Some straight talk on gay marriages

Oak Lawn (IL) Reporter ^ | 2/19/04 | Michael M. Bates

[Mike Bates]

In a mini-repeat of what happened at Sutter’s Mill in 1848, hundreds of Americans rushed to San Francisco last week. These pioneers weren’t searching for gold, however. They wanted a same-sex marriage license issued to them.

Just in time for Valentine’s Day, that city’s mayor, evidently a true romantic, ordered officials to issue licenses to men who want to marry men and women who want to marry women. All weekend on TV we were treated to charming shots of the newlyweds smooching one another.

I won’t focus on that. After all, there are plenty of ugly-as-sin heterosexuals, too.

Suffice it to say that San Francisco’s mayor had no more legal authority to do what he did than Barney Fife would have. Court challenges were immediately fashioned and it’s possible the marriages will ultimately be voided. What’s certain is that the issue of gay and lesbian marriages isn’t going to vanish.

I hope readers appreciated the special effort I made in that last sentence. Until a short time ago, I would have used the phrase homosexual marriage. Leave it to a dumb straight guy to not know any better.

A few months ago someone brought to my attention that the term homosexual has widely been shoved back into the closet. It was decided by whomever decides such things that homosexual, especially when used as a noun, is a derogatory term.

Not getting the memo on this, I’ve continued to employ that word. It appears that using homosexual might remind some of the time when homosexuality was considered a mental illness. About 30 years ago, the American Psychiatric Association determined it is not.

There are other views. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered." Moreover, Pope John Paul II has said that they are "contrary to natural law."

You may think I’m bigoted for agreeing with the Pope, but it seems to me an attraction to someone of the same sex, a condition affecting well under the ten percent of the population claimed by activists, is clearly not the natural course of development.

At the same time, I think gays and lesbians have a general right to live as they see fit. There’s a good deal of truth in their sometimes assertion that what they do in private with another consenting adult is their business.

Yet we’ve reached a point where some of them no longer find just being left alone satisfactory. They want society’s imprimatur, its explicit approval that their way of life is legitimate. Oscar Wilde’s "love that dare not speak its name" has turned into a lifestyle that won’t shut up.

Activists claim that it’s a civil rights issue. They’re denied the right heterosexuals have of marrying the person they want. But that right, even for heterosexuals, is not an absolute one. If you doubt that, try getting a marriage license issued to wed a 10-year-old or a sibling or someone who’s already married.

Activists also charge that same-sex marriages are necessary to protect certain legal privileges. Rights often cited in this context include inheritance, health care decision-making, and joint ownership of property.

These can all be taken care of without regard to marital status. You can name anyone you want in your will. You can give anyone you want power of attorney for health care decisions. You can own property with another person regardless of marital status.

Marriage between a man and a woman has existed for thousands of years. A principal reason for marriage is procreation. Closely linked to that is the necessity of raising children in the best available environment. The heterosexual, monogamous family has proved to be the most successful setting for this. It provides a stable foundation for the continuation of the human race.

Is it perfect? No. Nothing established by mere mortals is. The institution may well be in crisis, but redefining its meaning to include same-sex arrangements will only aggravate the situation by devaluing its definition.

A marriage is, as it always has been, between one man and one woman. Most Americans are not going to change their minds on that point. It makes no difference what any elected official or unelected court may do.

[Mike Bates]

The cultural war is being fought on many fronts.

[TheGeezer]

(psssssssst!)

If you vote dor DemocRats, you're voting for homosexual marriage!

[ErnBatavia]

Palm Springs is really abuzz about all this...having a gay mayor and gay majority on their city council, there is a bit of pressure for them to lobby Riverside County to allow similar "weddings"...

P.S. - Wassup with the screen name change?

[Maria S]

"Activists also charge that same-sex marriages are necessary to protect certain legal privileges."


Only thing same-sex couples aren't entitled to (so far) compared to normal married couples is social security. If (and that's a big IF) same-sexers CAN be legally married, the social security system WILL be in even bigger trouble.

[Cronos]

And we go to Irq, to Afgh to teach them respect for our 'culture'......

[goldstategop]

The Left wants to remake society in its anarchic, counter-cultural image.

[beckysueb]

Big trouble if a guy or gal wants to marry their horse like that one wacko did a while back! Imagine employer provided health care and SS for a horse!! Could get even worse. Suppose this person objects to his/her spouse being called an animal and insists it be treated as a human being. I'd hate to be on an airplane when this person takes the spouse on a second honeymoon and insists it get a seat like everyone else. And some idiot judge will agree with him/her.

[chatham]

I really believe the term Homosexual more clearly defines the person being discussed than the term gay.
When discussing this subject I prefer to use the term Homosexual.

[r9etb]

P.S. - Wassup with the screen name change?

I'll second the question.

Nice work, Mike.

[jtminton]

I like 'Gay Homosexual'. Sure it's a Cartman ripoff, but it rolls off the tongue.

[FormerLib]

These pioneers weren’t searching for gold, however.

I bet you can guess the retort that lept unbidding to my mind!

[StatesEnemy]

I like 'Gay Homosexual'. Sure it's a Cartman ripoff, but it rolls off the tongue.

I prefer "Three Dollar Bill"

[MainFrame65]

Activists claim that it’s a civil rights issue. They’re denied the right heterosexuals have of marrying the person they want. But that right, even for heterosexuals, is not an absolute one. If you doubt that, try getting a marriage license issued to wed a 10-year-old or a sibling or someone who’s already married..

...or is San Francisco also issuing licenses for these abominations? Commonly recognized restrictions such as these clearly demonstrate the right of society to regulate the process.

[maica]

Can we imagine the uproar is a judge decided to put a monument to the Ten Commandmants in the foyer of a court house? That's been done? How did it turn out?

Okay , how about a mayor who decides that he has the authority to issue concealed carry permits to anyone who pays the fee?

[FlatLandBeer]

Relax this just brings the Rapture that much closer.....

[driftless]

What is obvious is that most heterosexuals (of whatever political persuasion I've talked to) do not think that homosexuality is normal and equal to heterosexuality. Because it isn't. As you have stated only a tiny percentage of people are homosexuals. As for it being natural or inborn, I also believe that many murderers and criminals have inborn sociopathic tendencies. Because it may be natural in no wise makes it legitimate. Duh!

[netmilsmom]

I said to my Ex-Cleveland teacher/flaming liberal/Kucinich voting/lesbian sister with Munchausen Syndrome, when she said, "I was born like this!!"

"So were pedophiles, that doesn't make it right."

[Mike Bates]

Think I knew that, but a reminder is always in order. Thanks.

[Mike Bates]

P.S. - Wassup with the screen name change?

I'm suffering from Irish Alzheimer's, forgetting everything but the grudges. On most days, though, I am able to remember my name so switching to it seemed a good idea. Now if I can only remember that I changed screen names. . .

[Mike Bates]

That's certainly a consideration. Since many (most?) same-sex couples are DINKS (dual income, no kids) they just might be left to collecting their own Socialist Insecurity benefits like straight folks have to.