January 17, 2009
Quick … name one person, in all of world history, born as the result of a homosexual union. You can’t. It’s biologically impossible.
Yet, we are seeing a neverending, culture-splitting battle to equate homosexual unions with those between men and women. No matter how you slice it, they’re not equivalent, and that’s why most states specifically codify marriage, per se, as a union between man and woman. Heterosexual unions, joined by marriage, are the bedrock of our society — providing necessary structure, stability, and continuity.
Personally, I have no objection to civil unions. My only problem — for religious, biological, and sociological reasons — is calling a gay union “marriage.” It makes no sense to me. Let’s remember also that marriage, even between men and women, is a licensed privilege and not a right.
In November 2008, California put this issue to a vote via Proposition 8, which reinforces existing law to prohibit gay marriage. In that election, 52.3% of voters — including 70% of blacks — supported keeping the ban.
These results reinforce the publicly stated policies of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who are against gay marriage, as are the Roman Catholic Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America.
More American Than Obama?
Yet, today, actor Tom Hanks called Mormons un-American because they supported Prop 8: “There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them. I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper, any of the 50 states in America, but here’s what happens now. A little bit of light can be shed, and people can see who’s responsible, and that can motivate the next go-around of our self-correcting Constitution, and hopefully we can move forward instead of backwards. So let’s have faith in not only the American, but Californian, constitutional process.”
First of all, we don’t have a “self-correcting” Constitution — either in Washington or Sacramento. If we as a populace want to add to or remove from our Constitution, we must vote on it. That’s exactly what happened in November 2008.
Second, calling someone un-American is a serious charge, and it presumes the accuser a “benchmark” American. Obviously, Tom Hanks thinks he’s more American than those against gay marriage. Is he more American than Barack Obama? Logic should hold. I’d like to witness Hanks telling the new black president, to his face, that he’s un-American.
What does it mean to be un-American? In my opinion, someone is un-American if he or she wants to see this country fail and/or is actively trying to destroy it — with words or actions.
So, let me understand this, Mr. Hanks: People who deeply believe in the sanctity and uniqueness of traditional marriage and family, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, are trying to destroy America? The evidence is all around you, Mr. Hanks: the dilution and dismantling of traditional marriage and family are destroying America.
Sell More Tickets
Why did Hanks single out the Mormons? Using all logic, he should have condemned blacks, who, one could argue, put Prop 8 in the victory column. Why didn’t he? I’m purposely baiting you here. Hanks knows that the Mormons are “safe” to attack — they’re nonviolent proxies for his fake wrath, and he’ll gets points in Hollywood for bashing them.
I have a deeper question: Why did Tom Hanks speak out at all on this matter? He’s not gay; Prop 8 doesn’t affect his life in any way, shape, or form. Why does he care? Simple: he’s a mercenary and believes that speaking out will sell more tickets and, consequently, fatten his wallet. And, that is why gays should be offended at his hypocrisy and disingenuousness.
There’s more to Tom Hanks’s hypocrisy, though. Again, let’s play out the logic. If Hanks is so outraged and offended by codified discrimination, on any piece of paper, in any of the 50 states of America, why doesn’t he publicly protest Roe v. Wade, the Freedom of Choice Act, and the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) — all three of which unconstitutionally discriminate against men? After all, Tom Hanks is a man, and these pernicious “codifications of discrimination” affect him and all men directly. Answer: being politically incorrect would make him lose ticket sales and, therefore, poorer.
The NoNonsense Bottom Line
I reject the transparently hypocritical, disingenuous, ludicrous claim of Tom Hanks that Mormons are un-American for supporting Proposition 8. A plurality of Californians — across all religions, races, and ethnicities — decided that marriage must be preserved as a union between one man and one woman. On that same day, by the way, voters in Florida and Arizona decided likewise.
Accusing others of being un-American, for financial gain, certainly could make Tom Hanks un-American, but I do not feel superior or phony enough to be the judge.