Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Now That Sodomy Is Legal, Is Gay Marriage Far Behind?
The New York Observer ^ | 7/28/2003 edition | Richard Brookhiser

Posted on 07/23/2003 6:13:16 AM PDT by Liz

The Lawrence decision has come and gone, and it is now legal in Texas to commit homosexual sodomy—not because the electorate that twice bestowed the governorship on George W. Bush decided this was enlightened social policy, but because the Supreme Court found that the Constitution would have it so. When will gay marriage come to us, by this or some other route?

The two sides are already patrolling the no-fly zone of intellectual discourse, spying on each other’s positions and bombing select targets. So far, most of the war of words has been devoted to the effects that gay marriage would have on gays and on society in general.

Partisans of gay marriage make the case that the possibility of formal unions would have an uplifting effect on gays themselves. Gays already have available the superficial trappings: Anyone can exchange rings, write vows as tacky as those written by young men and women, and even find hip clerics to bless the proceedings. But when the sanction of law is applied, these rituals will have a new meaning. Marriage will be the light at the end of the tunnel of discrimination and pathology—a chance to act as equals, and to stop acting out.

Opponents of gay marriage fear one more blow against an already shaky institution. For while millions of marriages occur every year, millions also dissolve in acrimony and indifference, with the state clumsily trying to pick up the pieces, as represented by underpaid single mothers and ill-raised children. Family turbulence has a million causes, from the pursuit of happiness to MTV attention spans, but one great cause is the law, which increasingly treats marriage not as an institution prior to specific forms of government, but as a contract—as serious as a car loan, maybe, less serious than a mortgage. Adding new sexual permutations to marriage will make it more malleable, less sturdy.

The debate over effects is both passionate and interesting, but it’s clouded by uncertainty. To know the effect on gays, one would have to know something about gays, and who knows that? The philosopher Sidney Hook once asked, "What do homosexuals do?"—meaning "How do they have sex?" Hook knew everything about Karl Marx and John Dewey, but he didn’t know what used to be illegal in Texas.

We laugh, but are we any the wiser? Gays—even our gay friends, to the extent we think of them as gay—are figures of heterosexual fantasy: monsters, liberators, arbiters of elegance; the list goes on and on. Gay spokesmen hammer at the bad stereotypes and leave the positive ones alone. Every gay person knows heterosexuality better than any straight person can ever know homosexuality, because every gay person had parents. How many gays will wish to repeat their parents’ marriages?

The effect of gay marriage on marriage depends on the potency of small numbers. Gays are some small percentage of the population; some fraction of that fraction will choose marriage. What splash will that drop make in the great bucket of the republic? But physics teaches us the power of interrelation: A butterfly beats it wings, and a typhoon blows in the Pacific.

The presumed effects of gay marriage will be used to persuade others, and to rationalize one’s own position. It seems to me that people hold one of three basic positions.

The first is pride. Why should there be something gays cannot do? To deny them marriage degrades them in their own estimation. Never scant the role of pride in the modern world. The political scientist Francis Fukuyama, who wrote the seductive and wrongheaded essay about the end of history, expanded it into a less seductive book that made one arresting new point: The drive for self-rule in the world comes from people’s notions of their own worth. Every political movement, from the noble to the grotesque to the murderous, from Polish shipbuilders to Palestinian terrorists, is fueled by pride. Gay Pride is one subset.

The second position is: Huh? It is the conservatism of incomprehension, the judgment that is made before the question is posed. Who ever heard of such a thing as gay marriage? The late scholar John Boswell wrote a whole book trying to prove that there had been gay marriages in the late ancient world. He was looking for unicorns. Gay sex, gay love, gay love poems go back to Sappho and beyond, but no one ever thought of marrying men and men, and women and women, and we won’t think of it now.

The third position is politeness, the great unwillingness—seemingly liberal, actually WASP—to disoblige one’s acquaintances. Other cultures divide the world into kin and enemies. We acknowledge the people we shake hands with; with them, we do not wish for raised voices or awkward scenes. We may not know what gays do, but we know gays. They are one of us.

I doubt very much that we will extend the same consideration to Mormon polygamists. Now there is a tough subculture: Harassed by the world that lynched its prophet, Joseph Smith, then betrayed by their fellow Mormons when they decided that polygamy would have to be put on ice, the diehards retreated to rural Utah, Idaho and Arizona. Every once in a while, some cantankerous old goat is hauled into court, his 10 wives in tow. Don’t look for any sympathy for them if they try to take the Gay Train, to raise their social status by aping Larry Kramer. Mormon polygamists worship a god, and breed like rabbits. They are not one of us.

The great question, which none of the three positions can convincingly address, is: Are we bodies, and if so, what effect does that have? Emerson wrote about "the iron wire on which the beads are strung." He thought the iron wire that controlled our destinies was temperament. Is there also a dash of biology in the alloy? Do our bodies give us options, and limit options? Are we discarnate souls, or dying animals? And should the law care?

You may reach Richard Brookhiser via email at: rbrookhiser@observer.com.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: lawrencevtexas; richardbrookhiser; samesexmarriage

1 posted on 07/23/2003 6:13:17 AM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Liz
...Is Gay Marriage Far Behind?,

It's behind all right.

