gay marriage: not so much

gay marriage: not so much

Editor, Times-Dispatch:
I thought I had heard it all concerning the arguments in favor of gay marriage, but Karen Satchell's letter of July 12 absolutely takes the cake. Now gay marriage is "for the children!!!" Well, everything else in the liberal lexicon is for the children, why not gay marriage??

I personally do not favor a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but one should not have to be considered! For the entire recorded history of mankind, in every civilization, in every religion, even under godless Communist governments, marriage has been the one constant that defined the procreative relationship between the sexes. This did not happen haphazardly. It happened because, no matter what the spiritual aspects, societies have universally understood that we have two sexes for a purpose higher than just pleasure, to continue our species on this long, twisting road called life. Surely nobody rational desires any longer to persecute people for their sexual orientation. Neither do they wish to say that marriage as it has always been isn't good enough.

If the Massachusetts Supreme Court had not handed down its decision that marriage may now be defined as anything we wish it to be, there would be no movement for such an amendment. This Court continued the frontal assault by leftist ideologues towards the imposition of group rights at the expense of societal institutions that have helped mankind survive and prosper. All leftist ideas tend toward ultimate equality, which is socialism. All men (and women) may be
created equal, but the sense in which that is so is in their standing before God, not government.

The truth is, gay people already have the same marital rights as straight people. A gay man can marry any woman he wants to marry, just as a straight man can. A lesbian can marry any man she wants to marry, just as a straight woman can. The fact that they do not wish to marry people of the opposite sex does not justify redefining marriage just for them. The Massachusetts court did not make things more fair; it tipped the balance towards homosexuality. It did not restore rights that are being denied gay people through discrimination; it created new rights for them.

I have heard the argument that the "pursuit of happiness", a right cited in the Declaration of Independence, encompasses a right to gay marriage. This cannot be true if rights descend from God and are part of the Natural Law as the Founders asserted. Activists are asking the state to create a new one. Furthermore, a right is an entitlement that exists completely within a person because he or she is alive, and does not place an obligation on others to provide it. Gay marriage cannot be a right because if it is, it places an obligation on others to recognize something they do not wish to, and in the case of benefits, obligates employers to provide that they do not wish to.

And to see Ms. Satchell say this is a matter of the childrens' rights is stretching the matter far beyond credulity. To say that children have a right to be brought up by same-sex parents is astoundingly far-fetched. Some will be; but that doesn't justify giving state sanction to the relationship for the purpose of accessing benefits!

Finally of course, there is the matter of what the framers of the law of the land intended. I realize this is not fashionable to consider nowadays. After all, they were just a bunch of exclusionary, bigoted, wealthy white men. What could they possibly do right? But the Founders were men of an entirely Christian worldview whose concept of freedom was that it existed within the boundaries of the Judaeo-Christian moral code handed down from antiquity. The spiritual aspect of this is very relevant because the laws were designed with this moral code in mind. It was assumed by the Founders that people would govern themselves according to it in order to make self government possible, by preventing freedom from spilling over into license.

To think that Ms. Satchell is a teacher in our schools troubles me because ideas like this will, in time, if taught to our children, transform the republic into something the Founders would be appalled at. Gay people should absolutely not be discriminated against. Neither should they receive special priviliges.