan writes, American society would need no “cures [of homophobia] or reeducations, no wrenching private litigation, no political imposition of tolerance.” It is hard to imagine how Sullivan’s proposals would, in fact, end efforts to change private behavior toward homosexuals, or why the next, inevitable, step would not involve attempts to accomplish just that purpose by using cures and reeducations, private litigation, and the political imposition of tolerance.
But apart from this, Sullivan—an English Catholic, a homosexual, and someone who has on occasion referred to himself as a conservative—has given us the most sensible and coherent view of a program to put homosexuals and heterosexuals on the same public footing.
A few scholars believe that states may be able to impose public-policy objections to such out-of-state marriages—Utah has already voted one in, and other states may follow—but only at the price of endless litigation.
That litigation may be powerfully affected by the second case. If its decision upholds the Colorado supreme court and thus allows homosexuals to acquire a constitutionally protected status, the chances will decline of successful objections to homosexual marriage based on considerations of public policy.
He does not fully sustain this view, and in fact a refutation of it can be found in Prager’s essay.
In Prager’s opinion and mine, people at the time of Moses, and for centuries before him, understood that there was a fundamental difference between whom you killed and what you ate, and in all likelihood people then and for centuries earlier linked whom you could marry closer to the principles that defined life than they did to the rules that defined diets.
While the paper is educated and insightful, it is the user’s conclusion that has really gripped the internet since it was uploaded: ‘God created you, and he made no mistakes, God created me bisexual, and he made no mistakes, and he creates some people gay, and makes no mistakes: ‘For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected’ (1 Tim. ‘Marriage is not between man and woman, marriage is between love and love.
Love is not wrong, love is not a mistake, love is not an abomination, love is just love.’ Sadly, many other Reddit users were able to relate to averagesmurf’s assignment – in that they too were asked to produce something similar.