2 posted on 07/23/2003 6:15:35 AM PDT by SquirrelKing (Don't sweat the petty things...don't pet the sweaty things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Take a look at this eye-opener:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/951145/posts

The original polling information is at:

http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease.asp?PressReleaseID=127&Reference=F
3 posted on 07/23/2003 6:24:17 AM PDT by elenchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SquirrelKing
I was wondering when someone would pick that up. LOL.
4 posted on 07/23/2003 6:24:23 AM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Liz
It is an abomination that our Consititution was used to make the sodomy decision. That said, I don't really believe this decision will stop with it's face value. The concept of gay marriage forces me to ask myself the question, "What is the purpose?" What is it that gay couples would benefit from same sex marriage that does not already exist?
5 posted on 07/23/2003 6:34:34 AM PDT by msdrby (Go Navy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elenchus
Of course the left hates Christians. Christians are normal, productive people. The link data is more evidence that despite their constant bleating about their "tolerance and compassion," lefty liberals have an unmitigated and utter contempt for humanity.

Self-hating left-libs just can't feel good about themselves unless they are in the throes of "victimization" and either 1) causing victims, 2) concocting victims, 3) playing victim, 4) commiserating over victims, or 5) creating another class of victims to bleed over.

Christians are not victims, ergo, the left goes ballistic.

Should we really care if they hate us? Only if they interfere with the administration of our government and if they infringe on our rights. And speaking of rights, meet the ACLU....the paradigm Christian-haters.

6 posted on 07/23/2003 6:37:50 AM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: msdrby
Despite the abomination of the recent Supreme Court ruling it does nothing to advance gay marriage , thank God.

The ruling was about a PRIVACY issue, that just happened to involve sodomy.

Marriage, by it's very nature, is a PUBLIC declaration, and has nothing to do with either privacy or sodomy.
7 posted on 07/23/2003 7:51:19 AM PDT by Wil H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SquirrelKing
It's behind all right.

Is that how lesbians do it?
8 posted on 07/23/2003 1:20:04 PM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: msdrby
What is it that gay couples would benefit
 from same sex marriage that does not already exist?


Oh,  spousal health insurance is just the first that comes
to mind.  There are quite a few features available to
American citizens that shouldn't be denied because
of sexual preference.
9 posted on 07/23/2003 1:22:41 PM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SquirrelKing
It's behind all right.

In fact most gay men find their relationship to be a true pain in the rear.

10 posted on 07/23/2003 1:23:22 PM PDT by AxelPaulsenJr (Ozzy Osborne says that pot leads to harder drugs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Im Your Huckleberry
pinger
11 posted on 07/23/2003 2:33:26 PM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy; SkyPilot; BOBTHENAILER; aristeides; DPB101; PGalt; CARepubGal; Libloather; ...
Now that sodomy is legal the DNC is gearing up to accomodate gays, transexuals, and hermaphrodites to substantially increase the Dummycrat pervert vote.

In light of the USSC decision, the DNC is trying to be really, really "tolerant and compassionate" of the sexual preference proliferation, and is creating sexually-oriented victim caucuses for the 2004 convention consisting of:

Transgender Caucus (whatever)

Unknown Gender Caucus (AKA heads-or-tails voters)

Necrophiliac Caucus (partners both genders as long as they are deceased)

Date-Rape Caucus (partner must be unconscious - as in Andrew Luster - Max Factor heir)

Inanimate-Object Caucus (paerners non-humans such as cigars)

Bestiality Caucus (partners only with pets approved by PETA)

12 posted on 07/23/2003 2:57:39 PM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
Ping to another gay marriage piece. This one from a sane writer.
13 posted on 07/23/2003 2:58:23 PM PDT by Snuffington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz; longtermmemmory
What happened to the talk about the Federal Marriage Amendment?
14 posted on 07/23/2003 3:25:43 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
RAT pervert collection: What a hoot. Great job.
15 posted on 07/23/2003 3:54:57 PM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (Rats are showing all the symptoms of severe radiation poisoning)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Not as if the left hasn't waged these attacks before--in Germany in the 1920s and in Russia in 1918. As we know, both times it came out badly.

Robert Bork once said he would not mind the left tearing down civilization quite as much if it gave us some idea of what it will replace civilization with. But the left never does.

16 posted on 07/23/2003 4:04:27 PM PDT by DPB101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Here's my own:

posts by Liz = priceless!
17 posted on 07/23/2003 4:08:58 PM PDT by onyx (Name an honest democrat? I can't either!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: onyx
So sweet.
18 posted on 07/23/2003 4:20:45 PM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
I believe it's still alive.
19 posted on 07/23/2003 4:21:41 PM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Liz
In light of the USSC decision, the DNC is trying to be really, really "tolerant and compassionate" of the sexual preference proliferation, and is creating sexually-oriented victim caucuses...

hehehe...thanks :)

20 posted on 07/24/2003 5:32:56 AM PDT by skinkinthegrass (Just because you're paranoid,doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson