I simply think it is fruitless to argue the pro-position from scriptures since you have to cherry-pick in order to justify it. There is a better, simpler and far more elegant argument from the totality of scripture that escapes the pitfalls of the cherry-picking approach.
I think the point of the author was that you also have to "cherry-pick" to condemn it. I agree that the better argument is from the totality of scripture, which is also, as I read the article (by a woman, I should note - so she), the point of the author of the piece. That is almost always my complaint about trying to wedge scripture into illogical arguments - it ignores the
substance of it in favor of the "jots and tittles." And, of course, as I have noted, is irrelevant to the legal position altogether.
My argument continues to be quite simple and elegant too: under the Constitution, in order to deny a right or privilege to a person, the government has to have a) legal authority, b) a rational basis for the law, and c) a correlation between the rational basis and the means sought to achieve that end. This is true whether the legislation is through the Legislature or Initiative. In this case,
none of the three requirements obtain, and therefore Prop 8
must fall.
None of the arguments in favor of denying marriage to same-gender couples have rational or legal bases. It irks me no end to see them perpetuated, especially by ideologically-bound activist courts. What most people fail to understand is that the courts of Hawaii, Massachussetts, Connecticut and California are taking the
less activist role.
