Gay Marriage: BAD for Society

An op-ed in Friday's Wall Street Journal, by Jonathan Rauch, entitled, "Gay Marriage is Good for America," makes a blatant and unapologetic argument for gay marriage in America. It's an interesting piece, though I didn't find it persuasive. Rauch relies largely on emotional arguments like, "imagine your life without marriage."

Rauch's entire argument is founded on the assertion that homosexual relationships - and all that goes with them - are equivalent in every way to heterosexual ones. No society on the planet has EVER believed this to be true, but Rauch ignores this. It's an important point, because if they ARE equivalent, then of course his points are probably correct. But if they are NOT, and history indicates that most people understand that they are not, then his points are ridiculous.

People throughout history, regardless of religion, have always understood that homosexuality is immoral. In the western world, in recent years, the homosexual community has demanded tolerance for their lifestyles, and good people of differing opinions have said, "okay, I don't agree with your lifestyle, but I will tolerate it." This is not the same as "accepting" the lifestyle, which is what gay activists are demanding today, having received the tolerance they demanded. Gay marriage is the latest salvo in that fight.

But people, and society in general, still understand that homosexuality is sinful, or immoral. That it is not something that ought to be promoted in our society (i.e. accepted). Tolerance is fine, but that's as far as we go. A few years ago, 11 separate states had homosexual marriage propositions on the ballots, and not a single one even came close to passing.

"In 2008, denying gay Americans the opportunity to marry is not
only inhumane, it is unsustainable. History has turned a corner: Gay couples –
including gay parents – live openly and for the most part comfortably in
mainstream life. This will not change, ever."

While I will agree that gays living openly and comfortably in our society will probably not ever change, the idea that "denying them the right" to marry each other is inhumane is just plain stupid. As has been pointed out, "marriage" has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Period. What gays are asking for, by definition, is not marriage. They are not being denied anything at all. There is not a gay person in the country with less rights than you or I have.

"Conservatives often say same-sex marriage should be prohibited
because it does not exemplify the ideal form of family. They should consider how
much less ideal an example gay couples will set by building families and raising
children out of wedlock."

I see, so because gays are somehow going to create and raise children anyway, offering them two fathers or two mothers instead of one of each, rather than stand up and say, "that is wrong," we should instead change the definition of marriage to say that two fathers or two mothers is the equivalent ideal. That's like saying, "since teenagers are going to have sex anyway, rather than keep saying that is bad behavior, we should instead call it 'normal' and move on." Liberals are all about avoiding moral judgement. They don't believe in God, which leads to "who are you to say what is right and wrong?"

"Opponents of same-sex marriage…worry about the possible
secondary effects it could have as it ramifies through law and society. What if
gay marriage becomes a vehicle for polygamists who want to marry multiple
partners, egalitarians who want to radically rewrite family law, or secularists
who want to suppress religious objections to homosexuality? …same-sex marriage
no more leads logically to polygamy than giving women one vote leads to giving
men two; that gay marriage requires only few and modest changes to existing
family law; and that the Constitution provides robust protections for religious
freedom."

This argument by Rauch amazed me, because legalized gay marriage so obviously leads to polygamy, bestiality, marriage to children, etc., that anyone who claims not to be able to see that is either lying or just plain dense. The reason is that the argument gays use to advance their cause is the exact same argument, practically word-for-word, that the polygamists will be using within a year of gays getting the right to marry. The argument is that they are being treated unfairly; being denied rights that others have: To marry the love of their choosing. They are saying that the society has no right to prevent them from marrying, just because society disagrees with their lifestyle. Polygamists will do the exact same thing. They will argue that they're in love, that this is their lifestyle, which should not be "judged" by others as sinful or immoral, and that, as an equivalent on these grounds, the state has no right to prevent them from marrying multiple partners. And liberal judges will, at some point, decide a case in their favor, etc., etc.

