The Black Republican

I'm a heterosexual Republican and while I agree with you that the federal government should not be making moral decisions for its citizens, President Bush and many members of Congress seem to disagree. Because your "rant" was posted prior to the President's call for an Amendment to the Constitution to define "marriage" in a way that precludes homosexuals from participating in the institution, I wonder if you are willing to stand by your statement about preventing "social engineering" from being imposed on "a population" without their consent.

Unlike dogs and insane people, the law recognizes that homosexual adults are capable of consenting to a binding contract (which, putting aside the love between the individuals involved, is what a non-religious wedding is). Whether homosexuals should be a "protected class" under the Equal Protection Clause is a complex legal issue, and was not formally addressed by the Court in Lawrence v. Texas (O'Connor addressed it in her concurring opinion). Although I happen to side with Justice O'Connor on this as a matter of law, rational minds may differ.

However, your argument ignores the subtle legal distinctions involved in Equal Protection analysis and instead states that preventing a homosexual couple from being married does not involve discrimination. You say that "Once you've engaged in an activity it's no longer prejudice." This statement is incorrect because the "prejudice" that you're describing is not "an opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge...of the facts," it is "detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others." (First and Fourth definitions of "prejudice" from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition) I don't want to put words in your mouth, but your rhetoric suggests that your opinion on this issue is based on an unfavorable opinion of homosexuals (the aforementioned analogies to dogs and psychopaths aren't very subtle). Which means that your position fits perfectly into the definition of prejudice and discrimination. You could at least be intellectually honest and say that, "homosexuals should not be married because they are different than the rest of us," or "because I don't like/understand them."

Furthermore, I fail to see how your stance on this issue is consistent with your blog's "dedication" to "renew[ing] and revitaliz[ing] the Nation's commitment to its founding principles." Laws preventing homosexuals from getting married are no less based on prejudice or discrimination than the anti-miscegenation laws that have been overturned. Although it is not clear how you feel about those laws, if you read the Court decision in Loving v. Virginia or other Equal Protection cases you might note that proponents of anti-miscegenation laws made arguments that were strikingly similar to statements made in your post. That is to say, your opinion seems to reflect an effort to exert control over a "failed paradigm" (also inconsistent with the stated goal of your blog). The logic is simply not sound and it's only a matter of time before a majority of the Court acknowledges that fact in an Equal Protection case.

This nation was founded on the principle that the government's power should be strong enough to harmonize the interests of the many states for the purposes of a common defense and to promote economic prosperity. It was not founded by people who believed that the government should be able to tell citizens what types of contracts consenting adults may enter into. And although I must concede that it was founded by men who held strong religious beliefs, the government certainly wasn't founded to protect those beliefs in a way that impinges upon the liberty of others. To say otherwise would be tantamount to arguing that people of different races should not be allowed to marry because some of the founders of this nation were bigots. Yes, we have created limitations on certain behaviors that are considered morally reprehensible. But criminal laws aren't purely moral. They are also based on rational public policy decisions, not arbitrary decisions to single out groups for discriminatory treatment because they are perceived as "different."

A wedding between homosexuals does no "damage" to the "institution" of marriage. Assuming arguendo that it is possible to do further damage to something that fails more than 50% of the time, what is the nature of the damage that is being done? "Marriage" is a promise between two people that they love each other so much that they AGREE to signify that love with a pledge to be bound (by contract, and often with the blessing of a religious leader) in the presence of their families, friends and community. "Marriage" does not have feelings that can be hurt. It does not have a "reputation" to uphold, it does not have an inherent value, and heterosexual people will not stop getting married just because homosexuals can. No one is trying to force all churches to perform weddings for homosexual couples. Advocates are merely trying to ensure that homosexuals are permitted to celebrate their love, pay higher taxes, visit each other in the hospital, etc. in the same way that heterosexual couples do. Their only demand is that the government recognize their right to be married (in churches who welcome homosexual members, by a justice of the peace, by a captain of a ship, etc.) and to enjoy the associated legal rights.

