The Coming Battle [homosexual marriage]

National Review Online ^ | 11/26/2002 | Stanley Kurtz

[EdReform]

Bump & Ping

[RAT Patrol]

Bump!

[ClearCase_guy]

If we go down that road, what prevents brother-sister marriages. What prevents polygamy? What prevents adult-child marriages. If we allow non-traditional marriages, how do we draw a line that says "this is non-traditional, but it's OK -- that is non-traditional and sick and disgusting"?

[Alberta's Child]

By the way, the legal briefs filed in the Massachusetts court case argue that there is a "right to marriage" for same-sex couples under the U.S. Constitution.

I would contend that any successful attempt to find a "right to marriage" in any form under the U.S. Constitution is going to have very interesting consequences. If such a right exists, and states are forbidden to legislate against "gay marriages" on this basis, then states would also be forbidden from legislating against any other kind of "marriages," including the following:

1. A marriage involving more than two spouses (Utah can go back to the days before they were admitted into the Union),

2. A marriage involving close family members (no more incest jokes about Appalachia),

3. A marriage involving a person and an animal (if you think the future of Social Security was in bad shape now, wait until pets start collecting survivor benefits),

4. A marriage involving an elderly retiree and a 5 year-old family member (to allow the youngster to collect insurance, Social security, and pension benefits for decades after the other "spouse" dies),

4. A marriage involving large numbers of committed Christians who use such a travesty in a cynical, manipulative manner to their own advantage (I'll probably never pay another dime in income taxes for the rest of my life, since I could easily come up with 30 or more "spouses" to put on my income tax returns).

Providing insurance benefits to same-sex couples is one thing, but I suspect that any attempt to change the legal definition of a marriage will stop in its tracks once Items #4 and #5 become a common practice.

[Houmatt]

We all know most Americans are against same sex marriage because:

1)It mocks the institution of matrimony;

2)It will open the door to incestuous, "intergenerational" and interspecies marriage.

But it looks like, once again, a small group of people stand poised to shove the perversion of a divine union down the throats of everyone else. And they will be allowed to get away with it because, "We are a republic, not a democracy," or we would otherwise be called intolerant homophobic bigots.

In a song recorded by Christian artist Carman, he said:

"When it comes to the point where we would rather come out of the closet than clean it, it's a sign the Judgement of God is gonna fall."

Indeed.

[ambrose]

I think the Libertarians may be right on this one. Get the state out of the marriage business.

[LibertyGirl77]

Good article, but I don't like the way he referred to adoption and insemination as "second best." Even for some heterosexual couples, that's the only way to start a family. If it were me, I sure wouldn't want to think of it as "second best." I would prefer to think of it as "God's Plan."

[goldstategop]

The entire problem with liberalism today is there's no posts, no guidelines and no certainty. When the ground shifts and the bottom falls under you, what do you fall back upon? A conservative can state he can fall upon tradition, stated principles, and acceptance of moral absolutes to avoid being swept downstream to the next political and social cataract. The liberal can only go along with vaguely articulated feelings and has to accept whatever's fashionable or trendy at the moment as the standard of the day. So thus liberalism is ever evolving and standardless. This brings us to the results of the past election and the reason why the Gore's new book flopped. Its not that liberalism had no message, its that liberalism doesn't leave people feeling very safe about the permanence of its beliefs. Its fitting that Algore the man with no personality, no soul, and a convenient set of circumstantial commitments, should be the embodiment of what passes for present day liberalism. No wonder people duck and run for cover every time his next announcenent is in the offing; you just don't know if his views are the same as the views you heard him state before.

[Polycarp]

In general, political avoidance of the gay-marriage issue, combined with the false analogy to civil rights, has obscured the true effect that same-sex marriage will have on the institution of the family. Yet as soon as next summer, the gay-marriage issue may finally beak out into the open. At that point, the Republicans will have to call Al Gore and the Democrats on the radical and damaging implications of their social philosophy for the institutions of marriage and the family.

Unfortunately, the GOP do not and will not have the guts or conviction to do it.

[Alberta's Child]

Get the state out of the marriage business.

Easier said than done. If the state "got out of the marriage business," then the state would first have to eliminate any statute that included any reference whatsoever to a spouse or even a family member.

[LibertyGirl77]

Alberta's Child, how did you get to be so smart? You always think of such great arguments so quickly!

[DaGman]

I don't see why regulating marriage should be a government function. Government will regulate anything it can get its hands on.

[goldstategop]

I agree. Its not politically correct to be homophobic and that's where liberals' commitment to emotional intensity serves them well. If all you have is your feelings to guide you, no one wants to hurt them. If you look at modern liberal criticism of conservatives, odds are most of the time its not to take issue with their ideas, but to try get people repelled from them for hurting people's feelings. The argument over gay marriage is not going to be conducted by the other side from the terrain on which we are used to.

[Alberta's Child]

Alberta's Child, how did you get to be so smart?

It runs in the family -- Alberta made me such a smart guy. LOL!!

(Not far from the truth, actually -- anyone who has lived and done business in Alberta knows what I mean.)

[ambrose]

True. Of course it would never happen because there are so many entitlements tied to being married. Anyone who tried to mess with that would be thrown out of office in a heartbeat. That's probably the biggest reason homosexuals want their "marriages" to be recognized by the state.

[11th Earl of Mar]

If we go down that road, what prevents brother-sister marriages. What prevents polygamy? What prevents adult-child marriages.

And can a man drive a young boy across the state line to "marry" him, then come back and demand his home state recognize the relationship? Ugh..