It’s surprising that such anti-intellectual material is published. Leonard Pitts’ article Jeb Bush chooses experience on gay marriage issue is just that, the pits! If an accomplished ‘writer’ can’t make a coherent point without leveling a barrage of ad hominem attacks, then I question his own ability to make a strong or intelligible point, must less a valid point on the issue. Let’s take a quick look (because frankly, that’s all it’s worth).
Pitts writes this in response to Bush’s call for tolerance from both sides of this issue: One is struck by Bush’s apparent implicit belief that fundamental rights are, or ought to be, subject to majority approval. (I’m glad Mr. Pitts admits transcendent morality) Does this apply also to the question of which group of adults can or cannot vote, protest or own property? And if not, then by what logic does it apply to the question of which group of adults can or cannot marry?
First of all, if I take his point and concede the answer to the last question, same-sex marriage is a fundamental right just as the right to vote and to protest, then why is it that Pitts has such a problem with people who disagree with him when they vote and when they protest? It sure doesn’t sound like “tolerance” to me.
Secondly, Pitts assumes several things in his statement that need to be challenged.
Is so-called same sex marriage a fundamental right on the same plane as voting, free speech, and private property ownership? Evidently it is in Pitts mind and the minds of several judges, but that doesn’t make it so. In fact, if we were to assert that a group of individuals are imposing a belief onto the culture by sheer might (subject to majority approval), it would be the folks like Pitts who use the name calling tactic to scare peace loving Americans who just happen to disagree with Pitts, into silence. He uses words like bigot to describe everyday Americans who disagree with his position on an issue that is not only new to our present culture, but is new to the history of mankind. Words like this are always used by people who have no argument and Mr. Pitts only uses these attacks to marginalize otherwise good people. If that is what America is becoming, congrats Mr. Pitts. You’re a first class…”citizen”.
Next in this short paragraph that had even less thought behind it, is the statement about who can marry. Does Pitts mean to say that groups of adults should be able to marry? I’m just saying. The logical conclusions if we accept marriage for love’s sake are polygamy, bestiality, polygyny, etc., we all know that. But for Pitts to admit it is wonderfully refreshing.
Next Pitts writes: As for his plea that we respect those who seek to “safeguard religious liberty” … really? Apparently, that is to become the preferred euphemism, the “state’s rights” of resistance to LGBT equality. But just as the only “right” the states rights crowd was ever interested in was the right to discriminate on account of race, so the only “liberty” the religious liberty folks ever seem to want is the liberty to refuse service to same-sex couples.
Pitts’ disdain for religious belief and freedom of such is scary. To equate millions of American’s fear of loosing their religious freedom with an excuse for slavery is going too far. Pitts seems to know as little about American history as he does Christian doctrine. He grouped all Federalists with all racists and all Christians with all people who would refuse service to same-sex couples. This is an irresponsible statement but I’m glad he made it. He accidently pointed out the truth, for once.
This is a case of religious freedom vs. sexual freedom. The question is no longer can two people of the same sex marry, but it is can anyone disagree with that based upon their religious convictions. Clearly, Pitts doesn’t think so. Make no mistake. Pitts, and his polemic protagonists, are coming after your religious freedom.
That is the most dangerous proposition, Mr. Pitts. So-called same-sex marriage may become law in each state, and it will be a peaceful transition for each of us. But when you begin to impose your form of exclusion upon the rights of people to practice religion freely, you will have taken a bridge too far. This is not Canada. The good people of the USA will not take that lightly, and you sir, will be at fault due to your rhetoric that amounts to so much noise.