Same Sex...Different Day
By Ron Marr (03/05/04)
There are few topics that interest me less than gay marriage. It ranks right up there, in terms of importance, with such earth-shattering concerns as Confederate battle flags and the ever fractious debate over low carbohydrate diet plans. It's a non-issue that has been blown out of proportion by the liberal news/media/entertainment industry. This is not surprising to me, as compared to the population at large the news/media/entertainment business employs a grossly disproportionate percentage of those who identify themselves as either gay or gay rights advocates. So much for objective reporting
To be honest, I view the gay marriage "movement" as a largely insignificant issue debated by idiots. Those who are the stalwarts of such movements - and yes, this means you Rosie O'Donnell - are more times than not superficial con artists who have few beliefs or convictions of their own. They simply want to be part of the flock, want to feel they are involved with any cause that elevates them beyond their mundane lives. They are an insecure lot who will do most anything to gain a bit of attention from the public and a few accolades from their peers.
But whatever the case, I just couldn't care less if a statistically insignificant number of homosexuals want to pretend they are hitched. Really, at this time and this place the question is almost (but not quite) as critical to the collective well-being as whether electric bug zappers should be considered cruel and unusual punishment for mosquitoes. As long as it doesn't cost me a penny, as I long as I don't have to support the act with tax dollars or personal approval, I just don't care.
I mean, it's not like the gay population is somehow going to explode and spread across the land. In case nobody noticed, these folks don't breed. Oh yeah, they can adopt now - in some locales - and thanks to improved technology lesbians can opt for artificial insemination. However, should children raised by gay parents suddenly begin proclaiming that they too are gay, the whole homosexual movement would suffer a massive philosophical setback.
Because of their reproductive limitations homosexuals are a finite population. If their numbers suddenly increase by a measurable level, it pretty much shoots down the long-held gay argument that their "sexual orientation" is genetically based. If the adopted kids of gays suddenly opt for same-sex behavior in excess of the percentage of gays as a whole (generally believed to be a maximum of five to six percent of the general populace in the most accurate of studies) then it would go far toward proving that the behavior is in fact a choice or preference determined more by nurture than nature. And in the case of such a determination, the gays would face a much larger problem - in terms of acceptance and legal status - than anything they can currently imagine.
In fact, my only concern with gay marriage falls into the realm of preserving the rule of law. What we have seen in the past month - in California specifically but as well in New York and Oregon - are public officials who have broken existing legal mandates to further their personal ideological agendas. If a state law is written that "marriage" is a civil contract between a man and a woman, then it is illegal to issue marriage licenses to the contrary. Public officials are given a mandate to enforce what laws are on the books. They are not given a mandate to use their power to do whatever they damn well please. If the courts or the electorate decide to redefine marriage, that is their business. However I don't believe in letting local or state despots re-write legal statutes whenever they see fit. Those who engage in such a practice should be immediately removed from office and subjected to criminal penalties.
There is a fine analogy to the mayors who are conducting illegal same-sex wedding ceremonies. A few months back, Alabama Supreme Court Judge Roy Moore was stripped of his judicial robes when he refused to comply with an order that a monument displaying the 10 Commandments be removed from a court house. The law said he had to comply with the removal under provisions of separation of church and state. Moore refused, and thus lost his job.
The same result should apply to those officials who ignore the law and offer what are presently illegal same-sex marriage licenses. If you are a representative of the public, paid with public funds, charged with upholding the public trust, you must comply with the public's wishes. If you can't do that...resign. If you won't resign, and persist in putting your will above the will of the people, you should at the very least be removed from your post.
What was fair for an Alabama judge should also be fair for a San Francisco mayor.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Ron Marr
