Editor’s Note: Christopher Ruddy’s column will appear again next month. Backtalk
‘Opposite- Sex Marriage’ a Sign of the Times
I
t is a sign of how far supporters of gay marriage have advanced that the term “opposite-sex marriage” — an infelicitous phrase that once would have been a confounding tautology — is now in
common usage. They have all the momentum. The polls are swinging
their way. They had victories in state-level referenda for the fi rst time in 2012. The entire Democratic Party is converting to their cause, and conservatives are increasingly split. This would all seem reason to conclude that their campaign of persuasion is working, and to keep at it. Instead, supporters of gay marriage are asking the Supreme Court to declare the traditional defi nition of marriage — and by extension everyone who adheres to it — irrational and bigoted. They want to short-circuit democratic deliberation via
court ruling as great cultural ukase. The laws before the court are the Defense of Marriage
Act, passed handily by a bipartisan majority of Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, and Proposition 8, the measure passed by California voters in 2008 enshrining the traditional defi nition of marriage in the state’s Constitution. The Defense of Marriage Act is a modest measure.
For purposes of federal programs, it defi nes marriage as between a man and a woman, and it says that states don’t necessarily have to honor same-sex marriages from other states. This creates a fl exible environment whereby the federal government recognizes the traditional understanding of marriage that still applies in more than 40 states, while any state is welcome to adopt any other defi nition of the institution that it sees fi t. Opponents of the law have concocted an argument
against it on federalist grounds. But it is bizarre to contend that a federal law defi ning marriage for federal purposes is an off ense against the federalist structure of American government. The law has done nothing to arrest the progress of gay marriage at the state level, where it now prevails in nine states and the District of Columbia despite the Defense of Marriage Act.
90 NEWSMAX | MAY 2013 LOWRY RICH GUEST COLUMNIST
The real reason for the court to invalidate the law
would be that it supposedly has no rational basis and is borne of “animus” toward gays. This is the brief against Proposition 8, which was struck down by a federal appellate court, the famously activist Ninth Circuit, on grounds that it has no “legitimate reason.” In this view, the promoters of Proposition 8 came up
with a defi nition of marriage that has stood for centuries in the West and is endorsed by every major religion simply as an imaginative way to stick it to gay people. Every serious contender in the Democratic presidential primary in 2008, including Barack Obama, supported this same defi nition, presumably also out of the same simmering hostility to gays. Supporters of traditional marriage believe that the institution exists as an expression of society’s interest in children being raised by their biological fathers and mothers. You can say that this understanding is dated, given what has become of marriage the past 40 years. You can say that it is too pinched, given evolving
mores. You can’t say it is inherently hateful. If the Defense of Marriage Act is wrongheaded, the
solution is simple and will be within reach in a few years if gay marriage continues to win converts — repeal it. And there is nothing wrong with Proposition 8 that California’s voters can’t fi x by going to the polls again. By seeking a shortcut in the courts, supporters of gay
marriage want to end debate through judicial fi at. In an amicus brief in the case, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty points out the consequences if traditional marriage is deemed irrational. Religious people and groups objecting to same-sex
marriage will “face a wave of private civil litigation under anti-discrimination laws never intended for that purpose,” and they will be “penalized by state and local governments.” In other words, supporters of the exotic- sounding practice of “opposite-sex marriage” will be marginalized forevermore.
Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He is the author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92