'Gay' Marriage Pushed to Center of US Political Debate

Recent developments on both U.S. coasts have pushed the issue of marriage between two people of the same sex into American headlines. Authorities in San Francisco have officially married hundreds of gay and lesbian couples since Thursday. At the same time, lawmakers in Massachusetts failed to agree on an amendment to the state constitution that would have defined marriage exclusively as a union between a man and a woman. Drivers honking their support added to the party atmosphere in front of San Francisco's City Hall - where for the past few days, hundreds of same-sex couples have waited in line for hours to take their marriage vows and get official papers recognizing their union.

City mayor Gavin Newsom launched a campaign Thursday to recognize gay and lesbian marriages, as a direct challenge to California state laws that ban such same-sex marriage. Mayor Newsom ordered City Hall to remain open during the weekend and a national holiday Monday to cope with the unprecedented crush of marriage applicants.

The Alliance Defense Fund on Friday filed a lawsuit to try to stop the gay marriages in San Francisco. A California superior court judge has scheduled a hearing on the first working day after the holiday, on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, across the country, Massachusetts lawmakers rejected an amendment to the state constitution that would have defined marriage as strictly a union between a man and a woman. State lawmakers will take up the issue again next month.

The highest Massachusetts court last year struck down a ban on gay marriage as unconstitutional, and gave the state's lawmakers until May to fix the problem.

On the CBS program Face the Nation, television and radio commentator James Dobson spoke out against what he called efforts to undermine traditional heterosexual marriage around the country. Mr. Dobson especially blasted the San Francisco mayor, saying the official is going against the wishes of the majority of Californians who voted against same-sex marriage in a 2000 referendum. "What happened in California in the last few days has been an absolute outrage," he said. "I mean, the people of California passed a constitutional amendment indicating that marriage was between one man and one woman, by a 61 to 39 percent majority. And now this mayor comes along and just abrogates the law, and it is no longer rule of law."

Meanwhile, on Fox News Sunday, Democratic Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank, who is homosexual, said legally recognizing gay marriages would not threaten heterosexual marriages. Congressman Frank added that same-sex couples would welcome the chance to be officially married in some states, even if their union is not recognized by all 50 U.S. states. "We had a situation in this country - we all now deplore it - where inter-racial marriages were allowed in some states and not recognized in other states. We have had situations where states have had differential rules on the age at which you could marry," he said.

Both houses of Congress are expected to discuss a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriages throughout the United States. A bill on that issue has already been introduced in the House of Representatives. Senate majority leader Bill Frist last week said the Senate will take it up soon.

One had to be amused by Barney Frank’s on fox News Sunday. Here is an excerpt

WALLACE: All right. Congressman Frank, let me turn it around to you. If you're going to argue for the right of gays to marry, why stop there? Why not, say, polygamy or any other personal choice?

FRANK: Because society has, I think, a right to make certain decisions. They ought to make them fairly.

Deciding that a relationship between two people promotes stability, is likely to help society, is a rational decision. And two versus three is a very clear thing. You have a three-way situation, the likelihood of dissension, et cetera, is greater.

As to the traditional family, I think it's a wonderful thing, and same-sex marriage will in no way alter it. I think we ought to be very clear.

What's happened in Massachusetts is this: To the overwhelming majority of heterosexual Massachusetts citizens, marriage will not change in any way, shape or form. The legal benefits, the legal obligations, most importantly the emotional sense — it doesn't change.

This is not going to destroy the intact family. We don't have heterosexual couples who are now going to say, "Hey, I can go marry a guy," and leave his wife. I mean, it is a separate issue.

And I think it is fair for society to say relationships between two people, we want give those legal sanction, because we think that mutuality can produce stability.
***

Where do I begin pointing out the inconsistencies and sheer stupidity contained in this exchange? (More importantly, why did not Chris Wallace or Senator Cornyn do so?)

First, he explains that society must make its decisions fairly. I certainly agree. However, does a decision fair arise from the process of democratic debate or the decree of unelected judges? When asked to vote, the people have consistently condemned "gay marriage?"

