N.Y. Times: Bates’ Absurd Argument Against Marriage

Andrew Rosenthal, New York Times editorial page editor, weighs in on Rep. David Bates’ assertion that same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue because homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.

It’s astonishing that anyone in the 21st century would hew to the notion that humans choose their sexual orientation. I wonder when Mr. Bates made the affirmative decision to become a heterosexual.

But in any case, the preference issue isn’t sufficient to end the conversation. We choose our religious affiliations—or at least we have the freedom to choose—and yet it’s illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of religion.

The constitution grants many rights based upon behavior, including the freedom of assembly and the freedom of speech. Mr. Bates has a constitutionally protected right to have his say on marriage, no matter how absurd it may be.

Quote of the Day: Outrageous

It was an outrageous usurpation of executive authority and a mockery of the values on which this nation was founded. It sought to eliminate the only effective tool this country has to punish terrorists, the federal courts, and create a system of unchecked military detention with no judicial or even Congressional review.

—New York Times, on Sen. Kelly Ayotte’s attempt to prohibit the U.S. from prosecuting foreign terrorist suspects in civilian courts