It is a fact that homosexuality is becoming increasingly accepted by people in this country (recent Gallup poll data supports this trend "Homosexual Relations Between Consenting Adults Should Be Legal [Year: % agreement] 2003: 60%; 1996: 44%; 1986: 33%; 1977: 33%). Although the media has played a role in making it "safer" for homosexuals to "come out of the closet," the reason that they are “accepted” is because as more and more come out, people who know and work for with them have realized that apart from the nature of their sexual relationships, they are just like everyone else. They aren't a cult trying to proselytize, and they don't have a proclivity to harm others. They want to have healthy relationships, families, nice homes, and good jobs. They want to enjoy all the benefits that other American citizens enjoy and live their lives in peace.

Marriage doesn't need your "protection," and this country doesn't need its government telling citizens what kind of relationships they can have. So why not use all that energy to discuss some REAL problems like social security?

Publius, Publius, Publius, I would very much prefer to devote my "energy to discuss some REAL problems" but a certain minority continues to flaunt the law and societal norms like a bratty child crying out for discipline.

Now, I don't know where you get the idea that "government should not be making moral decisions"? It seems to me that making moral choices is the function of government! In fact, what function does government have other than deciding right from wrong, ergo, making moral decisions! Take your pick of issues; the government decides the acceptable conduct (right) and decides the penalty for non-compliance (wrong). Hopefully the degree of penalty matches the degree of offense (steal a candy bar, steal a car), but regardless a moral decision is reached. The government makes moral decisions, lays out the code of conduct, then it is up to the individual to comply or face the penalty. The decision making process takes place at all levels of government, including Federal. Unfortunately, a rogue element in our society wants the government to perform its function unless it directly controverts that elements libertarian desires. They say, in essence, "stop the other guy, never stop me", it doesn't work that way.

That is the present case with marriage. Marriage was defined long before this Nation existed. The societal norm was established as one man united with one woman equals marriage; and that combination is defined as the only combination that comprises marriage. Rush Limbaugh explained it this way, paraphrasing, if you combine hydrogen and oxygen in a specific proportion you get water; these are the only elements that can be used to create water. What two parts hydrogen plus one part oxygen is to water; one man plus one woman is to marriage. Governments accepted that this relationship had special unique promise and deemed only this one combination to be the ideal family unit. And given the benefits (children being the most tangible and incontrovertible) which only this unit can provide to the greater community, it was decided that it alone should receive unique recognition. But, now we have a vocal minority insisting they can make water from other elements; but if it isn't H2O, it isn't water.

This is not a matter of semantics. It is not even a case where the words 'gay' and 'marriage' combine in an oxymoron. No, gay marriage is a non sequitur, the concepts do not meet! Marriage is clearly defined, it is the norm, it has time on its side; any deviation from this combination is the "social engineering" you speak of because it changes from the established to the conceptual. And, in spite of your acknowledgment that marriage is under assault from within, (fails more than 50% of the time), it is challenged, not broken. Marriage does not need fixing, the institution is the same as it has always been, what needs fixing are the moral choices made that tampered with the permanence motivating articles that once existed in the law. Divorce is too easy, even getting married is too easy. Infidelity is too frequent and not punishable. Etcetera. But, regardless of the legal failures surrounding marriage, the institution is not damaged until the meaning of marriage is lost. And that is exactly what will happen if homosexuals are given the recognition you call for. Marriage is not just about how people feel about each other, there is more to the benefits that accrue from the dynamic situation which exists when these opposite beings bind themselves to one another than just an emotional attachment and good feelings, and the promise to care for one another, or even the prospect of prodigy. But, the easily explained benefit, prodigy, alone makes their union more than just saying how much they care for one another and playing with one another's private parts. The inter-dynamic between a man and woman, and the hope for issue mark marriage as different from any other permanent combination of people. To continue being crass, I point out that the physical activity that homosexuals share, is just an activity; and it could be argued that a promise to give each other pleasure by performing one activity together with someone you love on a regular basis is not different from promising to perform any pleasurable activity together someone you love on a regular basis. So, perhaps golfing buddies that play eighteen twice a week should be required to marry? Yes, I jest. It wouldn't be marriage, just a lifetime binding contract between consenting adults.

