PARTNER SITES

Gay Marriage

Q: Is gay marriage a Constitutional, individual right?

A: Yes. Marriage is a form of association. The Constitution protects the right to association. Two human beings have a political right to form any association they see fit, so long as the association is voluntary. A gay marriage is consensual and, though unconventional and highly controversial, can be a loving and satisfying union between two individuals.

I am loath, however, to support the advocates of gay marriage. Most if not all of these gay activists are Hillary-loving proponents of the socialistic welfare state. These gay activists are correct that gay couples do enjoy the right to will property to one another, to have sex with each other, and to run their financial, personal and sexual lives as they see fit. They harm nobody and if this makes some people uncomfortable this is their own problem. However, the gay and lesbian activists are trying to smuggle in a package deal whereby the government will be required to impose regulations on private enterprise to, for example, offer health insurance benefits to the spouses of gay employees. They see gay marriage not as an end in itself, but as a means to the end of expanding our already massive, intrusive welfare-regulatory state. They want the government to force the private sector to do for gays what it has already done for straights–something the government has no business doing for either in the first place.

At the same time, I am equally if not more loath to endorse the proposals of conservatives–for example, to add an amendment to the Constitution declaring that marriage consists of an association between a man and a woman. By what right does the government determine who may or may not form an association, including a romantic union, with another person?

It’s the government’s job to protect the population from physical force and fraud, not to make the world safe for those who oppose homosexuality. The government shouldn’t be involved at all. This is like throwing gasoline on a fire. Leave it to the Bush conservatives to favor expansion of Big Government wherever they can manage to do it. Bush is LBJ when it comes to Medicare benefits and Jerry Falwell when it comes to personal, sexual behavior. Increasingly, he’s the worst of all possible worlds for this country and his deer-caught-in-the-headlights politics on this issue, as on so many others, is growing tiring.

In the end, I find this issue not only tiring but a little amusing. Given the well-documented state of most heterosexual marriages at this point in human history, why on earth would gays want to emulate them? As our economy continues to be throttled by the politicians and as terrorists plan their next attack on us, we fight over gay marriage. People are actually prepared to vote with this as the primary issue? Grow up, America.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Edward-Cline/100001686901214 Edward Cline

    I couldn’t agree with Dr. Hurd more. This “gay marriage” issue is simply, as the general put it in Lawrence of Arabia, “a sideshow of a sideshow.” It annoys me that I have to take a position on the issue (one that’s not very popular, see Ron Pisaturo’s blogsite for a vigorous discussion of what SOTUS is deliberating on this very moment). But, when we’re trying to contend with a president who more and more is behaving like a monarch with Congress at his beck and call, and the Islamic campaign against this country, is this really an issue the country should be distracted by?

  • http://www.maymidnight.com/ Brendan Moore

    “I couldn’t agree with Dr. Hurd more” – so you are in favor of gay marriage?

    To be completely clear, your stance on same-sex marriage is not what is under question. It’s the sheer uninformed bigotry of stating that homosexuality is a “neurosis.” Do you think Dr. Hurd would agree on that matter?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Edward-Cline/100001686901214 Edward Cline

    Brendan: There you go again, repeating that “bigotry” charge of Mazlish’s. And, yes, homosexuality is a form of neurosis. If I take a stand on a certain observable fact, and refuse to recant, then I guess I’m a “bigot.” But then so was Galileo (who recanted under the threat of death). Fortunately, vigilante hangings haven’t come back…yet, except among Christians who want to string me up for defending abortion. No, I’m not in favor of “gay marriage.” If gays want to sign “pre-nups” or civil union contracts, that’s fine with me. But don’t appropriate the term “marriage” and don’t start flaunting gayness in my face. I’m not more interested in anyone’s gayness than I am watching Muslims arse-lift five times a day in the direction of a rock.

  • http://www.maymidnight.com/ Brendan Moore

    My dear Mr. Cline, would you please provide me with the “observable evidence” of your Galilean discovery of the neurosis of homosexuality?

    And I don’t believe anyone said anything about “flaunting gayness in [your] face,” or showing you “arse-lift[ing]” Muslims, but given the utter stiltedness of your novels, perhaps I shouldn’t expect much from your argumentation.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=719505078 Cass Michael

    What about people who have a problem with people who throw straight sexual behavior in their faces? Should they be quieted as well? Or are gays uniquely disgusting?