Defense of Marriage

Would some candidate for public office PLEASE summon up the spinal fortitude to firmly tell the pundits, the advocates and the voters:

It is time to stop politicizing marriage!

True enough, that will offend almost everyone who has strong political opinions about what we need to do to expand marriage, defend marriage, etc. etc. etc. But it will go down in history as a profile in courage. What marriage most needs to be defended from is politics.

It is up to what passes for "liberals" these days to firmly inform couples of the same gender, who have made life-long monogamous commitments to each other, that their right to privacy and personal choice does not also entitle them to the applause, approbation, and enthusiastic cheers of their fellow citizens. Feel free to advocate, but if you don't get an immediate round of applause, or a license, well, life isn't always fair.

It is up to those who pass themselves off as "conservatives" to break the news to scripturally committed Christians (Protestant and Roman, Greek and Coptic Orthodox), Jews, Muslims, probably Hindus, possibly Buddhists, who feel in their hearts that a sacred bond is under sacriligious attack, that this is not a particularly high priority for any level of government, that an overwhelming majority of Americans are and remain heterosexual, and the best way to defend marriage is to practice it. Sorry, no more amendments and drum-beating in election platforms.

Everything our little hearts desire is not a constitutional right, and everything sacred does not make good civil law. Every question on the minds of lawyers and columnists does not automatically become a good test of the character of candidates for public office. Common sense will probably lead us to something like James Watkins's Orange Solution, in due time.

There is no constitutional reason why any state, if the voters should elect a legislature willing to do so, should not issue marriage licenses to couples of the same sex, or for that matter to men who are enamoured of their cars. There is also no constitutional reason why a state must do so. If a majority of voters don't care to give official recognition to every private activity their fellow citizens are engaged in, they don't have to. In any case, what the state legislature may choose to do is not, and constitutionally cannot be, binding on any church.

The Supreme Court of Massachusetts, incidentally, was utterly wrong in finding that equal protection of the laws requires the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Four justices out of seven reasoned that there is a class of people called heterosexual, and a class of people called homosexual, and these two classes are treated unequally. These classes are legal fictions. Every so-called heterosexual, and every so-called homosexual, is either a man, or a woman. The term "homosexual" would have no meaning if this were not so. Some men have different desires than other men, and some women have different desires than other women. That doesn't mean the state has to license every desire any given individual has. What the state licenses (in this case, the union of a man and a woman) must be available to every man and woman. Equal protection requires no more. I do not want or need a hunting license, but I have the same right to apply for one as any other citizen. I like to cultivate a garden, but I have not demanded a hunting license to establish my civil equality with deer hunters.

If so-called liberals have the courage to say, no expanding the definition of marriage is not a vital political issue of our time, if they are willing to disappoint a constituency that has, after all, come to think they have an entitlement to hear their hopes favorably commented upon at election time, that will be one step forward.

If so-called conservatives have the courage to say, no, passing constitutional amendments and throwing roadblocks in the path of "the homosexual agenda" is not a priority for any branch of government, if they too are willing to disappoint a constitutency that also claims an entitlement to hear their hit list prominently recited at political conventions, that will be another step forward.

Let marriage be marriage. Let moral lessons issue from the pulpit. Some of those pulpits are in churches where every born-again Christian responding to the altar call has a homosexual partner. Other pulpits are in churches which deny that such people could possibly be Christians, let alone born-again. Perhaps there IS some reason God doesn't particularly approve, and again, James Watkins appears to have some valuable insights. This is all none of the government's business. Let those churches that choose to bless same-sex marriages do so, and let those churches that choose to denounce it as blasphemy also do so. God will judge.

Also, let the states sort out state law on the subject. The definition of marriage is no business of the president of the United States, except for his or her own of course, nor of the congress. This is still a federal republic. Those matters reserved to the states should not even be an issue in federal elections. Marriage is a matter reserved to the states. If Massachusetts and Louisiana don't agree, there is no reason they have to.