As to "robust protections for religious freedom," this is already under attack in Canada and in the U.S. In Canada, a pastor of a church cannot give a sermon on the sinful nature of homosexuality, lest he be arrested and thrown in jail for "hate speech." Activists in the U.S. are already trying the same techniques, and there is real concern among prominent radio talk show hosts and church leaders about where this could lead. Again, these cases are not coming about because of new laws on the books. They are coming about because of lawsuits once considered frivolous being decided by high courts in favor of plaintiffs.

This raises yet another serious concern that Rauch never even acknowledges is out there: That gay marriage in America has come about entirely due to activist judges deciding cases against the will of the people, based on their own personal biases; rather than through the traditional democratic process. It happened in Massachusetts a few years ago, and now it has happened here in California. This is how liberals get their agenda into our society. When they cannot win at the polls, they go through the courts, because it's a lot easier, and when you win, it's a lot harder for the opposition to change it back. The best example of this is abortion, which was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972 to be a constitutional right, even though no one had ever thought so prior to that. 36 years later, it is still the most contentious issue in public debate, and one of the biggest factors in presidential races.

Gay activists have tried and failed many times to get their agenda put into law through public referendums. They have lost, by wide margins, time after time because America does not want this. So instead, they file a lawsuit in a liberal area like the Bay Area, where they are likely to find sympathetic judges. The judges rule that they are being discriminated against, and voila! You have a law even more powerful than if the public referendum that failed miserably just months earlier had passed. Now the only way to get rid of this new law is to pass a constitutional amendment. And in California's case this year, the court would not even issue a "stay" that would put enforcement of the new law on-hold until the voters speak in November. This, despite widespread outcry and anger from Californians at the decision of the activist justices. Which brings me to Rauch's next bad point:

"It's wise to guard against unintended consequences by trying
gay marriage in one or two states and seeing what happens, which is exactly what
the country is doing."

In the first place, "the country" is not trying anything, at least not willingly. Activist judges have foisted these ridiculous new laws on an unwilling public that has voted this exact thing down over and over and over again. No, the country is being dragged into trying this, kicking and screaming. To characterize it as some sort of focus group is dishonest. Secondly, there is real concern as to how other states are going to handle "married" gay couples when they come to, or move to, those states. By law they are obligated to recognize as valid a marriage from another state. If I travel to Nevada, my California marriage is just as binding there as it is here. So what happens when a gay "married" couple moves to Nevada, as will happen shortly, and are not given the same rights a real married couple would have there? Such as, for example, the right to file a joint tax return? A lawsuit will no doubt be right around the corner, and then who knows what will happen.

There are other "unintended consequences." In countries where same-sex "marriage" has been legalized, marriage rates have dwindled. The speculation is that there is a connection: That once you "water down" the meaning of marriage by expanding it to include virtually anything, being married becomes less meaningful, and fewer young people get interested in pursuing it.

"America needs more marriages, not fewer, and the best way to
encourage marriage is to encourage marriage, which is what society does by
bringing gay couples inside the tent. A good way to discourage marriage, on the
other hand, is to tarnish it as discriminatory in the minds of millions of young
Americans. Conservatives who object to redefining marriage risk redefining it
themselves, as a civil-rights violation."

I agree that the best way to encourage marriage is to encourage marriage (who could disagree with such brilliance?), but I disagree that the way to encourage more marriage is by changing its definition to include homosexual relationships, which I believe are immoral. I have also read statistics about homosexual relationships that would make your hair stand on-end when compared with traditional heterosexual ones. The rates of disease are far higher; and the incidence of "cheating" even in "committed" homosexual relationships is many times higher. Add to that the unnaturalness of the entire idea, and the lack of naturally-produced children as fruit of the relationship, and you have a truly radical redefinition of marriage and family that no country should be loony enough to attempt. There certainly is no compelling reason to try, as far as I can tell.

In addition, this cultural experiment – complete with all-to-real consequences – is being done to satisfy a vocal but tiny minority of our population. It's estimated that 1-3% of people in this country are homosexual, and that if gay "marriage" were created, about 3% of gays would take advantage of it and get hitched. So 3% of 3% of the population is what, about 9/10000 of the population? We're willing to take this huge risk because of that tiny element of our society? What ever happened to "majority rule?" Today we're getting "minority rule" instead.

In November, Californians will again get to go to the polls to vote on this redefinition of marriage; this time, it will be a vote on a constitutional amendment, since Prop 22, the one we passed a few years ago that stated in no uncertain terms the definition of marriage, was ruled as unconstitutional by an activist California Supreme Court. One can only hope that we will continue to do the sane (and moral) thing by restating what marriage is and always has been: A sacred bond between one man and one woman.

Obama Gets the Nomination

Barack Obama seems to have won the Democratic nomination, finally, even though Hillary Clinton hasn't officially conceded yet. I didn't see it, but pundits have been saying her speech tonight was obviously aimed at securing the #2 on that ticket for November. Interesting.

I also didn't see John McCain's speech in New Orleans earlier this evening, though I imagine it was decent. He's been giving good speeches lately; not particularly inspiring, but the content has been really solid. He needs to get better, though, a lot better. The reason is that Obama just blows his doors off in the oratory department. This is not even debatable, and I don't often say that.

But as Bill Kristol said tonight on Fox, the election isn't about who gave the most inspiring speeches; it's about issues like the economy, Iraq, international relations, terrorism, etc. I hope he's right.

I'm not afraid of Obama any more. I used to be, because when you see him in stump speech after stump speech, in front of thousands of screaming fans, you really have to take a step back and appreciate his considerable political gifts, no matter which side of the aisle you live on. Until recently, I believed that was all anyone would be doing, and that Obama would thus win the election in November without even a fight from McCain. I did not believe people would dig past the rhetoric to discover the real man. And certainly, that's been right-on as far as the mass media goes. They love Obama and do their best to protect him.

But thanks to the persistence of Hillary Clinton, who still has the ear of most liberals, people got to know more about Obama than the media probably even realized was out there. His candidacy has been totally media-driven, and I believe they were so blinded by his facade that they didn't bother to vet him at all. Hillary forced them to start doing that, and Obama suffered some serious body blows in the past few months.

So much so that I personally don't believe he can win in November. I think the damage has been so extensive, and his ability to fend it off or do damage control has been so pathetic, that he is already damaged goods and will just get more so in the coming months. Now I'm just an average guy, so with my opinion about such things and a quarter, as the saying goes, you can make a phone call. But that's the way I see it today anyway.

Tonight's Victory Speech
Obama's victory speech in Minnesota tonight, I forced myself to watch end-to-end. But because I no longer fear the candidate, I wasn't as awestruck by the atmosphere and found myself ridiculing him as he spoke. Happily, the Fox pundits ridiculed him in much the same way once the speech was over, so I felt good that I had made good observations on-the-fly.

The transcript is available here, but I wanted to pull out a number of quotes and comment about them specifically:

He praised Hillary Clinton big-time, then he proceeded to praise John McCain as a patriot. That's all fine, but unnecessary and irrelevant. Then he said this:

we honor the service of John McCain, and I respect his many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine.

It's fine to honor McCain's service, but to then claim that McCain "chooses to deny" Obama's begs the question: Exactly what accomplishments are you referring to? Especially when compared with McCain's?? You're a first-term senator, for crying out loud. So a) what accomplishments have you to claim, and b) why do you believe Senator McCain is consciously denying them?

The speech got a lot funnier. He commented on Iraq:

I won’t stand here and pretend that there are many good options left in Iraq,
but what’s not an option is leaving our troops in that country for the next
hundred years, especially at a time when our military is overstretched, our
nation is isolated, and nearly every other threat to America is being
ignored. We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless
getting in, but we — but start leaving we must.

