[Nameplate] Overcast ~ 71°F  
Flash Flood Watch
Sunday, Aug. 31, 2014

It's time to push back against ACLU

Friday, May 15, 2009

"It's a sure thing." So says Anthony Romero, head of the ACLU, about a nationwide legalization of gay marriage. He cites recent legislative votes in Maine and New Hampshire legalizing gay marriage. But not so fast, Anthony.

To date, the legalization of gay marriage has come only from state legislatures and radical court rulings. Twenty-nine states have constitutional amendments explicitly banning same-sex marriage. Eighteen other states, along with Puerto Rico, have legal statutes defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

California, of all places, passed a legislative ban on gay marriage only to see that overturned by a radical court. Voters passed Proposition 8 last November that amends the state constitution to make it clear that Californians are against same-sex marriage. Proponents of gay marriage have appealed to the courts once again to overturn the will of the people.

Mr. Romero of the ACLU, who is openly gay by the way, seems to be a bit more optimistic than reality demonstrates. Depending on the poll, somewhere around 55 percent of Americans oppose gay marriage. To date, not a single state's people have voted to approve gay marriage.

And, understand, this has nothing to do with being anti-gay. Most people have a live and let live attitude. The notion that states don't have a right, as a people, to define marriage is ridiculous. You have to be a certain age to marry. You can't marry your sister. You can't have more than one wife or husband. There are already plenty of restrictions on marriage so the "civil right" argument is moot. Unless you want to start allowing daddies to marry their little girls.

I posed that argument to a gay gentleman who called my radio show one time. He went on and on about how keeping gays from marrying was discriminatory and how heterosexuals had no right to define marriage. I asked him if a brother and sister should be allowed to marry. He said, "No. That's sick." I said, "Exactly."

The point is there are lots of people who find gay marriage sick. Proponents of it cannot, in good conscience, oppose any other configuration of marriage but few gays support incest or polygamy. They just want their unions recognized and I can understand that. What they need to understand is that recognizing gay marriage opens up Pandora's Box. Where will it end?

Besides, there are plenty of states that allow civil unions. Legal contracts between two gay partners dividing property, allowing end of life decisions and the like are just as binding as a marriage license.

Libertarians will argue that the government needs to stay out of the marriage issue altogether. That's easier said than done. So many presumptions of law depend on that marriage contract. So, why not just change the law so that heterosexuals have to enter into legal contracts, too? It's because heterosexuals make up 95 percent of the population. What gay marriage activists want to do is to force 95 percent of the population to conform to their wishes. That's what this issue has always been about. They've moved from wanting tolerance to demanding acceptance. I'm sorry but I just can't make that leap. I have some very good friends who are gay (at the risk of using an old cliché) but I don't accept their lifestyle as okay. I certainly tolerate it as I'm sure some people merely tolerate me. I don't demand acceptance by everyone.

But the ACLU has always been about forcing their views on the rest of the country. It's time the rest of us start pushing back.