Thursday, October 30, 2003

On Gay “Marriage,” Some Folks Just Don’t Get It

In his op-ed piece in The Washington Post yesterday, columnist Harold Meyerson asserted that the main reason conservatives and the GOP oppose gay “marriage” and want to make it a major campaign issue for the ’04 elections is that they are stuck in “Old Testament morality” and want to manipulate “xenophobic, homophobic and racist fears.”

The GOP, Meyerson says, needs more “moderate” Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger if they hope to retain both Houses of Congress in addition to the White House. The irony of this is that Meyerson’s example is himself opposed to gay “marriage.” During the California recall election, Schwarzenegger, in response to a question on this very subject during a radio interview with Sean Hannity, declared that “marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman" and not for same-sex couples.

Nevertheless, Meyerson misses the point about why at least half of the US population –including conservatives, moderates, and liberals alike—are opposed to same-sex marriages:

(1) The nuclear family is the most fundamental and most universal building block of any society, and always has been since the dawn of time. It transcends modern American society, and predates the modern American state by untold thousands of years. Its roots are not in modern legalism but in nature itself: The joining of one man and one woman to procreate and perpetuate the human race. Obviously, artificial “procreation” methods aside, that cannot be achieved when the partners are of the same gender.

(2) The state has no business tinkering with, and ultimately threatening, this natural building block by allowing a bunch of lawyers to redefine it to suit the personal preferences of certain special interest groups. The result could –and mostly likely would— be utter chaos, as is usually the case when Big Brother is allowed to redefine most things.

So, Mr. Meyerson, the main issue behind opposition to gay “marriage” is not about “hating gays” (although, no doubt, a relative few oppose it for that reason). Nor is it even about supposedly “outdated” moralities.

It’s about the biology, stupid.

No comments: