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.