|
Today’s column is addressed to people who support gay
marriage. Everyone else is welcome to tag along, of course, but
what I really want is a little heart-to-heart talk with you who are
in favor.
Folks who share my opinion have gotten a little
defensive lately and tend to shy away from the subject, at least in
public. This is no accident. Charges like “homophobia” and “hate
speech” aren’t intended to open a dialog, but you can only gag
people for so long. More will be willing to speak up as events
unfold.
The most obvious question is why it is necessary for
anyone to define marriage at this late date. It’s like asking one
to describe air; everyone knows what it is, including, I suspect,
you.
In fact most of the arguments in favor of gay marriage
strike me as Orwellian, a “newspeak” for the 21st century
in which inconvenient thoughts and words have been written out of
the language and “correct” ones inserted.
After 215 years of Constitutional government, you now
claim gay marriage has always been a protected right. I’m not sure
how this could have gone unnoticed, but that many conservatives are
proposing an amendment to eliminate a right that isn’t there is a
measure of your success.
Simply put, no one has the right to marry whoever they
want. One can’t marry children, close relatives, more than one
person at a time, or, for the time being, people of the same sex.
There is no logical basis for allowing one of these but not the
others.
The equal protection clause of the 14th
Amendment is often cited as the justification for same sex
marriage. I don’t doubt some court or another might rule that way,
but if the Supreme Court upholds such a decision we might as well
dispense with formalities and repeal the Constitution entirely.
It is nonsense to claim the long accepted definition of
marriage only impacts homosexuals. If the motive behind same sex
marriage is really to gain supposed benefits of marriage such as
joint tax status, inheritance rights, hospital visitation, and the
right not to testify against each other in court, it is not hard to
imagine situations where same sex heterosexuals may also wish to
marry.
And there is such a thing as right and wrong. You know
this too or you wouldn’t pose same sex marriage as a “rights”
issue. You sound silly when you claim a right and then say no one
can define right and wrong. What you mean is that no one should
define wrong.
You sound even worse when you compare laws describing
marriage as a union between a man and a woman to the bans on mixed
race marriage that once existed in parts of this country. Poll
after poll has found this notion offensive to the majority of
African Americans; if you continue to equate certain sexual
practices to one’s skin color you’ll lose whatever friends you may
have in those communities.
It is an interesting topic for debate, but it doesn’t
matter if homosexuality is inborn or learned. Many traits are
inborn, including pride, lust, and envy. I don’t see anyone trying
to legalize theft because greed and envy are a natural part of the
human condition.
And yes, it is OK to legislate morality. Every law
does, whether it is against jaywalking or murder. It is OK to base
one’s opinions on his or her religious views; you do too. Trying to
ban faith as a reason for one’s beliefs is every bit as wrong and
futile as trying to require it.
This is a classic line-in-the-sand issue. My guess is
it may be blurred by the time it’s over (unless, like abortion, it
never is), but will hold. There are too many reasons to keep
marriage as it is, and that will not change.
|
