Here's a quote from an article he wrote concerning his views on the legality of gay marriage:
He calls being gay a tragic genetic mix-up. That doesn't seem to look down on homosexuality to you? Here's the rest of that
article.
Besides that quote, his argument for the courts not getting involved in allowing gay marriage are incredibly weak and one-sided (not taking into account that gays deserve the same tax breaks and advantages straight people are entitled to through marriage).
Okay, so I havn't read that article. Thank you for the link.
Give me a second...
...okay, done.
While I do think that everyone deserves the same protections under the law regardless of marital status--something he doesn't address well one way or another--I don't think this article constitutes a hatred of homosexuality.
Biologically, there is no reason nature would make someone homosexual. Sociologically, with all of the anti-homosexual sentiment the world has, there is no reason anyone would choose to be homosexual.
Possible explanaitions: There is an intelligent creator who thinks it is really funny to make people gay to see how they'll react--possible, but highly unlikely an omnipotent being would bother screwing with us mortals that way.
Option 2: Sometimes nature doesn't follow biological imperatives and things mutate. It's the basis of a large sector of comic book superheroes. If mutation isn't another word for "genetic mix-up" I don't know what is, and if the way that people treat homosexuals isn't tragic, I don't know what is.
I do wish he had addressed the gap between the rights the government protects for heterosexual and homosexual couples. It's tragic and unfair. That said, I don't think he looks down on homosexuals so much as he looks down on homosexuality, the (he admits) small role it plays in the normalization of an anti-marriage culture, and the way that heterosexuals have played in making marriage a largely meaningless term for modern culture.
He's raging against the unconstitutional judicial legislation of an ancient custom that predates the Constitution driven by a philosophical and political viewpoint that undercuts his most fundemental values.
It's a VERY complicated and multi-faceted viewpoint that deserves to not just be boiled down to "OSC hates gays, lol."
Reading
this article shows that he recognizes that homosexuals are complicated and real people which deserve to be treated with the respect and seriousness deserving of any human being.
Anyway, thanks for giving me the chance to read more of his stuff, and to better understand his viewpoint.
P.S. I'm not trying to start a big flaming controversy here, I just think that his viewpoints are worth a second look.
