Gay America: 2004
By Page W. H. Brousseau IV
Gay Americans were doing well. They had a top TV show, Will & Grace and a top Democratic candidate, Howard Dean. Then 2004 rolled around. The Massachusetts Supreme Court directed the state legislature to legalize gay marriage. Then in San Francisco, the new mayor stated he was sacrificing the law in order to give all his citizens civil rights.
Many liberals are quick to point out that less than 5% of the population is gay meaning 95% is not. Even if half of those approve of gay marriage that means 47% do not. The in your face of the gay marriage controversy is a good way to scare half the country. Gov. Howard Dean supported "civil unions" for gays; these give full benefits to gay couples, protected by the law. Pres. Bush and every Democratic candidate favor this as well. Since Dean's Vermont instituted civil unions gays have said, "Just give us the rights of married people with civil unions." Now those from Andrew Sullivan to Rosie O'Donnell state anything less than full marriage is borderline bigotry.
2,000 plus years of bigotry
Marriage is between a man and a woman since the dawn of the Western World. Certain religious sects, such as within the Mormon Church have diverged from this. Utah forced the church to issue an outright ban on polygamy prior to statehood, never completely accepted within the church it may still be in practice, except on the Jerry Springer show, few practice polygamy. Just as an aside, who could stand more than one wife? Outside North America, the Judeo-Christian practice of one man and one woman per marriage is the norm with close to the entire globe.
Just as many do not see a teenager and her child, living with her mother as the traditionalist idea of family, two of the same sex is not the traditionalist idea of marriage. Allowing non-nuclear families to claim the ideal of "family" harms those within such an arrangement and those marginalized, such as the fathers.
Labeling a gay couple legally bound to one another as married, is blatantly ignorant. Marriage is a legal-religious contract between one man and one woman. Calling a gay contract a marriage does not make is so. Calling my Chevy a Ford does not make that so either.
Why do people get married? Most marriages are out of love, some money. Rosie O'Donnell said hers was because of the "vile" that President Bush said. Bush stated the need of a Constitutional Amendment stating that marriage is between a man and a woman. Is this so shocking that gay couples feel forced to rush to San Francisco to give the proverbial finger to Bush?
President Clinton signed into law the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which stated no state had to recognize an other state's marriage of a gay couple. Was this "extreme" and "hurtful" when Clinton signed it into law?
The simple answer is "no," the unsimple answer is "Bush lied about the war" and "Bush pulled out of Kyoto." The hate towards George W. Bush that liberals in America maintain clouds their judgment. Why do the Democratic candidates get a free pass for stating that marriage must remain between a man and a woman? Simple answer is Democrats believe in abortion. The unsimple answer is "Bush stole the election." For Rosie, marriage maybe about love, but hers is about Bush. Just as an aside, as I walked from the courthouse with my bride, I shook my fist skyward and said, "Damn you, Clinton, damn you to Hell! I'm married now, so there!"
Political gain of gay marriage
The über-liberal California Supreme Court refused to halt the San Fran gay marriages. We have a municipality directly violating state law, and the courts, whom by the way are in charge of ensuring that the law is followed, refused to take a stand on this issue, only stating that lower courts need to become involved first.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said in an interview early in February if mayors can violate the law at will, and then there is nothing to stop them from issuing licenses for illegal guns or drugs. Apparently, allowing that maybe acceptable to the California Supreme Court, though I assume if we were talking about AK-47s here the Court would have directed the National Guard in to stop the issuance.
The mayor is not going to lose many votes in San Francisco over this policy. It would be like the Detroit mayor coming out in favor of a policy of pumping Motown music through city hall on a continuous basis. Respecting the law is possible, a lesbian city official in Iowa refused to issue gay marriage licenses, citing the law; she said it is her duty to follow it.
Each marriage license cost $150, thus far, 3,600 couples have married. That is $540,000 dollars! Talk about raising the city coffers. Perhaps Flint should look into this.
The liberal media is frothing at the mouth while attacking Bush for his support of a Constitution Amendment. However, what are his options? Let the states figure it out, in the mean time some states will allow gay marriage, other states will not recognize it, and even cities within states will face the same predicament.
President Bush is being responsible on the issue, not ducking it, or ignoring it and hope it goes away as the Democrats are doing. Personally, I do not favor the Amendment; it would take years for ratification, by that time we would know the results of gay marriage. The American Constitution is short, and to the point, unlike some of Europe that protect every interest group often overshadowing the very Rights that we consider fundamental.
Lawrence vs. Texas
Last summer, the US Supreme Court declared the Texas law outlawing sodomy unconstitutional. At the time, many conservatives stated it was then only a matter of time before gay marriage is constitutional. "No, the Lawrence case is only about adults in their own home," enthusiastic liberals reassured America. Sure, same with incest or maybe polygamy, if, after all, we are only talking about adults here. If marriage is no longer between a man and a woman, can it between a man and six women? If states cannot tell adults who may and may not be wed, can a father marry his daughter if they both adults? Alabama recently sentenced a father and daughter to 10 days in jail for violating the state law on incest. If one were to take the Lawrence decision further, laws such as incest are unconstitutional.
There are many positive aspects in allowing gay couples legal rights. Sadly, I believe many that declare themselves "pro-gay marriage" are in reality "anti-hetero marriage." Just as there are those that loathe society frowning on single parenthood or promiscuity. Millions of girls see Gloria Steinem as a woman that set them free to be equals with men, but they never learn she married a millionaire for the sole purposes of fanatically saving her floundering magazine. Great role model. Hillary is the representation of a modern woman, except she is willing to let her husband cheat on her repeatedly, and then allow him to use her to cover up multiple felonies. Great role model there too. The point is when a liberal idea, or role model comes around it helps to look beyond the initial talking points. In the course of a few weeks, we went from "All we want is civil unions," to "Anything less than marriage is bigotry." How did this happen?
In the end, a Ford is not a Chevy. A marriage is between a man and a woman. Now, if we can just keep Britney Spears away from the alter.
© The Michigan Partisan 2004
