Since When Did Normal Become Controversial?

Once again, the news media is reporting a big "controversy" involving a contestant in the Miss California USA pageant. This time the mayor of Beverly Hills, Nancy Krasne, is expressing outrage over contestant Lauren Ashley's remarks against same-sex marriage.

today.msnbc.msn.com/id/35580495/ns/today-today_fashion_and_beauty

Last year, almost all news media outlets referred to Carrie Prejean (who was at the time the current Miss California) as "controversial". This was after she, in response to a direct question from pageant judge Perez Hilton, said that she believes that marriage ought to remain defined as the union of a man and a woman. There is no better proof that the mainstream news media buys in to the radical left wing agenda than this. Only an extremist could look upon that view as "controversial". There are those who believe that marriage should be redefined (for the first time in human history) to include two men or two women. It is those people, not Miss Prejean, who are advocating a radical change in our society.

Is President Obama controversial?
The view put forth by these women is the same position on marriage that President Barack Obama has publicly declared. It is the way the vast majority of Americans feel about the issue. It is the way that voters have chosen time after time whenever the issue has been put on a ballot - even in the most left leaning states of the union. How on earth could a concept that is held by most people and that has been the standard throughout all of human history be considered "controversial"? It is only controversial within the circles of the radical left wing extremists. The fact that the news media consider it to be so tells us that they are to be counted among that group.

Courts impose what cannot be passed into law
This story is just the latest piece of evidence that we are losing control of our culture. The vast majority of people do not want to redefine marriage. Ten years ago, you could not get a state legislature to even bring the issue up for consideration. As with most issues on the far left, they turned to the judiciary to impose by edict what they could not get passed into law through legal means. When a judge makes a ruling that ignores the constitution he is sworn to uphold, then that ruling is not based in law. Courts are not legally allowed to make new law. That is the function of the legislature.

There is nobody who can reasonably conclude that any constitution (state or federal) had the intention, at the time it was ratified, to require the marriage of two people of the same sex. Since that is the case, the only way to properly impose this on society would be through legally passed legislation. Only two states have followed this route: Vermont and Maine. All other states that allow same sex couples to "marry" are doing so as a result of a court ruling and not through legal means.

The law does apply equally to all
Most of the judges who make these faulty rulings claim to be following the "equal protection" clauses of their state's constitution. However, there is no law concerning marriage that applies differently to a homosexual than to a heterosexual. Any man is free to marry the woman of his choice. Any woman is free to marry the man of her choice. The restrictions here also apply to all people equally. You may not marry your brother or sister, for example. There are legitimate arguments to be made on both sides of the issue. But the law does apply equally to all people.