On marriage, the battle lines are clearly drawn
The ruling of the California Supreme Court that same sex couples be allowed to “marry” confirms what I have been arguing for years, most recently this past February: “civil unions” for homosexual couples are an inevitable step to homosexual marriage, because liberals will argue that couples in civil unions are being denied equal treatment with married couples. Thus the California court said:
[A]ffording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples, [… and] assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same sex couples … poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect.There is no compromise possible with homosexual “marriage,” just as, by the 1850s, it became clear that there was no compromise possible with slavery, since the slavery supporters sought to spread the institution through the whole Union. The only way to stop homosexual marriage in this country is through a constitutional amendment declaring (1) that marriage in the United States is the union of one man and one woman, and (2) that this restriction applies to any legalized relationship that is substantially similar to marriage, such as “domestic partnerships” and “civil unions.”
UPDATE: Or, better, “civil unions” should simply be barred, since the only reason they exist is to allow for same-sex quasi-marriages, as discussed in a longer blog entry on the same point in February 2008, and in my 2004 article, “A traditionalist approach to the marriage amendment.” The two measures discussed, the limiting of marriage to a man and a woman, and the barring of civil unions, make up the strong version of the Federal Marriage Amendment that is supported by the Concerned Women for America:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither the United States nor any State shall recognize or grant to any unmarried person the legal rights or status of a spouse.This language is absolute and covers all contingencies. No same-sex marriage, and no same-sex civil unions, whether instituted by a state court or by a state legislature. The weak version of the amendment, which the Republican party has tried unsuccessfully to pass in the Congress, would allow state legislatures to pass same-sex civil unions.
Sage McLaughlin writes:
On the issue of gay “marriage,” you are exactly right on the most important practical point: there can be absolutely no compromises. The foes of marriage wish to annihilate it by defining it out of existence, and there can be no middle ground with such enemies. Marriage either is what we say it is, or it is nothing. The idea so popular among so-called conservatives, that a viable solution is to grant the substance of marriage while withholding the name only, completely misunderstands the issues at stake. Indeed, those who hold this view seem to do so because they simply can no longer muster the moral language necessary to deny the validity of gay “marriage” at all. The reason is that they are liberals deep down where it counts, at the level of first principles. So they can offer no real reason why gay “marriages” in all but name should not receive the full endorsement of the state.LA replies:
This is a change of subject, but when I read Mr. M.’s phrase, “If only [the conservatives/neocons] could turn their hawkish realism inward …” I thought he was about to say that the neocons would see that they themselves are the appeasers whom they criticize. Look at the Soviet-scale lies of Bush in Israel, condemning as appeasers those who would negotiate with terrorists! What has he been doing! It’s unreal. I meant to write about this, but the Orwellian quality of it was so extreme that I could not get my head around it.Hannon writes:
Let’s hope this decision is the precedent-setting and stage-setting event that the opposition to same sex marriage thinks it will be. In the meantime, what exactly is meant by this, from the court:Laura G. writes:
It continues to appear that the public at large has also not grasped that “gay marriage” is the prequel to polygamy as well as all other permutations of currently prohibited sexual arrangements such as incest, introduction of young children to the joys of sex, swapping of spouses, etc. Already the advocates of polygamy are aboard the “it’s not fair” bandwagon, and we can confidently await further legal erosions of family structure from those forces. Polygamy being one of the many social structures which differentiate Muslim nations from Western, anything that serves to soften up our spineless legal system to polygamy will also serve to facilitate the accommodation of other portions of sharia law in our nation.LA replies:
The main organization I know of is Concerned Women for America. As discussed in the update to the blog entry above, CWA pushes for the strong version of the Marriage Amendment.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 16, 2008 12:16 PM | Send