Buy Xanax Without Prescription

Whenever someone holds a bigoted belief toward a certain group, the logic they use to support their point of view is often twisted and in opposition to reality. This is especially true in the gay marriage struggle. Frank Shubert, co-chair of Proposition 8, demonstrates this quite clearly in a quote from an LA Times article on Prop 8:

Now, if they want to legalize gay marriage, what they should do is bring an initiative themselves and ask the people to approve it. But they don't. They go behind the people's back to the courts and try and force an agenda on the rest of society.

There are two points in this quote that are absurd and fly in the face of reason. First is the assertion that bringing this issue to the courts is going 'behind the people's back.' One of the primary functions of our court system is to uphold the rights of all American citizens. This includes deciding whether citizens are entitled to certain rights under existing US or state laws/Constitutions and whether or not laws are constitutional. The courts have a long history of doing so. When the majority of people support the suppression of a minority's rights, it is the duty of the courts to protect those rights. Otherwise, freedom fails. Second, legalized gay marriage does not 'force an agenda on the rest of society.' This is an argument that drives me to the point of rage, mostly because it is often used by those who do wish to force an agenda on society. I would love to ask Mr. Shubert how many heterosexuals he believes would have been forced to marry a same-sex partner if Prop 8 had been passed. No one, and I mean no one, would be forced to do or accept anything if gay marriage were legal. Heterosexuals would be free to go about their lives just as they do now. Bigots would be free to continue to be bigots. They would see same-sex couples just as they do now. The difference would be opaque to them -- some of those couples would be living with the same legal benefits that heterosexuals get when they marry. If Mr. Shubert feels revolted when he sees same-sex couples, he would still feel revolted, but the fact that they are married wouldn't change anything for him. On the other hand, denying same-sex couples the right to marry does force an agenda on a segment of scoiety. This actively prevents same-sex couples from receiving the legal benefits that marriage brings. It treats them as substandard members of society. As if they aren't full citizens and somehow don't deserve the same benefits as their heterosexual peers. This is an argument I've seen again and again. You can see another form of it later in the same article, in a quote from a 34 year-old Mormon woman:

We aren't trying to change anything that homosexual couples believe or want -- it doesn't change anything that they're allowed to do already. It's defining marriage. . . . Marriage is a man and a woman establishing a family unit.

By putting it that way, she can convince herself that she's not a bigot. She isn't denying anyone anything, just defining marriage. But that's exactly what makes her, Frank Shubert, and those like them hypocrites. They are denying homosexual couples something. I suppose my problem is that I can't reconcile how anyone can profess to love freedom while desiring to supress the freedom of their fellow citizens. My brain just isn't wired that way. I actually have the ability to, you know, reason.