Posted on 02/17/2004 5:20:16 AM PST by 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.
There was already one case a few years ago when some nutcase was allowed to take her "companion animal" on an airplane with her. Seems she had an "emotional need" that it met. Caused quite a ruckus when it was running up and down the aisle, and after they landed, it proceeded to crap all over the terminal floor. I guess the janitorial crew weren't accustomed to cleaning up pig$#!+.
It's being lost, too. In fact I'll go on record as saying that it is lost. This insanity is going to run its course. Whoever is left standing when the dust settles will have the sorry task of trying to pick up the pieces. Go rent "The Postman" and try to use it for inspiration. Remind yourself that it's just fiction, though. Reality will be much harsher.
You paint a revolting word-picture.
Oscar Wilde’s "love that dare not speak its name" has turned into a lifestyle that won’t shut up.
INDEED--won't shut up . . . tight or otherwise . . . well, uhhh . . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.