|
hen former actor and Hollywood heartthrob Rock Hudson announced to the world in 1985 that he was gay, public response was disbelief. Today, such announcements hardly make the news, let alone the headlines. Over just two brief decades, gay has become not merely accepted but also en vogue in Hollywood.
Though Tinseltown's walk of fame lies some 2,600 miles from Washington's halls of Congress, the journey from public acceptance to legal endorsement is being made more quickly - and more locally - than many Americans realize. Yet daily we go about our business, seemingly oblivious to the war over gay lifestyles being waged in Congress, oblivious to the battles in our statehouses, oblivious to the confrontations in our courts. It is in these places, however, that the decisions are made that affect each of our lives and set the course for the future of our nation.
As recent history shows, the most common front for pro-homosexual crusaders is the ongoing debate over same-sex "partnership" and "marriage."
Only eight years after Hudson's shocking disclosure, the Hawaii Supreme Court drew the national spotlight by ruling that the state could not constitutionally deny same-sex couples the "right" to marry without a "compelling reason" to do so. Responding to the ruling, the state amended its constitution, and marriage was safe ... for a time.
A similar case in Alaska came in 1998, with similar results. In 1999, Vermont became the third front for the battle when the state Supreme Court determined that same-sex couples must be eligible for the same benefits for which married couples qualify. Unfortunately, instead of amending the constitution to protect marriage, the Vermont legislature amended marriage - or at least began to do so - to please the court. In 2000, Vermont passed the nation's first civil union law, extending the same legal protections of marriage to same-sex couples via these so-called "civil unions."
Vermont's landmark ruling fueled a landslide that has oozed across the nation. In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court interpreted the state constitution to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. The next year, Massachusetts began marrying same-sex couples. With no impetus from the courts, in 2005 Connecticut became the first state voluntarily to legalize civil unions. The following year, New Jersey passed its own civil union law, and as of January 1 of 2008, civil unions are recognized in New Hampshire as well.
Additionally, states including Oregon and California have domestic partnership laws, which extend almost all married-couple rights to unmarried couples, both gay and straight.
On the national level, in 1996, responding to the brewing state fiascos, Congress passed the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman and indicates that states are not required to recognize any other arrangement as legally binding. At the same time, Congress has stopped short of passing the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), which would amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman.
Same-sex marriage advocates seek to paint the discussion in colors of "equality," holding that the issue is not one of sexual choice but of basic civil rights. This justification, however, does not hold logical water. By definition, civil rights encompass the rights to personal liberty as guaranteed by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.[i] Mainly, these rights include religion; speech; assembly; press; petition; arms; trial by jury; equal protection under the law; and access to due process in relation to life, liberty, property and voting.
Nowhere in American jurisprudence is marriage defined as a right of any individual. If it were, then anyone not in a marriage relationship would legally be able to go to the courts and demand marriage (that is, a marriage partner), and the courts would be obligated to meet this demand. Likewise, freedom to marry is not a ubiquitous right. If it were, then no laws would exist requiring consent for minors to marry or banning polygamous marriages.
Where the issue becomes semantically sticky in distinguishing between rights and special privileges is in the arena of public support (funding, for same-sex partnerships). While the federal DOMA bars same-sex partners from receiving federal monetary benefits, such as Social Security, military benefits, Medicare, etc., state civil union and domestic partnership laws extend these benefits to partners in homosexual relationships. This means that taxpayer dollars help fund homosexual lifestyles, a reality that clearly violates the convictions - not to mention the pocketbooks - of citizens staunchly opposed to such unions, whether their bases be religious or otherwise.
It's bad enough for activist courts and liberal legislatures to endorse a lifestyle based on the erroneous justifications of so-called "equality" and "civil rights." It is beyond conscionable for government to utilize taxpayer dollars - dollars intended for reasonable expenditures such as transportation, trade, infrastructure and defense - to provide benefits to individuals who voluntarily enter that lifestyle.
Enough is enough. It's time to draw the line.
[i] New Webster's Dictionary and Thesaurus of the English Language. 1993 ed. See also Merriam-Webster Online. Available from www.m-w.com. |
Back
