Same-sex marriage does affect others

Those who believe that morality is merely personal see nothing wrong with same-sex marriage, not to mention the “alternative lifestyles” that have given rise to it. They are fond of saying that this revolutionary change in human relationships will have no effect on marriage between a man and a woman. They are wrong, if not disingenuous.

Consider the pending approach of California’s county clerks to the California State Supreme Court’s ruling that neither a ban on same-sex marriage nor provision for domestic partnerships can satisfy its perverse interpretation of the State Constitution’s equal protection clause. According to the Associated Press account, no longer will the parties to the contract be designated “bride” and “groom.” No, they are merely “Party A” and “Party B.”

In order for the new participants in “marriage” to “feel comfortable,” it is thought necessary to drop the perfectly natural assumption that those getting married are from opposite sexes. If, after all, marriage is permissible between any two adults, as the Supreme Court says, there is no compelling reason to call the parties “bride” and “groom,” is there?

This is consistent with the unstated but highly questionable premise of the Court’s decision, that marriage is merely a convention that society can determine as it is so inclined, and not something based on nature. In speaking to the challenge posed by polygamy and incest, the Court was obliged to declare that the citizens of California have always rejected such unnatural unions. But so also did they reject same-sex marriages.
This, of course, means that whether or not some Supreme Court in the future decides to declare it wrong to prevent multiple partners or relatives from being married depends entirely on whether jurisprudential consciousness “evolves” to a new and unprecedented level.

We owe this amazing insight to the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Brennan who insisted that, despite the plain words of the U.S. Constitution that capital punishment is legitimate in certain cases, more “evolved” generations may decide that they mean something else.
Same-sex marriage is bad enough, but there is no reason to believe that matters will remain there. For instance, the latest news from Colorado is that the Governor of that state has signed a bill banning discrimination against gays in “public accommodations of any kind.”

Section 6 of Senate Bill 200 specifically states that “bathhouses, swimming pools, baths, steam or massage parlors, or other establishments conducted to serve the health, appearance or physical condition of a person” are included in the definition of “public accommodations.” Such facilities have always provided separate facilities for men and women, but that cannot stand by this new law.

This was not a result of the movement to institute gay marriage but, like gay marriage, another consequence of legalizing homosexuality and lesbianism. The key wrecking-ball term is “sexual orientation,” which takes all before it. For it is not a matter of nature but of “perception” that one is what one is. That need not be a lifelong nor even a long term passion, but a momentary or fleeting one.

Like the childhood story entitled “I am an Indian Today,” anyone can declare at any time, “I am a homosexual (lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, or transvestite) person today.” When such a person walks into restrooms, change rooms or showers reserved for members of the opposite sex, there can be no invasion of privacy, but simply a person being what that person wishes to be.

Robert Reilly wrote in “National Review” more than a decade ago that homosexuals and lesbians would not be content with “freedom of choice” or “tolerance,” the past and present buzzwords for accepting the unacceptable. He said that they would insist on redefining morality so that definitions and judgments in accord with nature shift to their opposites.

The way had long been paved for this society-shattering development by the fashionable understanding of morality as “moral autonomy,” or the idea that morals are determined by individuals, not by society. Not merely the choice but the content of morality is individual, with the only limitation that there is no “harm” to others.

Two powerful objections to this unnatural doctrine are the question of who really determines morality and what constitutes harm. In order for “individuals” to have this authority, society in fact has to approve which, unfortunately, much of it has. And harm is not merely physical, but psychological. It is not limited to individuals, for loved ones suffer when relatives and friends ruin their lives.

Even so with “gay marriage.” The truth is, what has been called traditional marriage is natural and not merely conventional. Webster’s Dictionary still says it is a relation of a man and a woman. For while marriage always requires society to institutionalize its rights and obligations, it arises from natural and mutual attraction.

Our state’s highest court is assaulting human nature in the most direct manner possible, in the relationship of its fundamental components. Marriage is and must remain civilization’s indispensable guardian.

ABOUT THE WRITER
Richard Reeb taught political science, philosophy and journalism at Barstow College from 1970 to 2003. He is the author of “ Taking Journalism Seriously: ‘Objectivity’ as a Partisan Cause” (University Press of America, 1999). He can be contacted at rhreeb@verizon.net.