Last week Federal Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in favor of states’ rights and declared that state laws allowing gays to be married trump the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
In one fell swoop, Judge Tauro made federalists of dozens of former states’ righters, including Rep. Jerry Moran. Rep. Moran not only wants the Defense of Marriage Act to be upheld on appeal of Judge Tauro’s defiant decision, but also wants the U.S. Constitution to be amended to declare marriage to be the union of one man and woman. Period. Thus ending the right of any state to write its own laws on marriage — and opening the door to federalizing all civil law, making states unnecessary.
OK, that’s probably going further than Rep. Moran really has in mind.
The August primary election is as far as he wants to go right now. That’s when voters will decide whether he or Rep. Todd Tiahrt will have the Republican senatorial nomination.
(Haven’t looked to be certain, but surely by now Rep. Tiahrt has also pilloried Judge Tauro and declared that he will fight fiercely to protect marriage, which is the foundation of the family, which is the foundation of American society, which is put at great risk every time a gay couple marries, don’t you know.)
You’ve heard that song before.
What you have not heard is a verse from any couple in any state lamenting that their marriage was de-stroyed because Jill married Jane in Boston (or wherever).
The fact is, of course, that marriages are not threatened by the nature of other marriages. They stand or fall on their own, as other relationships be-tween one person and another do. It is flat silly to say that the institution of marriage is threatened by allowing men to marry men and women, women.
Does allowing gay marriage change the institution? Yes. Are there worrisome consequences from the change? Some. But has the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts and other states affected the marriages of heterosexuals (the great majority of the population) in any harmful way? There has been no demonstration that it has.
So what’s this “defense of marriage” bombast all about?
First, hateful prejudice; second, exploitation of hateful prejudice for political advantage. Somewhere between 5 and 8 percent of the U.S. population is homosexual. It is natural (and therefore primitive) for people to shun people who are different from them and then decide that because they are different they are evil.
It is civilized to learn to accept differences and to distinguish between different and bad. Civilization comes slowly in some things.
AS TO PROTECTING marriage, it can be done. The greatest threat to marriage is divorce. If Reps. Moran and Tiahrt truly want to protect marriage, let them offer a constitutional amendment prohibiting divorce. Or offer laws disqualifying the divorced from serving in Congress or any other public office. The divorced have, after all, given a solid blow to marriage, that institution our senatorial gladiators find so essential to the continued existence of our nation. Sock it to them.
Of course this is ALSO a preposterous argument.
Please, guys, let’s talk quietly, reasonably about solving some of the real problems that face our struggling nation and battered world.
— Emerson Lynn, jr.
