VFR on homosexual “marriage”

Given that the passage of the homosexual “marriage” law in New York last week represents the biggest success so far for that movement, this would be a good time to post a collection of my past articles on the subject. Several of the articles listed here are already permanently linked in the sidebar.

Homosexual marriage is a logical and necessary outcome of liberalism [June 2002. “A consistent believer in equality must support gay marriage as a fundamental right. Which further suggests that in the long run gay marriage can only be effectively opposed by those who are prepared to challenge liberalism at the most basic level.”]

NR waves the white flag at homosexual marriage [2003: “Ramesh Ponnuru’s cover article in the July 28 National Review urges complete and total surrender to homosexual marriage.”]

Ponnuru calls conservatives anti-homosexual bigots

The diffidence of conservatism, part 978 [February 2004. “Most liberals think it would be a marvelous fulfillment of American ideals if four unelected judges in Massachusetts, with the help of five unelected judges on the U.S. Supreme Court, succeeded in forcing homosexual marriage on all the states of the Union. Yet some leading conservatives think it would be a horrible violation of federalism if the American people, acting constitutionally through the Congress and the state legislatures, managed to ban homosexual marriage in all the states of the Union. What’s wrong with this picture?”]

Fleming opposes the marriage amendment [Followed by a long discussion on the pros and cons of the amendment, with me continuing to criticize strongly those conservatives who oppose the amendment.]

David Brooks’s NYT op-ed supporting homosexual “marriage” [November 2003]

Beware of Brooks! And, how to criticize homosexuality [A comment by me in 2003 at Lucianne.com warning the L-dotters not to be suckers for the liberal Brooks calling himself a conservative.]

Let the states experiment with same-sex marriage, says Will [In the same week that David Brooks supported homosexual marriage, so did George Will.]

A prayer for our country [written May 2004, four days before Massachusetts instituted homosexual “marriage”

On the brink [May 2004: “I am having trouble relating to politics as usual, to our cultural problems as usual, to the Iraq crisis as usual, and even to the United States of America as usual, when in a few hours this country will be stepping over the brink into official rebellion against the divine and natural order of the universe.”]

Jeffersonian utopian homosexual liberationism runs up against the awful awful reality of America [After passage of anti-homosexual marriage referenda in 2004 election, a young homosexual writes, “I don’t know what country I live in anymore.”]

A talk on homosexual marriage [My notes for the talk I gave on homosexual marriage to the College Republicans Club, New York University, December 1, 2005.]

A traditionalist approach to the marriage amendment [February 2004. “Among the conservative principles that formed America were Judeo-Christian sexual morality, the traditional family, and so on. The idea that state law would grant legal recognition to any sexual relationship other than the marriage of a man and a woman is so bizarre, so far outside the historical experience and character of America, that it makes perfect sense that this possibility be explicitly barred by our Constitution. It follows that the Federal Marriage Amendment should ban not only homosexual marriages, but any officially recognized sexual relationship other than the marriage of a man and a woman, i.e., it must ban civil unions, whether homosexual or heterosexual.”]

Civil unions are the path to same-sex marriage. Period. [This also contains an attack on the libertarian approach to marriage.]

On marriage, the battle lines are clearly drawn [On the California decision saying that civil unions are not “equal” and same sex couples must be allowed to marry.]

The Times’ response to the passage of laws defining marriage as consisting of a man and a woman [After Prop 8 passes in California, Times says that to define marriage as consisting of a man and a woman is to “enshrine bigotry.”]

Newsweek’s brainless assault on biblical and Christian truth; and, does marriage have an essence? [Includes an extensive discussion about marriage with libertarian reader Mack, who had many basic questions.]

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 30, 2011 08:03 AM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):