OPINION: Gay marriage is latest triumph for LGBT bullies

I am not an adamant supporter of many of the conservative social causes... not nearly as much as the fiscal issues, but I do find liberal positions on social matters becoming intolerable. There appears to be no middle ground in this country.

Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision in 1973, was supposed to give women “control over their bodies.” But where does a woman’s control over her body end and the right of a viable fetus to not be murdered begin? If a 6-, 7- or 8-month fetus is able to survive independently outside of the womb, who gives the mother the right to terminate that life? Since a mother can opt for a third-trimester abortion just because, can she likewise end the life of her 1- or 3-month-old child because the sleep deprivation is causing her physical or mental harm?

Now, after over 30 states voted that marriage is between a man and a woman, we are to believe that in two short years the timid, uninformed participants in polls have changed their mind and now accept gay marriage. Does no one question how, almost simultaneously, a majority of voters in a majority of states voted that marriage is between a man and a woman in the privacy of the voting booth, but when shamed in a telephone poll now change their mind on such an important issue?

 This has truly become a tsunami, from the president down to your ill-informed neighbor, of absurd political correctness. Of course, this change of opinion and definition has been fostered by the tyranny of the minority, the LGBT community, which has bullied us into accepting their morals and standards even to the point of demanding that some abandon their religious principles. The courts — all the way up to the Supreme Court — in a stunning display of populism and political activism rather than law have decided to overrule these legal votes.

Rather than a simple majority decision, I suggest that all major Supreme Court decisions be required to have at least a two-thirds majority if not unanimous vote. Since these decisions are so sweeping in scope, they should be decided by whether they are consistent with our Constitution not the ideological and political leanings of the justices and the presidents who appoint them.

Having learned nothing from over 40 years of turmoil and divisiveness from Roe v. Wade, rather than allow this to work through the population state by state, we are now faced with another Supreme Court decision to deeply divide the country. And Justice Kennedy’s absurd focus on marriage conferring “dignity” on gay relationships, might want to get a front-row seat at a few gay-pride parades if he wants to see real “dignity.” Just Google “gay pride parades” if you want to see a multitude of pictures from parades coast to coast last month demonstrating real “dignity.”

 I have said this before, but does anyone doubt that even this decision won’t satisfy the LGBT community? We have already seen that they are demanding that small businesses accept their definition of marriage and provide services — services available by other local providers such as photography or wedding cakes — despite religious beliefs to the contrary. Clergy better prepare to provide wedding ceremonies because that is surely next.

In fact, the foundation has long ago been set by a deceased (1994) gay, Catholic convert history professor at Yale, John Boswell. He died at age 42 of an AIDS-related illness. Boswell, in an attempt to change the Catholic Church, spent 12 years researching and writing about church ceremonies (sealing ceremonies swearing loyal brotherhood between men and presided over by a priest) in the 10th to 12th centuries which he claimed were the same or very similar to wedding ceremonies. I am sure there are other similar scholarly attempts to justify same-sex marriage in the Catholic Church.

 The LGBT community also wants the right for transgenders to use whichever gender public or school bathroom they desire. This would mean that a 17-year-old physical male who claims to be a female could use the same bathroom as your 8- or 12-year-old daughter. Absurd? It is already happening.

I am not Catholic, nor am I anti-gay. Rather I am against those who not only seek their rights, but demand that I give up mine or my beliefs. With gay couples already having all the legal rights of marriage, why did they need to change its definition? I do have a warning for those gay couples celebrating today. Be careful what you wish for. Those who don’t want marriage, may no longer be able to claim same-sex civil-union privileges. Already some large corporations who provide health and retirement benefits to unmarried same-sex couples but not to heterosexual couples who aren’t married are considering dropping this coverage. After all, if my girlfriend can’t be covered under my insurance through my employer, shouldn’t the same apply to an unmarried same-sex partner now?

Also, as they rush to get those marriage certificates, I hope gay spouses and the courts which codified them are prepared to handle all the legal issues which are soon to follow — divorce, alimony, child support, visitation, parental rights, etc.

All that glitters isn’t gold!

Myerowitz is a resident of Columbia Falls.