I'll say this: at least he's gotten off the claim that McCain wants to continue the war for 100 years. But why is it not an option? As McCain has said, we have troops stationed all over the world, and they help to keep the peace wherever they are. Why do we not want an American presence in the Middle East, the most incendiary threat to us in the world? Secondly, our military is not overstretched. They were way more stretched during WWII, for example, and I read a stat last week that all 4 branches exceeded their recruitment goals this past year. By a lot. Third, our nation is not isolated. The rest of the world does not hate America. The Left in the rest of the world hates America. There are plenty of countries electing conservative, America-friendly prime ministers and presidents these days. Finally, start leaving we must not. No sane person thinks that would be a good thing at this time. Obama was saying just last week that he would start pulling troops out on Day One, despite the commanders on the ground pleading for him not to do so. "Because I'm the president," and those are the kinds of big decisions I'll be called on to make, he said. Forget about what would happen to Iraq and its citizens, not to mention our reputation in the world, all of which would collapse.

It’s time to refocus our efforts on Al Qaida’s leadership in Afghanistan,
and rally the world against the common threats of the 21st century: terrorism
and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease.

First, we're already in Afghanistan and doing quite well, thank you. As to terrorism, this is the war we've been waging that you want to retreat from. Nuclear weapons, Bush & Co. have done plenty, but not enough, in this area. "Obambi" would get nowhere because he wouldn't walk in carrying a "big stick." Why negotiate with someone who poses no threat? Climate change? That's a big hoax and it will be proven such in the next few years, hopefully before these idiot liberals burden American industry with all kinds of ridiculous cost-skyrocketing legislation that makes them even less able to compete globally. War on Poverty? That's been tried since the 60's; good luck with that. Genocide? You don't want us in Iraq, and nobody in Darfur wants us there, but you would take us there? Can you say "hypocrite?" Disease: We already run the CDC, the top disease-fighting center in the world. Plus we have pharmaceutical companies that create life-saving drugs every year; what are we not doing that we should be??

We must once again have the courage and the conviction to lead the free world.
That is the legacy of Roosevelt and Truman and Kennedy. That’s what the American
people demand. That’s what change is.

Throw G.W. Bush in there, as well, since what all four have in common is that they stood up for America. Kennedy, by the way, would think Obama was a joke. Kennedy's Democratic party was a far cry from Obama's. Can you picture Obambi standing up to Kruschev in the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Change is building an economy that rewards not just wealth, but the work and the
workers who created it. It’s understanding that the struggles facing working
families can’t be solved by spending billions of dollars on more tax breaks for
big corporations and wealthy CEOs, but by giving a middle-class tax break to
those who need it, and investing in our crumbling infrastructure, and
transforming how we use energy, and improving our schools, and renewing our
commitment to science and innovation.

"Spending billions of dollars" is how Obama characterizes tax breaks, which gives away his liberal philosophy that tax money is the government's, not yours. Those evil CEO's! They employ the vast majority of the country, but they make too much money! They need to give up more! They shouldn't make so much more than their workers (there's a word for that....MARXISM). Our "crumbling infrastructure?" Exactly where is that? This bit is a whole bunch of fluff. Wait 'til he gets into the specifics.

John McCain has spent a lot of time talking about trips to Iraq in the last few
weeks, but maybe if he spent some time taking trips to the cities and towns that
have been hardest hit by this economy — cities in Michigan, and Ohio, and right
here in Minnesota — he’d understand the kind of change that people are looking
for.

This is an interesting line only because for me, it sat me up on my sofa as the first major punch thrown by candidate Obama against candidate McCain. McCain put Obama on the defensive last week (when he started throwing) by inviting Obama to go to Iraq with him to see the progress there first-hand. This really put Obama between a rock and hard place, given his rhetoric on the subject, and this little salvo struck me as a counter-attack. Interesting way to try to wriggle free.

...we can’t afford four more years of our addiction to oil from dictators. [We need] to pass an energy policy that works with automakers to raise fuel standards, and makes corporations pay for their pollution, and oil companies invest their record profits in a clean energy future, an energy policy that will create millions of new jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced. That’s the change we need, Minnesota.

