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

Skip to comments.

Gay Marriage debuts
Townhall.com ^ | 12/5/03 | Mona Charen

Posted on 12/05/2003 9:28:42 AM PST by blitzgig

Gay marriage debuts Mona Charen

December 5, 2003

If you are like most Americans, you know that gay marriage is coming and you don't feel that you have the power to stop it. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled (4 to 3) that the state's existing matrimonial laws are irrational and gave the legislature 180 days to revise them.

President Clinton, you may recall, signed a law called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which declared that same sex "marriages" recognized in one state (Hawaii was the worry back then) would not be given full faith and credit in other states. It also defined marriage, for purposes of federal law, as the union of one man and one woman. But in light of the reasoning in the Supreme Court's Lawrence vs. Texas ruling, DOMA may no longer withstand the Supreme Court's imperial overstretch.

It's in the nature of our culture that things move very fast when the TV producers, magazine writers, screenwriters, journalists and a handful of judges join forces. Already, the language of DOMA (1996) sounds slightly tinny and out of date. Just two weeks ago, Harvey Fierstein marched in drag as "Mrs. Claus" at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade in New York (against Macy's wishes, it should be noted) and was interviewed with amusement and fondness by television networks. Queer is "in."

Most of us have gay friends and no wish to cause homosexuals unhappiness. But if they insist that homosexual unions be sanctified, we have no choice but to resist.

Some conservatives have accepted the argument -- most eloquently advanced by Andrew Sullivan -- that backing gay marriage actually advances a conservative position. Marriage, he argues, is a civilizing institution, and good conservatives should welcome the fact that a new group of people would like to live within its constraints of fidelity.

But it's not that simple. We know that traditional marriage forces men to constrain their normally promiscuous sexual behavior in favor of the monogamy that women tend to prefer. We further know that men's and women's natures differ in this respect. Homosexuals and lesbians provide even more evidence of the obvious. Gay men tend to have lots (like hundreds) of sexual partners, whereas lesbians tend to be quite happy to settle down with one partner for long stretches. That's the nature of the beast.

Will marriage make gay men more monogamous? Doubtful. With no woman in the picture to insist upon it, the incentives are quite weak. To prove one's fidelity? To keep a promise? Those are far less weighty concerns than to uphold the family and respect God's law. Conversely, the lack of marriage has not made lesbians more promiscuous.

But, in all candor, society has much less of a stake in homosexual monogamy than it does in traditional marital fidelity because the principal function of marriage is provide for children. We very much want parents to remain together while their children are growing up. Whether a homosexual couple remains faithful is a matter of indifference to society (though by all means they should be able, through contracts and living wills, to ensure that inheritance, hospital visitation and so on are managed as they would prefer). And while some homosexual couples are raising children, we should not be encouraging the practice.

Partisans of same sex marriage demand to know how two gay men pledging themselves to one another can possibly hurt a "straight" couple. Indirectly. If marriage is to include gay men and women, by what standard can we exclude non-gay threesomes? Nothing in the Supreme Court's or other courts' rulings have provided a principled grounds upon which to forbid adult incest, polygamy or polyandry. Homosexuals bristle at this argument. But they must answer a question: How does a homosexual father convince his daughter that polygamy is out of the question?

Marriage must, if the word is to retain its meaning, be only between one man and one woman. For as critics on both sides of the debate acknowledge, we're having a hard time upholding the integrity of marriage among the heterosexual population. At this moment, we ought to be reinvesting marriage with the honor it once commanded, not bleeding it of substance.

Such a drastic social experiment should not be undertaken on the strength of a 4-to-3 vote of one state's high court. If a constitutional amendment is required, so be it.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: gaymarriage; goodridge; homosexual; homosexualagenda; homosexuals; homosexualvice; marriage; monacharen; perversion; samesexmarriage; sodomandgomorrah
Pretty good read here.
1 posted on 12/05/2003 9:28:43 AM PST by blitzgig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: blitzgig
Thanks. For class reading.
2 posted on 12/05/2003 9:34:14 AM PST by Van Jenerette (Our Republic...if we can keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scripter
ping
3 posted on 12/05/2003 10:42:35 AM PST by EdReform (Support Free Republic - Become a Monthly Donor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
ping
4 posted on 12/05/2003 10:43:30 AM PST by EdReform (Support Free Republic - Become a Monthly Donor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blitzgig
INTREP
5 posted on 12/05/2003 10:45:55 AM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
Mona Charen rocks!
6 posted on 12/05/2003 3:48:04 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
I think she actually meant "debutts."
7 posted on 12/05/2003 3:52:19 PM PST by glaux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: blitzgig
"Homosexuals and lesbians provide even more evidence...."