As for Equal Protection, it seems to me that Equal Protection already exists. Understanding that the government has made moral choices with respect to the eligibility of its citizens to enter into legal contracts; age and mental capacity and such. The law, as it now exists says that all persons otherwise eligible may marry any other such eligible person of the opposite sex. It is equal, and comprehensive. Every..single..person..may..marry! Very equal. Your argument is with the other moral choice that supplements every person's right to marry, the caveat that your spouse must be of the opposite gender. But that restriction is the same for everyone, as equal as anything gets. You wish to have us believe that the experience of two people of the same gender is equal to the experience of a man plus a woman. I have already touched on this, the experience is not equal! The dynamic is not equal! The prospects are not equal! A union between same gender people does not have the potential to become more than the original pairing, for instance.

You wish us to believe that the union of same gender people has equal benefits to society, and is deserving of equal status. And that is wrong. And greater society knows it, even if activist judges, rouge mayors, and belligerent gays don't. When you say, "their only demand is.. government recognize their right", you step in it; because rights don't exist in a vacuum. Rights come about as the result of moral choices. The denial of the Civil Rights of America's black people was anti-thematic to the Emancipation Proclamation. The EP gave the slaves their freedom, and thus any laws which restricted their (all Blacks)ability to enjoy any privilege enjoyed by non-blacks was unlawful and had to be overturned.

So, with respect to the anti-miscegenation laws, since some people were allowed to marry White people, Equal Protection required that all free people must be permitted to marry White people. And once you establish that Blacks can legally marry Whites, and since it is impossible for a Black to marry a White without the White also marrying a Black, by transfer logic the restriction is voided in both directions. But, back to your issue, nowhere in the law has anyone been granted the right to marry someone of the same gender; thus, that right does not exist. Rights do not exist in a vacuum and being free does not mean that you can do whatever you want. Rights are established by the same authorities that are chartered to enforce them. You can not ask for enforcement of a right that has not been produced. There is no natural law other than that which determines the physical operations of the universe. All the rest of the laws are man made. Made by men (in the broader sense), based on their best guesses of what will be beneficial. Sometimes beneficial to the lawmaker only, another moral choice, but always made with the interpreted best interests of someone involved. We fortunately live in the nation that, certainly in our time, has the most splendid example of laws made for the benefit of all of its citizens. Not perfect, but the best thing going.

What benefit could same sex unions have for greater society? The only additional benefit to society which I can imagine accruing from promoting same gender unions to the status of marriage is that it might get the homosexuals to shut up and give us some peace. But, in giving in, because someone is loud, or because they already broke the law so what the hell, that would be capitulation to coercive tactics. And that is not an option. We have real problems to solve. But, while we concentrate on the rats the termites are eating away the foundation.


Bennett is a smart man!!! He agrees with me!☺

Well, that is enough for now, I have set forth some of the many counter points that you have inspired. I have spent an inordinate amount of time since reading your post formulating my comments. There are many other inferences in your statement that I would take issue with if I had more energy, you packed so much in those few paragraphs. I must say before I finish, the way you presented your bona fides made me suspect that you may be neither, a seminar poster? That was before I read your post. If I guessed wrong, my apologies; but I am wondering why you felt the need to tell us? Oh, and by the way, I am working everyday to solve the Social Security problem, for me, I am planning to not need it.

I've tried several times to parse my way through an answer to this... (ahem) misrepresentation of fact, not to mention the deliberate misrepresentation of my words and opinions. Maybe I'll have better luck another time without violating Mr. Lincoln's 2nd Innaugural motto - but not so far, and not today.

Dittos Rick!;-)