We can't avoid four more years of oil from dictators, no matter who gets elected, and certainly not if Obama gets the nod. What policy could anyone possibly put into place that is going to allow us to quit buying oil from Venezuela and Iran? We don't need government regulations to make auto manufacturers build more efficient cars: the market can do (and is already doing) that (i.e. lowering demand). What we need is more oil drilling (i.e. increasing the supply), which the liberals are totally against. Secondly, making corporations "pay for their pollution" is guaranteed to make them less competitive in the global markets, especially against companies in third-world countries that have no such regulations, and you will see even more offshoring and outsourcing as companies flee the tyranny of the new regulations. As to making "oil companies invest their record profits in..." again, are we Communists, now? Are we going to, as Maxine Waters declared last week, nationalize the oil industry and take them all over, and then do a better job managing them than they do today? What business is it of the government's to dictate what any publicly held company invests its profits in????

...we owe it to our children to invest in early-childhood education; and recruit an army of new teachers and give them better pay and more support; and finally decide that...a college education should not be a privilege for the few, but a birthright of every American.

We already invest in early-childhood education: it's called "KINDERGARTEN." Liberal meathead Rob Reiner tried to force-feed California a tax-led forced pre-school bill a few years ago, that thankfully failed to pass, but this is the same ill-informed rhetoric. As to recruiting "an army of new teachers," Karl Rove pointed out tonight that it has never been the federal government's job to hire teachers at the local level. This would be absolutely ridiculous (no wonder Obama is proposing it). Besides that, why do we need new teachers? And why do they need better pay and more support? Teachers are already very well-paid and get plenty of support. This argument has been made by liberals for decades, and the money spent has thus gone up and up and up, and we're still at the same place with our education system. I have no sympathy at all for this argument; it's old and weak.

But the best part of that bit is that college should not be a "privilege" but a "birthright," and that government should make this possible!! Yes, more handouts. Hillary offering $1000 per child per year for college wasn't enough. Obama says "full-ride scholarships for everyone," except I'm betting he means only those who couldn't otherwise afford it. I say, why stop there? Why not buy their food, too? Pay for their gas, maybe a movie or dinner out every week? It's not enough for Obama the Radical to grow government to the point that it controls the national health care system; now he also wants to essentially control the university education system, too.

What you won’t hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics
that uses religion as a wedge and patriotism as a bludgeon.

This is a swipe at those who have been using Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger against Obama. No serious commentator denies that these are legitimate points being made, though. Obama has been close to both of these nutbags for many many years, and has donated personal dollars and earmarked federal dollars for them for years. On top of that, he's done a horrible job distancing himself from them, and it has hurt him badly. On the patriotism thing, I'm not sure where he's going with that, other than maybe the flag lapel pin controversy, which is so pathetic it's just funny.

I’ve seen people of differing views and opinions find common cause many times during my two decades in public life, and I’ve brought many together myself.

This is funny because he uses the term, "public life" to hide the fact that he has virtually no experience in national politics. I have yet to hear exactly what a "community organizer" is or does, or how one gets paid, or why it's as noble as Obama makes it out to be. As to bringing two sides together, not knowing exactly who he's referring to it's impossible to dispute, other than to say that this fiction that Obama will be a "uniter" of Americans once he's elected is ridiculous. He has no more appreciation of conservative viewpoints than conservatives have of his liberal ones, and no proof at all that he would even try, much less succeed, in bringing about solutions between the two parties. As Dennis Prager said last month, "this from a man who couldn't even vote to agree that English should be the official language of the United States." Uniter, indeed.

