Posted on 02/25/2004 7:36:44 PM PST by NYC Republican
The issue of gay marriage boils down to the question of whether homosexuality should be on an equal moral and legal footing with heterosexuality. The core of the gay rights agenda is to enshrine in law, as sanctioned by the state, the full and total equality of homosexuality in comparison to heterosexuality. Gay and lesbian activists want government policy from nursery schools to nursing homes to force homosexuality to be treated as totally equal to heterosexuality in everything.
The problem with this is the vast majority of Americans don't see homosexuality on par with heterosexuality. And guess what? That doesn't make them bigots or homophobes.
The truth is that even though most Americans are perfectly tolerant of gays and lesbians, that doesn't mean they want their third or fourth graders being taught that there is absolutely no difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. It's not surprising that many people are uncomfortable at seeing homosexuality actively promoted in schools, glorified by the media, and now sanctioned by the state.
In fact, most Americans want the government out of the business of casting moral judgments and would be fine with the government remaining agnostic on the issue of homosexuality. That means the state should not punish or discriminate against gays and lesbians, nor should the government cede special rights to them.
Like most Americans, most gays and lesbians are good and decent people. They are entitled to enjoy all the rights, freedoms and privileges granted to every individual in this county. But they aren't entitled to have the government proactively endorse their lifestyle as on an equal footing with heterosexuality - unless a majority of the public's elected representatives in Congress decide it's the correct thing to do. And that's the rub.
The truly intolerant in this debate are not the mean and evil "religious right," but rather the activist left that demands the rest of the country accept their view. Contrary to what some may say, the President didn't seek this out as an issue, activists judges in Massachusetts and leftist politicians in San Francisco thrust their minority views in the country's face.
Personally I'm conflicted about altering the Constitution and I wonder whether there are less draconian ways to maintain the sanctity of marriage. However, the activist courts and the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, maybe the FMA is the only way that will effectively work.
My gut tells me that the majority of Americans would like to see marriage remain between a man and a woman, but are open to having the states deal with the issue of civil unions on a state by state basis. This seems to me to be an amiable compromise that protects the ancient tradition of marriage while also allowing individual states to pass civil union laws that provide legal equality to homosexual couples.
In many ways this is exactly what President Bush has done by calling for a constitutional amendment protecting marriage.
America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities. We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.
Contrast this with the reaction by Andrew Sullivan, a leading proponent for gay marriage:
The president launched a war today against the civil rights of gay citizens and their families. And just as importantly, he launched a war to defile the most sacred document in the land....
This president wants our families denied civil protection and civil acknowledgment. He wants us stigmatized not just by a law, not just by his inability even to call us by name, not by his minions on the religious right. He wants us stigmatized in the very founding document of America. There can be no more profound attack on a minority in the United States - or on the promise of freedom that America represents....
This president has now made the Republican party an emblem of exclusion and division and intolerance...This struggle is hard but it is also easy. The president has made it easy. He's a simple man and he divides the world into friends and foes. He has now made a whole group of Americans - and their families and their friends - his enemy. We have no alternative but to defend ourselves and our families from this attack. And we will.
If you read the the President's statement and then spend a few minutes reading Andrew Sullivan's blog it becomes rather clear which side is the intolerant one.
I'm sure that's what they said in the days of Leviticus. Additionally, back then, and in many times and places since, there have been efforts to get rid of homosexuality that were far more Draconian than anything any one of us would want to see in American society.
Keep talking like that to folks in the mushy middle, and you'll help make up their minds on this issue, for sure.
As I said before, most of the points in the article are refutable, and it will be the media depiction of everyday people like the ones you mention that will try to refute the notion that this is a radical change. Believe me, MSNBC is not going to stick a microphone in the face of a float rider at a gay pride parade for an opinion on gay marriage.
I oppose changing the constitution because people want to keep homosexuals in their place, whereever that is.
That is the crux of the similarity between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement of years past. Even if someone insists that there is a difference between homosexual behavior and genetically-determined racial characteristics, there is still a cultural "us-them" that operates in both spheres, and this can be made to look like a collective "us" keeping "them" in their place. Expect the media to find a way to champion "them".
Most polls show that opposition to this is a religious issue.
I agree, but there is a substantial "ick" factor to consider. Ironically, it looks like the religious right is the ones trying to focus the minds of the mushy middle on the "ick" things, whereas the media, in defense of the gays, is trying to focus on the "family" things. The interesting thing about the article at the head of this thread is that it avoids both religion and ick, and tries to appeal to the middle on the issue of the natural resistance to change the status quo. That's the only way gay marriage has any chance of being slowed down. Whichever side looks the most radical is the one that's going to lose.
It is an issue of legal standing and access to government liscensing.
I agree, and right now, the gay marriage proponents are staying on message with that point. If the anti side can find a compelling message that does not turn off the people who are not normally inclined to be receptive to it, then there will be a real debate on the issue. If not, then there will be a societal change, and a lot of name-calling going on, heat and fury, signifying nothing.
There's one way to do this, and it would be consistent with steps that have already been taken.
The answer: covenant marriage.
Covenant marriage is already the law of the land in three states. It goes back to having grounds for divorce, so a woman cannot just simply deprive a man of his house and kids on a mere whim, and calls for allowing marital property settlements to be influenced by marital misconduct.
Why not have covenant marriage for the people who want to marry for the purpose of raising families, and regular marriage for everyone else, including gays? It might be possible to benefit covenant marriages in some ways, most states have an income tax, and perhaps a larger standard deduction could be given for covenant marriages.
I'm still not sure what we could do about the shacking up, though.
You could have said the same thing about integrated housing not too terribly long ago. There are still people in this country who feel an ick factor about living next door to people whose cultures are markedly different from their own. I will put myself in the latter category about the more extreme behaviors of illegal immigrants. I'd rather have a gay couple next door, who keeps the grass mowed, and the yard cheery!
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.