Then he explains that "gay marriage" is different from polygamy because the latter involves three or more people. Well, most people feel the same disapproval he expresses for polygamy when they think of "gay marriage." If Frank’s disapproval of polygamy justifies a ban on that odious institution, why does he deny the majority of Americans the right to disapprove of homosexuality? Personally, the thought of a world in which society can condemn only what Barney Frank finds perverse frightens me.

As to the idea that polygamy is different because of its inherent instability, Frank ignores the rampant promiscuity of homosexuals. This is an odd omission, considering that one of his lovers ran a ring of gay prostitutes from the Congressman's home.

Then he claims that heterosexual marriages will not end because society recognizes "gay marriage." This assertion ignores the case of Gene Robinson. An Episcopal cleric, Robinson abandoned his family to live with his gay lover. This occurred despite society's, and his religion's, condemnation of homosexuality. If society endorses homosexuality, as "gay marriage" inevitably does, then those with marginal marriages might be tempted to follow Robinson's example. We cannot attempt to divorce marriage from morality and hope to reap anything but chaos.

Finally, Frank claims that "we think that mutuality can produce stability." So does this mean that he will allow incest? Will fathers be allowed to marry sons? Why not? These "mutual" relationships have as much claim to "stability" as any other homosexuals. Again, we are left in a world in which only Barney Frank’s good taste protects us.

In short, the case for gay marriage is that this influential pressure group should be allowed its perversion. If we give in here, there is no intellectually consistent argument to protect society when the next group of deviants begins its campaign for society's endorsement.

Hi MegaSilver, here's some additional infomation from over the rainbow. Beware this can happen in your town, state, country. It happened here.

The Boston Chapter of the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network
Be sure to check out their "Calender" for "Blurring Lines, Crossing Bounderies"
and their "Address about Lesbian-Gay-Bi-Transgendered (LGBT) Issues at MIDDLE Schools" http://www.glsenboston.org/

The State Department of Education's website about pro-homosexual classes in Massachusetts. http://www.doe.mass.edu/hssss/GSA/OutAbout.html

The worst of the bunch........
Actual Audio Tapes of what they teach in schools these days:
http://www.forthechildreninc.com/issues/homosexuality/TheAgenda/MAsituation.html

Actually this is.........
Children In Massachusetts Can Marry at Age 12!
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/Table_Marriage.htm

I'm a first time poster here so I hope this post is within the rules, some of the links are graphic but sadly, truthful.

Thanks for the compliment. But I have a query, MegaSilver. Do you think that bestiality and incest should be legal, so long as the acts are not in the public eye?

Excellent point.

I'm not sure, to be honest. In the case of incest, though, I would have to say DEFINITELY not, as there is a potential victim (if a child is conceived, the chances are great that he or she will have severe, life-altering defects).

Overall, though, laws against adultery, fornication, homosexual acts, bestiality, etc. are largely unenforcable and not really deterrents to the acts. I think the key is to try to create the social fabric in which such acts are frowned upon, but criminal? I'm not sure...

To your point on incest. The laws of heredity do not guarantee that the product of incest will have deformities. After all, the selective breeding that creates the faster race horse or the winner of the Westminster Dog Show is often incest. Secondly, there is always the case that the parties involved can be "fixed" and therefore remove this problem.

As to creating the societal fabric where such acts are frowned upon, criminalizing them is part of creating the fabric. A criminal penalty signals society's disapproval of the act where decriminalization signals society's acceptance of the act.

Also, regarding the enforcement of these laws, I must beg to differ. Why are they unenforceable? For years, adultery was proven in court by party seeking a fault judgment in divorces. Fornication is quite easy to prove in the case of unwed pregnancy.

Homosexuality and bestiality are more difficult to prove. However, many crimes face this difficulty. Financial crimes often require forensic accountants. Thieves are not often caught in the act but tracked down or caught selling their loot. Surely the difficulty of proving a crime does not mean it is unenforceable.

As to deterrence, the question would likely be one of degree. Just as there are those who do not use drugs because of the legal consequences involved.

Have you read Devlin's Enforcement of Morals? It's out of print but very good. He addresses many of the concerns in morals legislation.

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.