Here is an awesome article by Thomas Sowell on why Gay marriage movement 
is wrong.

'Gay marriage' confusions
Thomas Sowell (archive)

March 9, 2004 

Few issues have produced as much confused thinking as the "gay marriage" 

There is, for example, the argument that the government has no business 
getting involved with marriage in the first place. That is a personal 
relation, the argument goes.

Love affairs are personal relations. Marriage is a legal relation. To 
say that government should not get involved in legal relations is to say 
that government has no business governing.

Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that what 
happens between "consenting adults" in private is none of the 
government's business. But now gay activists are taking the opposite 
view, that it is government's business -- and that government has an 
obligation to give its approval.

Then there are the strained analogies with the civil rights struggles of 
the 1960s. Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King challenged the racial laws 
of their time. So, the argument goes, what is wrong with Massachusetts 
judges and the mayor of San Francisco challenging laws that they 
consider unjust today?

First of all, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King were private citizens 
and they did not put themselves above the law. On the contrary, they 
submitted to arrest in order to gain the public support needed to change 
the laws.

As private citizens, neither Mrs. Parks nor Dr. King wielded the power 
of government. Their situation was very different from that of public 
officials who use the power delegated to them through the framework of 
law to betray that framework itself, which they swore to uphold as a 
condition of receiving their power.

The real analogy would be to Governor George Wallace, who defied the law 
by trying to prevent black students from being enrolled in the 
University of Alabama under a court order.

After Wallace was no longer governor, he was within his rights to argue 
for racial segregation, just as civil rights leaders argued against it. 
But, using the powers of his office as governor to defy the law was a 
violation of his oath.

If judges of the Massachusetts Supreme Court or the mayor of San 
Francisco want to resign their jobs and start advocating gay marriage, 
they have every right to do so. But that is wholly different from using 
the authority delegated to them under the law to subvert the law.

Gay rights activists argue that activist judges have overturned unjust 
laws in the past and that society is better off for it. The argument 
that some good has come from some unlawful acts in the past is hardly a 
basis for accepting unlawful acts in general.

If you only want to accept particular unlawful acts that you agree with, 
then of course others will have other unlawful acts that they agree 
with. Considering how many different groups have how many different sets 
of values, that road leads to anarchy.

Have we not seen enough anarchy in Haiti, Rwanda and other places to 
know not to go there?

The last refuge of the gay marriage advocates is that this is an issue 
of equal rights. But marriage is not an individual right. Otherwise, why 
limit marriage to unions of two people instead of three or four or five? 
Why limit it to adult humans, if some want to be united with others of 
various ages, sexes and species?

Marriage is a social contract because the issues involved go beyond the 
particular individuals. Unions of a man and a woman produce the future 
generations on whom the fate of the whole society depends. Society has 
something to say about that.

Even at the individual level, men and women have different 
circumstances, if only from the fact that women have babies and men do 
not. These and other asymmetries in the positions of women and men 
justify long-term legal arrangements to enable society to keep this 
asymmetrical relationship viable -- for society's sake.

Neither of these considerations applies to unions where the people are 
of the same sex.

Centuries of experience in trying to cope with the asymmetries of 
marriage have built up a large body of laws and practices geared to that 
particular legal relationship. To then transfer all of that to another 
relationship that was not contemplated when these laws were passed is to 
make rhetoric more important than reality.

2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Gerald (Gary) Smith

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///      ///
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!

Reply via email to