The entire legal and moral argument for same-sex marriage comes down to this: Marriage laws defining the institution as a union between one man and one woman represent a violation of the civil rights of homosexuals who are prevented from participating.
Of course, that is just not so.
Anyone in the United States can participate in the institution of marriage – if they choose to do so.
Homosexuals don’t usually choose to do so because they usually don’t want to be married to members of the opposite sex. But it’s their choice.
So why do homosexual activists make this claim? And how do they get away with making a patently false charge against a 6,000-year-old religious institution and the civil laws that it inspired?
Same-sex marriage advocates no more care about the legality of same-sex marriage than Hamas cares about the creation of a Palestinian state.
Neither is interested in creating something new – something that has never been before. Instead, what same-sex marriage advocates and the terrorists of the Gaza Strip have in common is their desire to destroy something they find repulsive. In Gaza, it’s the Jewish state of Israel. Among homosexual activists, it’s the institution of marriage.
By making the bogus claim that marriage, as it has been known through the eons, is inherently unfair because some people don’t want to participate in it as it has always been defined, homosexual activists are able to establish for themselves what appears to be the political high ground of the victim. In exactly the same way, Arab terrorists are able to portray themselves as the victim by claiming they have been denied a state.
But scratch beneath the surface of these two movements and you will soon learn that their objectives go far beyond same-sex marriage and a Palestinian state.
For instance, let’s examine the logic of the victimization homosexuals claim as the basis for pushing same-sex marriage. If it is true that limiting the definition of marriage to a union between one man and one woman is inherently a violation of civil rights, wouldn’t it also be true that defining marriage as a union between just two people is equally discriminatory?
The advocates of same-sex marriage hate this challenge, because they have no intelligent response to it. By default, a capitulation to the same-sex marriage advocates represents future capitulation to the logic they use. That means support of same-sex marriage, to be consistent, must translate into support of polygamy and group marriages of any combination.
Recently, a columnist for the Huffington Post tried to make the case that, unlike same-sex marriage, which has never existed in the history of the world anywhere at any time, polygamy represents a clear and present danger to society. That’s the distinction, he claimed. He cites one infamous polygamist leader charged with sexual assaults and incest-related felony counts as examples of how this works. Of course, he ignores a virtual epidemic of violence and molestation in the homosexual community in favor of one isolated case in the polygamy community.
Eliyahu Federman also states: “There isn’t a shred of modern sociological evidence to support the claim that gay marriage is harmful to society, whereas there is a plethora of historical and contemporary evidence to illustrate the dangers associated with polygamy.”
Ten years ago, the notion of same-sex marriage was scarcely even discussed, let alone performed. So the absence of a body of evidence is a red herring. In the case of polygamy, however, we have thousands of years of history to examine.
It is amazing how quickly the same-sex marriage advocates have been able to rally support from the media, the cultural establishment, the government elite and the judiciary for a radical social experiment that challenges the fundamental building block of human civilization – the family.
They’ve done this by inaccurately portraying themselves as victims of discrimination. They are no more victims of discrimination than any other radicals who believe forcibly remaking society in their own image is their inalienable right.