What's the difference? Lesbians are just female homosexuals.

And somebody please tell me what a "non-gay threesome" is?

8 posted on 12/05/2003 4:43:32 PM PST by perfect stranger (No tag line today. Tag line yesterday, tag line tomorrow, but no tag line today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blitzgig
Some conservatives have accepted the argument -- most eloquently advanced by Andrew Sullivan -- that backing gay marriage actually advances a conservative position. Marriage, he argues, is a civilizing institution, and good conservatives should welcome the fact that a new group of people would like to live within its constraints of fidelity.

This argument is ridiculous: do you need a piece of paper to be faithful to someone? Gays can certainly practice fidelity without getting 'married'.
9 posted on 12/05/2003 4:47:06 PM PST by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: perfect stranger
And somebody please tell me what a "non-gay threesome" is?

Three people who love one another, which is the rational basis cited by the SJC of Massachusetts, in a non sexual way and wish to be married for some benefit, presumably economic.

Any three would do, three sisters, a brother, a sister and a nephew, three good friends two of whom are not insured and one with SS survior benefits to be passed on. The list is endless.

10 posted on 12/05/2003 4:53:07 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: blitzgig
Such a drastic social experiment should not be undertaken on the strength of a 4-to-3 vote of one state's high court. If a constitutional amendment is required, so be it.

After reading Ann Coulter's column of this week, I think the Constitutional Amendment route won't work. Why should we have to amend the Constitution just because of four bozos on the Mass Supreme Court? The Massachusetts legislature should ignore this ruling: What will the MSC do?

And Charen is right: next up will be legal three-way marriages, four-way marriages, and why won't somebody be able to marry their dog or cat for that matter?
11 posted on 12/05/2003 4:56:38 PM PST by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: perfect stranger
Two-wives-and-one-husband.....

Two-husbands-and-one-wife......
12 posted on 12/05/2003 4:57:34 PM PST by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07; Rummyfan
I get it now thanks.

but it's still pretty screwed up.

13 posted on 12/05/2003 5:08:38 PM PST by perfect stranger (No tag line today. Tag line yesterday, tag line tomorrow, but no tag line today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: seamole
I never thought I'd see the day where courts ruled that partially delivering a baby and then sucking it's brains out was a right that accrued to the babies mother.

Actually, a reading of Lawrence and Goodridge leaves them no choice, they have painted themselves into the "transcendent liberty" corner and there is no way out.

16 posted on 12/05/2003 5:35:10 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

To: seamole
EEEWWWW!
18 posted on 12/05/2003 7:42:04 PM PST by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

To: blitzgig
> If a constitutional amendment is required, so be it.

Or a revolution


20 posted on 12/05/2003 10:46:17 PM PST by old-ager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blitzgig
They decorated all the generals
Who fought the war behind the lines
They had forgotten all the soldiers
The brandy puts them way behind the times
Insanity has found its way to TV screens
Vision seems impossible to me
They fight for king and country
I never would have thought this in my

Wildest dreams, wildest dreams
Wildest dreams, wildest dreams

Evening comes, we sit and watch the features
Clips and rushes come from who-knows-where
From Washington across to California
The fighting breaking out in Leicester Square
We see the soldiers moving on to victory
And children trampled under marching feet
They fight for king and country
How many millions will they put to sleep?

Wildest dreams, wildest dreams
Wildest dreams, wildest dreams

Fly away!

No, not in this world
No, not in the next
No, not in my wildest dreams

They recommended you to leisure
For non-conformers anywhere
Some men's dreams for others turn to nightmares
This never would have happened in their

Wildest dreams, wildest dreams
wildest dreams, wildest dreams

Fly away!

No, not in this world
No, not in the next
No, not in my wildest dreams

John Wetton / Geoff Downes (Asia)
21 posted on 12/05/2003 10:49:44 PM PST by old-ager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blitzgig; Reagan Man; just mimi; kesg; SpiderMBA; killjoy; prognostigaator; raybbr; Davis; ...
Mona ping...
22 posted on 12/08/2003 12:09:30 PM PST by cgk (Kraut, 1989: We must brace ourselves for disquisitions on peer pressure, adolescent anomie & rage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blitzgig
Well written. Right on.
23 posted on 12/08/2003 12:34:30 PM PST by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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