|
The
proponents of same-sex marriage seem to be a little confused.
They can't seem to get their story straight as to whether
changing our traditional thoughts about the institution
of marriage will mean opening up the law to polygamy.
On the one hand, when I interviewed Evan Gerstmann, author
of "Same Sex Marriage and the Constitution"
and perhaps the leading legal scholar promoting the idea,
he conceded that we as a society would probably have to
get used to the idea of threesomes, foursomes, etc. He
acknowledged that it could be seen as "discrimination"
if we deny anyone the right to marry the person of their
choice. In the case of a man or woman who wanted to marry
someone who was already married, that's just what we would
be doing if we prohibited such unions. On the other hand,
the president of the nation's largest homosexual group,
Human Rights Campaign President Cheryl Jacques last week
expressed moral disapproval of allowing three or more
consenting adults who love each other to marry.
So
which is it? Do the proponents of same-sex marriage really
believe this is a debate about ending "discrimination"?
Or do they believe it is simply about ending a certain
kind of "discrimination"? What do they really
have in mind? What about bisexuals who love both men and
women? Should they be denied the right to marry one of
each? These are the thorny questions these activists don't
like to answer. They'd rather pretend that changing an
age-old, tried-and-true institution overnight is no problem.
They'd like to pretend there will be no unintended consequences.
They'd like to pretend this is really no big deal. They'd
like to pretend this is just another battle for "civil
rights."
Even
Gerstmann was squeamish about the polygamy issue. He tries
to justify moral arguments banning polygamy. But they
come up short, and he's intellectually honest enough to
acknowledge it. In his book, he suggests we might just
have to learn to live with polygamy and even certain kinds
of consensual incest. But Jacques was downright puritanical
in her opposition to polygamy. And why? "Because
I don't approve of that," she said on CNN. Apparently
our laws in this brave new world envisioned by the same-sex
marriage proponents are going to be based in the future
on her feelings. In other words, she supports some kinds
of discrimination. They all do. They just want to be able
to pick and choose which traditions are immoral based
on their own biases, their own predilections, their own
worldview, their own patterns of behavior, their own morality.
Here's
the question I want every single American to ponder right
now as these activists continue to push their agenda in
our faces by breaking laws, by ignoring the will of the
people, by showing contempt for the rule of law, by, well,
acting up: If marriage is redefined in a radical new way
to eliminate any kind of "discrimination," what
possible justification could there be to continue to discriminate
against group marriage or consensual incest? The reason
this is such a troublesome issue for the same-sex marriage
activists is because they know their position is extremely
unpopular as it is - even if they could somehow contain
their demand to the issue of allowing Bruce to marry Lance
and Heather to marry Wanda. It gets even stickier when
the one marriage involves all four of them.
I
know from first-hand experience just how difficult this
issue is for the same-sex marriage crowd, having first
raised it with activists last summer, following the U.S.
Supreme Court decision overturning Texas' anti-sodomy
laws. One activist told me not to worry about polygamy
because there was just no demand for it. Nonsense. I would
suggest to you there is a far bigger demand for polygamy
in this country than there is for same-sex marriage. After
all, there are tens of thousands already practicing it.
I would also offer there is more tradition to support
polygamy and fewer religious and moral objections to it.
Nevertheless, Americans don't want it. And, last time
I checked, that's the way we still made laws in this country.
RELATED OFFER: Are you ready for the Second American Revolution?
Joseph Farah's new book, "Taking America Back"
exposes the weaknesses in America's current system and
offers practical solutions - solutions that are real and
doable, solutions that can revive freedom, morality and
justice in our nation. Order your copy now in WorldNetDaily's
online store, ShopNetDaily!
Joseph
Farah's nationally syndicated column originates at
WorldNetDaily, where he serves as editor and chief executive
officer. If you would like to see the column in your local
newspaper, contact your local editor. Tell your paper
the column is available through Creators Syndicate.
(c)
2004 WorldNetDaily.com - Original
Article
|
