Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Reese wrong on gay marriage

Recently, a Charley Reese article defending the “rights” of gays to get married recently appeared on LewRockwell.com. He wrote: “Logically, to forbid something, one must demonstrate that the forbidden act will cause harm to others. OK. What harm will befall you and me and our children if two homosexuals get a marriage license?”

Mr. Reese states the problem backwards: marriage licensing is not a prohibition, but a government intervention. When “denying” gay marriage, government is not forbidding anything; it is simply not extending the social benefits of marriage to individuals who choose to partner with those of the same sex.

Now one could say that government should not be in the marriage licensing business in the first place, and I would agree. But let’s not overlook the reason for the institution of heterosexual marriage: any children which might result. The family unit is the most important sociological construct in the history of man. To say it has been wildly successful seems trite. So to extend the institution of social union of any type to homosexuals seems pointless, sociologically.

Moreover I can tell you some harm it would do. For every married gay or lesbian with a stay at home partner employed by the government, it will costs the citizens more. Of course we know there shouldn’t be so many government jobs, but that is a trend that looks to be increasing. I admit it is a relatively small amount, but it is real.

There is also the idea that we are formally endorsing, socially and culturally, the idea of same sex relationships. (This is of course what the gay movement wants.) For what reason can government impose a condition that is to many religiously objectionable? Seems like some have found a weak point in the wall between church and state. I will have none for me, but thank you.

Finally the whole idea that marriage is a right is, well, wrong. A married couple is a collective of two. The couple do not have more or less rights together than they do as individuals. Any man and any women can each individually marry anyone else of the opposite sex, so gays can (and do) marry, just not anyone of the same sex.

Can't we focus on something more important by now? This whole gay marriage thing is a huge distraction from truly important issues like our ever-expanding and unconstitutional federal government and our unsustainable foreign policy.

No comments: