Last week I wandered into a philosophical neighborhood that I thought would be mildly dangerous: the Supreme Court’s recognition of gay marriage. Was I surprised with the quick and strong emails from readers.

SW chastised me:

So anyone who claims religious faith can defy the country’s law?! I do not call that bravery or heroic. One can have his or her faith and belief but where does one draw the line between being a zealot and being the obstruction of the legal rights of others. Please read Time magazine’s recent article by Kareem Abdul Jabbar. It was very well written and gave you a much detailed analysis of history, it’s balance and so-called faith and rights.

CK wrote: 

What Davis did is not democracy, because she didn’t follow the law. She deserves to be in jail.

AL, as if he heard the above objections, said:

I think you were right to voice out your support to Kim Davis. Nowadays, not many people would have the righteousness or guts to stand up to their belief. She is a typical example of what true democracy is all about! I salute her too!

CL was laconic and definitive:

I am so proud of her, too!

If the nine justices of the Supreme Court, who are supposed to be top legal scholars with logical and impartial minds – which could be another controversy in and of itself – came to their decision with a close vote of 5 to 4, I guess it’s okay for the rest of us to argue our sides until we turn blue. But then, there remains something we could always happily agree on – i.e., in a truly democratic and non-coercive environment, we could voice our differences openly, steadfastly and peacefully. Do I hear a rebuttal to this last statement?

PS. I thought the topic of sexual liaison was going to be … sexy. Next time, I’ll be more subtle. 

 *** The End ***

 

(The dissemination of this writing is for non-commercial enjoyment only. The author reserves the copyright for himself)

 

Note: Click here to continue browsing other writings and works of Camillus Chan within this site