THIS POST is an experiment. We’ve figured out how to slip a controversial social issue into our blog and justify its presence here. Our pretext is that it’s all about Intelligent Design.
Even non-supernatural intelligences, as mundane and secular as computer manufacturers, have learned how to make foolproof plugs and sockets that are configured, labeled, and color-coded so that the most ignorant novice can correctly set up a computer right out of the box. If mere mortals can figure out foolproof design, then why can’t the Intelligent Designer?
With that as our flimsy justification for including this next item in our humble blog, and in the hope that we don’t regret this exotic departure from our usual fare, we bring to your attention this item the Orlando Sentinel: Gay marriage isn’t the thing we should fear.
We didn’t go looking for this. We were quite surprised when it turned up in one of our carefully key-worded news searches. Stay with us to discover why a Google search on “intelligent design” brought this matter to our attention. The article informs us that:
The Florida Marriage Protection Amendment question will ask voters Nov. 4 to recognize only the “legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife.” It’s gaining support, recent polls show.
What in the world does this anti-gay amendment have to do with evolution and creationism, and how did our routine news search bring this thing to our attention? Be patient.
The article discusses the views of the amendment’s opponents, and then tells us:
John Stemberger, an Orlando lawyer and the point man for the group supporting the amendment, dismisses that as “scare tactics.” I would say he is well versed on that subject.
Okay, but why do we care? Let’s read a bit further. With bold added for emphasis:
He [Stemberger] has supported the concept of teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in public schools.
Aha! There it is. We suspected something like that. It doesn’t occur to him that if the Intelligent Designer were all that intelligent, we wouldn’t have this issue at all, would we?
As a brief footnote, it’s sometimes useful to know a writer’s personal viewpoint on things like this amendment (e.g., What’s the Curmudgeon’s real gripe against Stemberger?), so we’ll tell you: We are staunchly conventional in such matters, while being tolerant — albeit guardedly so — of others who see things differently. It’s rather like our attitude about creationism — Believe what you like, but don’t force it on anyone else.