It amazes me to this day that college graduates cannot understand the is/ought problem in philosophy. I recently read Ian Pinkus' letter "Homosexuality should be viewed as a crime," and was stunned to discover all sorts of new and wonderful things about this country.
The three things that bothered me most about Pinkus' argument were that he thought that it was the duty of an American to be "proud to call the United States home," that he thought it was the Supreme Court's job to legislate morality, and that he thought that the beliefs of those who vote define the morality of the country.
First of all, since he's arguing legal precedent, being proud to be an American has nothing to do with the definition of citizenship. Like it or not, Abbie Hoffman, Ken Kesey, and the Weather Underground were just as American as Mr. Pinkus is. Maybe even more.
Second of all, the Supreme Court is not supposed to ever legislate morality which is part of why so many people are angry with Scalia right now. Their job is to interpret the law and the constitution. While morality can (and usually does to some extent) flavor their decisions, it should never be the crux of the argument.
Finally, the is/ought problem. What Mr. Pinkus fails to grasp is that what is is not what always what ought to be, and we cannot say that something is right simply because that is what people believe. Slavery was pretty popular in this country for a while, and a pretty good chunk of Germany had no problem with death camps a few decades ago. Pinkus argues that "As a whole, people decided that homosexuality is wrong and do not want their children exposed to it in public schools, or accepted in terms of domestic partner benefits, among other aspects," but I don't remember the government ever asking me that. In fact, although I've voted in every election since I turned 18, I don't remember the government asking anyone that question. Clearly then, Pinkus must be relying soley on public opinion polls, specifically one conducted by Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage, and if you can't trust a group with a name like that to be unbiased, who can you trust?
Mr. Pinkus, I would like to give you some of your own words back, and I'd like you to pass them on to your good friend, Justice Scalia. Your reasoning behind saying that this decision didn't affect human rights is because you obviously don't see homosexuals as humans. Heed your own advice and hold "sacred our system of justice" which provides that all men are created equal whether they have sex like they do in your bible or like they do in real life. They are humans. They have rights. Learn to deal with it.