Right and Wrong
Randy Alan Yeip
yeiprand at PILOT.MSU.EDU
Mon Apr 15 14:46:01 MDT 1996
At 1:42 PM on 4/4/96, Cindy Brewbaker pounded out the following:
> Thank you Randy for your response (and Dan for your comments). I also am in
> agreement w/what Dan has written. Although I have not read the column Randy
> wrote, I commend him for braving the very liberal MSU paper (State News) to
> write something conservative. I believe State News readers desperately need
> conservative thinking lest they become so far left thinking as to fall off
> the face of the earth. Cindy B. (one of few conservatives among liberals at
> MI St Univ.) (I do read the State News on occasion but find it so liberally
> distasteful I can't bring myself to read it regularly)
Just thought you might want to read the column I wrote two weeks ago. This
is the one that caused a ruckus. Watch tomorrow's paper for another edition
of right-thinking reason!
"Wanted: Person or persons to lead America to that moral high
ground we once occupied. Hawaii need not apply."
Fortunately, Michigan legislators seem ready to accept such a
position. Recent actions by local governments and some universities'
policies have given us reason enough to act in accordance with the duties
of a moral leader. Most importantly, the threat posed by Hawaii's high
court, owing to their request that the state show a compelling reason why
marriage should be denied to homosexual couples, will test the depth of our
Apparently, it runs deep among certain state legislators.
Rep. Deborah Whyman, R-Canton, two weeks ago introduced legislation
as a precautionary measure in case the Hawaii court rules homosexuals must
be allowed the privilege of matrimony. Although two dozen other states have
taken similar action, only Utah and South Dakota have passed such measures
into law. Whyman also called for a boycott of Hawaii tourism, should that
state rule in favor of gay marriages.
"We can't afford to cheapen the definition of marriage," Whyman
said in a Detroit News article. The bill is stalled in the House judiciary
committee, but will likely come to a vote shortly after legislators return
from Easter break. Whyman expects the measure to pass, and she believes
Engler will sign it.
Other Michigan government officials should line up behind Whyman,
instead of contributing to our moral decay in the name of "tolerance." To
wit, the Lansing City Council, after much heated debate, passed an
ordinance which included a provision to outlaw discrimination against
homosexuals. In principle, the ordinance certainly should not offend even
the most strident members of the religious right; the majority of reasoned
individuals understands that we should love the sinner, but hate the sin.
But the effect of the ordinance is an endorsement of the homosexual
lifestyle, and thereby creates a slippery
slope that would make it easier for us all to fall toward moral degeneration.
The general feeling throughout the homosexual community has been
that two consenting adults should be allowed to marry, free from
restrictions. However, we already impose several restrictions on consenting
adults with regard to marriage. Bigamy is not tolerated, nor are incestuous
relationships. An endorsement of one deviant type of behavior would,
logically, force an acceptance of all deviant behavior. Most importantly,
though, is that we must not allow ourselves to further ignore the moral
standards upon which this nation was built. Presidential candidate Alan
Keyes put it best when he said, "I do not bring God into the arena; when I
come into the arena God is written on the foundation block of this nation."
Morality usually scares those not in compliance with its code. More
and more, morality has come to be viewed as an evil concept, something the
Republicans and the Christian Coalition attempt to impose on all Americans.
"Don't impose your morality on me," cries the typical liberal. But therein
lies the flaw of such an argument: It is not my morality, it is not your
morality, it is not a Christian morality. It is a national morality, shaped
by every one of our laws. Each is based on a sense of right and wrong, and
each "imposes" its morality on all Americans.
Morality is not a subjective standard, tailoring itself to fit each
individual. It is not a dynamic force, changing over time. It is not
something to be dismissed in favor of leniency. Rather, it is the glue that
holds us together.
And we are coming apart at the seams.
More recent action in the legislature, tied to the budget bill,
asked that when funds for state universities are distributed that so-called
"domestic partner benefits" are taken into account. Thankfully, this is an
area in which MSU is ahead for a change. But recent debate on this very
page has brought to light an area that lumps MSU with all the other moral
relativists: the endorsement of the concept of transgendered individuals.
Never mind that
the term cannot be found in a dictionary. As far as I can tell, however,
these are people who claim to be a woman trapped in a man's body, or vice
versa. The hypocrisy is stunning: homosexuals are supposedly born that way,
thus we should accept it; transgendered individuals are born as either men
or women, but it was a mistake and we should not accept it.
Regardless, the issue of morality must receive a higher priority in
the national debate over gays' rights. We must decide between that which is
right and that which is wrong.
The choice should be clear.
Randy A. Yeip "If the American experiment is renewed and
yeiprand at pilot.msu.edu re-energized, we will astound ourselves
Michigan State University and the world with our opportunities and
Journalism/Political Science our achievements." -Steve Forbes
More information about the Rushtalk