If anyone can claim with authority to be a uniter, it's John McCain. In fact, this is why conservatives hate the guy so much. Several times, when conservatives looked like we were about to get our way on some major issue, in steps McCain to cut a deal with moderate Democrats and torpedo the whole thing for us. The best example of this is the "Gang of 14," where he cobbled together a group of 14 senators (7 from each party) who basically quelled the filibustering of judicial nominees by agreeing to vote as a bloc when needed. Conservatives were about to "go nuclear" and vote to end permission to filibuster for nominees (this when they had control of the congress) when McCain did this. Conservatives were furious; liberals, having dodged a bullet, were ecstatic, as were moderates, I suppose. Anyway, you want a proven uniter, then McCain is your man.

Speaking about the "fight" he is prepared to wage, Obama made a good joke:

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge — I face this challenge with profound humility and knowledge of my own limitations...

Of all the words I could think of to describe Barack Obama, "humble" is not one that is anywhere near the top of the list. This guy is regularly touted, by the media and by throngs of supporters, as practically the Second Coming of the Messiah (check out this Reuters photo from a few days ago), and he never corrects anyone. He never says, "oh, please, I'm just a man," or anything at all like this. Instead, he stands there looking upward, soaking up all the love, and acting every bit as though he has it coming. It's Obama's world, and we're just living in it.

And finally we get to the Big Finish:

Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that, generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless… (APPLAUSE)

Are we somehow not caring for the sick today? As I recall, we've had dozens of emergency rooms in Southern California close their doors in the past few years due to an onslaught of illegal immigrants using their services and then not paying for them. And still, hospitals - county ones, anyway - continue to provide these services gratis. Exactly who is not getting the care they need?

And when did it become the government's job to find work for "the jobless?" The unemployment rate in this country is at 5%, which is considered by economists to be "full employment." When I don't have work, I FIND WORK, and I don't need Obama's help to do so.

… this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet
began to heal… (APPLAUSE)

Someone needs to explain to Obama that THE OCEANS AREN'T RISING and are not likely to do so any time soon. This idea of Manhattan going underwater in the next decade or two is, again, pure fiction. And even if seas did rise due to "global warming," wouldn't we simply do what we've always done, and adapt? Besides, who's to say what, if anything, we could do to slow or stop it? NONE of this has been proven. Yet Obama stands ready to cripple the contry's economy by imposing all kinds of ridiculous sanctions on industry, who he thinks is creating this supposed warming effect.

… this was the moment when we ended a war, and secured our nation, and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.

This was his Big Finish, but it was truly pathetic. It's true that surrendering does end a war, but Americans in general don't like to lose, so why would this policy gain any traction? People have started recognizing that what Obama and the liberals are forcefully advocating is surrender, or at least retreat. We are currently winning the battle in Iraq, but Obama is so heavily invested in this idea that the war was wrong, pointless, unjust, and going badly even today, that he can't even bring himself to take a trip there because it would expose his policies as the mistakes that they are.

America has always been the last, best hope of man on Earth (I'm quoting Reagan, not Obama), and it continues to be. Evidence of this is everywhere in the world. Today the focus is in the Middle East, where we have finally begun to project some power, and the Middle East is already better because of it. If we continue our work there, more people will find freedom, fewer people will seek Jihad against us, and the world and America will be a safer place.

JFK
I said earlier that JFK would be embarrassed by the antics of Barack Obama and the other Democrats who try to out-liberal him. A couple of quotes from this great orator, to whom Obama is unfortunately compared with often, should suffice to prove this. Ask yourself, knowing what a liberal radical Obama is, whether he would agree with a statement like this:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any
price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to
assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Does anyone in today's Democratic party still believe these words? I do (and I'm a conservative Republican). How about these:

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what
you can do for your country.

This is, in point of fact, the exact opposite of what Obama has been advocating, and has based his entire platform on. He talks constantly of handout-like policies that benefit certain classes of Americans only (also known as "class warfare"), at the expense of other classes. He wants people to think that they are entitled to more and more things in life, without having to lift a finger to attain them. This is a horrible recipe for Socialism, based in Marxism, and the more people hear from Obama, the more I believe they'll reject this mantra, great speeches notwithstanding.