Not Screaming “Homophobia”: Lesbian Couple Makes an Actual Compelling Constitutional Argument

So the usual schtick for gay people in the United States these days is for them to scream some version of “Homophobic”, “Discrimination”, or something similar when society doesn’t give them what they want.

As a result when I read a headline like “Lesbian couple can’t cohabitate: Why not?” I tend to sigh and click the link, expecting a mash-up of the above terms in reaction to whatever law they don’t like.

As much as I’m not ashamed of my sexuality, I am regularly disgusted and ashamed by the majority of the “gay community”.

So when I clicked on that story I was definitely not expecting an actual decent argument that actually references the rights of parents, individual liberties, and actual constitutional rights.

So the story is that the Compton’s (Carolyn and Joshua) got a divorce in 2011. Carolyn had customer of their two daughters, but the paperwork for the divorce included a common stipulation for Texas law, a morality clause which “prevents a divorced parent from having a romantic partner spend the night while children are in the home.”

Yeah, that’s kind of bullshit. I know, I prefer that children be raised in a home with two parents and that, ideally, those parents will be married, but that clause is still all kinds of wrong whether the romantic partner in question is the opposite or same sex.

The judge overseeing this case made it very clear that the clause was not discriminatory in nature and applied equally to same sex and opposite sex couples and Price and Compton, refreshingly, accepted that. They did not kick up a fuss about how they should be given special treatment because gay couples can’t actually get married in Texas or anything like that.

Now that doesn’t mean they are going to just lay down and let the law run roughshod over them. They complied with the ruling, but they are also going to court with the case that the clause is unconstitutional and they actually made a good argument for that, which didn’t involve the phrase “gay marriage” or the word “homophobia” even once.

[Price and Compton] also said in the statement that the clause “is a burden on parents, regardless of their sexual orientation, that takes away and unreasonably limits their ability to make parental decisions of whom their children may be around and unreasonably limits what the United State Supreme Court has identified as the liberty of thought, belief and expression.”

You see, if Joshua Compton has a problem with who is raising his child he can always have a new custody hearing, but as long as Carolyn has custody, she really should have the right to decide whether her girlfriend can live in the house or not, so should any parent, no matter their sexuality.*

This is an incredible invasion of privacy by the government. You are being told that you are not allowed to make decisions on who helps raise your children or what people live in a home with your children. You are also being told that you are not smart enough to be able to make a decision on whether your partner is trustworthy around your children or whether your children can handle being introduced to mommy or daddy’s new girlfriend/boyfriend/uncle Justin/Aunt Josephine or whatever you are calling them for your children’s benefit.

Anyway, the government doesn’t need to know the nature of my relationships, whether they are sexual, romantic, or platonic. This is for the same reason that the IRS doesn’t need to know my political views or have access to my medical files and the DOJ shouldn’t be checking a reporter’s phone records because he has contact with a government leak.

Quite simply, it’s none of their business.

Get the government out of my business. I didn’t ask them to be there.

In the end this just make me reiterate my position on what the government’s involvement in marriage should be; which is, none at all. 

________________________________________

*Unless, of course, the romantic partner is a pedophile or something similar. That’s just not right. They aren’t supposed to be living close to SCHOOLS, much less in a home with small children.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Comments are closed.