Posted on 03/05/2004 6:23:10 PM PST by Bob J
When Hillary Clinton speaks, Democrats listen. Recently she proclaimed that the upcoming 2004 Presidential election will revolve around the issue of “gay marriage.” Seeing that the economy is rebounding – tax cuts do work – and that Americans, wisely, trust President Bush more than Democrats in our war against terrorism, Democrats are losing the two issues upon which they had hoped to campaign. Enter gay marriage, i.e., the old stand-by social issues favored by Democrats.
But why use gay marriage – which is not supported by most Americans – as the wedge issue when for the past thirty years abortion-at-all-costs, “open abortion,” has been the social issue exploited by Democrats. Mrs. Clinton’s announcement coming as it did just four days after Arnold Schwartznegger’s election as Governor of California reveals a conclusion reached by Liberal chieftains at the post mortem pow-wow: Republicans can carry socially liberal suburbanites while remaining somewhat principled on the issue of abortion. The formula, as demonstrated by Schwartznegger, is to oppose late-term and partial-birth abortion and be in favor of parental notification while, in the name of juridical precedent, not calling to overturn Roe vs. Wade. It’s hard for Democrats to paint forever a candidate as a “religious zealot” when said candidate is not arrayed against Roe v. Wade albeit conservative in every other facet of the abortion controversy.
Having lost, as California showed, their ace-in-the-hole social issue, Democrats will desperately try to convince the public that today’s “religious zealots” – the ones to be feared – are those opposed to gay marriage. Democrats know that here, in contrast to abortion, there is no room to maneuver, since there are no phases and stages, nor are there different facets and scenarios to the question. It is either yes a marriage or not, with even Schwartznegger-type Republicans opposing it, saying no.
Democrats realize most Americans oppose gay marriage, but are convinced that by branding Republicans opposed to it “religious extremists,” the dark cloud of “extremism” will hover over Republican candidates resulting in voters afraid and wary of the candidates’ extremism extending beyond gay marriage into other areas of civic life. In other words, the goal of the religious extremism smear is intended not so much to carry the day for gay marriage as it is as a disqualifier, as a device to brand Republicans as those against any separation of church and state or, due to religion, intolerant.
So while there is no wiggle room here – we are opposed – we can explain our position in such a way that will not have us fall into the trap Hillary Clinton and cohorts have set for us. We do so by justifying our position not on the religious, biblical description of homosexuality as an abomination but on the classic, universal definition of marriage, one held until today even among secularists, namely: marriage is the honored union of man and woman only. Our argument is definitional not theological. It is neutral.
This understanding of marriage is intuitive, so much so that long-winded explanations and philosophic retorts are unnecessary and counter-productive. Our simple but firm definition of what constitutes marriage will ring innately true to those who hear it. People need not be convinced or persuaded by that which they already believe. They do, however, need to be strengthened by having what they believe affirmed and declared by others.
By limiting our rationale to definition only – a baseball is not a football, purple is not green– arguments based on emotion or goodwill become irrelevant. A definition is objective, not subjective. Legal definitions are neutral, they can’t change simply because we will them to. The question is divorced from the fashionable categories of tolerance, fairness, choice, quality relationships. It is simply definitional.
For victory’s sake and so as not to be pigeonholed, the understandable urge to describe homosexuality as an abomination, or unnatural, should during public debate be discarded, for such rationales imply a desire to prohibit such conduct even privately, outside marriage – a stance most Americans will not support given their general belief that personal conduct between consenting adults is a private, non-governmental matter.
Marriage is, however, a public matter, has always and remains today a category requiring state and community sanction. While we don’t record private sexual conduct, we do record at City Hall marriages. As one of society’s legal cornerstones, such as contracts, marriage has from time immemorial – everywhere and in religious and pagan cultures –demanded definition. Its definition, its reality, was long ago established in Western civilization as being a committed union between male and female, publicly acknowledged.
Even in pagan but classic ancient Greece where love between men (and boys) was extolled as better and more pure than that between man and woman, marriage was acclaimed and consummative between men and women only. That which between men was characterized as sex, between man and woman constituted consummation.
Furthermore, were there for some reason to be no homosexual activity between two men in a given relationship, marriage between them would still be an impossibility given that by definition two members of the same gender, even if their relationship is platonic, cannot partner under the historic rubric and understanding of marriage. Thus it is not so much a condemnation of the sexual activity as it is fealty to a legal definition; a category already subsumed within the collective unconscious.
In fact, in Deuteronomy 24:1 when speaking of marriage, Scripture states, “When a man shall take a woman for a wife…”, clearly articulating that such partnership is between man and woman only, though the chapter in which this statement is made is not one dealing with homosexuality nor is reference made to procreation.
For the religious believer, the argument against partnership per se should not be construed as a cop-out given that Scripture itself makes such a point and in today’s world being religious often means simply upholding age-old standards. Furthermore, agnostics can feel comfortable when a position is based not on religion but honest definition. The same applies to those who, while not overtly religious, value the concept of enduring traditions.
Unlike in Europe, most Americans are connected to the notion of traditional values when not overladen by too much religious theology. Unanchored liberals may equalize every conceivable lifestyle, blue-collar Democrats will not.
As demonstrated every time a new social issue arises, liberals will again accuse us of being the political step-children of those who seventy years ago were intolerant of Blacks. Let not our endless desire for atonement on the black/white issue or our need to be hailed as tolerant coerce us to accept new definitions of marriage. While the previous situation may have involved bigotry, opposition to gay marriage is not rooted in bigotry, rather intellectual honesty.
The “slippery slope” argument that gay marriage will lead to even worse scenarios not only weakens our case but also displays a failure to grasp how gay marriage is in itself an unacceptable final frontier, a breaking point. Those such as candidtes John Kerry, John Edwards and the rest of the Democrat team who say they oppose gay marriage yet support civil unions are skirting the issue and playing both sides. Its deleterious effect on society makes it an issue that cannot be finessed by the finessers.
# # #
Rabbi Aryeh Spero is president of Caucus for America. He is a Radio Free Republic talk show host and contributes to national newspapers and journals such as The Washington Times, Policy Review, Human Events, the New York Sun, Jewish World Review, Midstream, Tradition, Judaism and leading Anglo-Jewish weeklies. He can be reached at caucusforamerica@att.net.
I think he makes some good points.
This is good.
While the previous situation may have involved bigotry, opposition to gay marriage is not rooted in bigotry, rather intellectual honesty.
This is not good. He's talking in terms of "definition." A "definition" will only work, if you're talking to people who accept it. Preaching to the choir will just lose the congregation. And where's the intellectual honesty of talking about (supposedly non-religious) "definitions," when your real opposition is religious?
The “slippery slope” argument that gay marriage will lead to even worse scenarios not only weakens our case but also displays a failure to grasp how gay marriage is in itself an unacceptable final frontier, a breaking point.
Here's where his dishonesty comes back to bite him in the tuchus. The "slippery slope" argument is the best one to use, in dealing with those who don't think that queer marriage as such is so terrible. If you're going to say that queer marriage, in and of itself, is terrible, then what's your reason? If you say, "definition," you're just being circular. You might as well say, "Because."
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.