The Question of Marriage

The issue of gay marriage, in direct challenge to the traditional Biblical one-man, one-woman model, has become greatly-intensified since the last decade or two of the 20th century. There are strong political efforts in evidence today, to make this practice socially main-stream and fully protected by civil rights statutes.

The U.S. Constitution First Amendment clearly protects freedom of peaceable assembly, which implies freedom of association as well. Certainly, government has no place to interfere into the affairs of the human heart per se, to tell anyone whom they can or cannot love. At the same time, however, individuals cannot claim legal rights without also accepting responsibilities with them. Often, the opponents of gay marriage cite their religious beliefs, or even their personal disgust and revulsion with the practice, as basis for their opposition to it. But so far as the U.S. Constitution is concerned, these are not sufficient reasons to justify the legal recission and subsequent prohibition of the practice from society. Nevertheless, society cannot tolerate, nor should it be required to tolerate, completely untrammeled individual exercise of freedoms without social accountability of individuals in question.

The main reasons to justify opposition to gay marriage most likely rest with demonstrable medical scientific or economic impact considerations. Any responsible government should consider whether or not homosexual conjugal relations involves a spread of sexually-transmitted diseases uniquely-attributable to that social arrangement. Also to be considered is possible psychological impact upon the children of same-sex parentage, as opposed to children coming from a home with both a male and a female parent. Is it indeed deleterious upon a child's personality development, for "Heather to have two mommies"? Some studies and reports strongly suggest that gay marriage does, more often than not, involve extraordinary problems with sexually-transmitted diseases and adverse psychological impact upon the personality development of any children associated with such a marriage. Also to be considered are the possible long-range social dysfunctionalities which may grow out of that same marital arrangement. Increased crime, social dependency upon society-at-large in the future?

In any case, when some people make risky health choices of behaviour, the general American tax-paying public-at-large should not be compelled to underwrite with their tax monies the medical rescue of individuals from any severely-adverse health consequences of their decisions. On the contrary, all American citizens should take full economic, socio-political and moral responsibility for their own personal choices. No monies should be appropriated from the public treasury, for the purpose of finding cures for sexually-transmitted diseases, given that said diseases are easily-preventable through more responsible personal behaviour.

If homosexual marriage becomes acceptable in society, what next? Once the proverbial "glass ceiling" on the traditional Bible-based model of marriage is broken, the issue of polygamous and/or polyandrous marriage may not be far behind: what is so great about gay marriage, that is not equally-meritorious about polygamy or polyandry? For many long years and decades, the law has also prohibited these two latter marital arrangements as well, citing alleged deleterious social and moral consequences of these.

Perhaps the most egregious activity on the part of the gay community is its blatant attempt to compel the rest of society to morally embrace it and dub it "normal". In a free democracy, there is absolutely no place for government-supported tyranny over the human mind. To be sure, public popular disapprobation of a particular action or behaviour is not sufficient reason to outlaw the action or behaviour. Ours is a nation based on the proposition of protecting individual rights not subject to any "lynch-mob" mentality from the popular majority. Persons unpopular for a wide variety of reasons are all entitled to those legal protections from the evils of "mob-ocracy". Nevertheless, the gays, for their part, are not entitled to any emotional protection from popular verbal condemnation and censure of their behaviour, under the ruberic of "anti-hate-speech" laws. When gays openly flaunt their sexual perversities, they should remember the dictum of the late President Harry S. Truman: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." This author believes the "don't ask-don't tell" policy is the best on this question. The Constitution First Amendment freedom of speech for all Americans, regardless of persuasions, must always remain the supreme law of this land we call America.

-LKM