WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush today writes that same-sex couples can never truly be married, even if it becomes law. Rush argues that voters “no more have a right to bar homosexuals from marrying than they do conferring upon them the right to marry” as “same-sex couples will never occupy a state of matrimony, no matter what laws we pass or semantic gymnastics we manage to execute,” in the same way a man could never join a sorority.
He goes on to argue that gay rights advocates have a “venomous hatred for everything smacking of Christianity” and that same-sex marriage is part of “the anti-theistic, Christophobic design of the radical left,” which Rush claims will bring about “societal dissolution.”
I find it quite surreal that as I write this, the most learned legal minds in the country are being compelled to debate an issue that is wholly specious on its face. The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments against the State of California voters’ right to have banned “same-sex marriage,” but all that ban amounts to in a practical sense is an agreement that the semantic argument not be broached. Do California voters have a right to do so? Certainly – but they no more have a right to bar homosexuals from marrying than they do conferring upon them the right to marry.
Thus, my ongoing contention that we as a society have neither the power nor the ability to change the definition of “marriage,” nor can we confer the “right” to marry upon those who do not possess an a priori qualification to be married. I can petition a college sorority to accept me as a sister, and they might even do so after a fashion; but I will never be a “sorority sister,” because I am a man. Similarly, same-sex couples will never occupy a state of matrimony, no matter what laws we pass or semantic gymnastics we manage to execute.
…
The quest for “same-sex marriage” (which, as has been established, doesn’t exist) is not about the civil rights of homosexuals or the well-worn catch phrase “marriage equality.” Like everything championed by the political left, it is about weakening America’s cultural and societal foundation; it is but one component in the anti-theistic, Christophobic design of the radical left.
In fact, outside of a handful of the whopping 3.5 percent of Americans who identify as homosexual, most of those who are advancing this offensive are not homosexual, nor do they care in the least about the civil rights of homosexuals. They are the power brokers of the left, the same people who continually strive to alienate ethnic minorities, women, the poor and whomever else they can from societal convention.
Apart from those types, the people who advocate most vociferously for “marriage equality” are militant homosexuals and the most rabid leftists. The majority of those with whom I interact on a frequent basis are young and ill-informed, but they all share the same venomous hatred for everything smacking of Christianity, employing the same tiresome charges relative to those holding traditional values being intolerant and hateful.
…
If all this were a matter of equitable health insurance coverage, taxation or inheritance, civil unions would be the way to go. It is quite true, as many of our libertarian friends contend, that the state should never have gotten involved in the business of marriage to start with. For civil purposes, certificates of some sort of recognition might have been instituted for married couples, such as when someone changes their name. This way, if two homosexuals wanted to play house, they could have whatever familial parameters they desired formally registered and recognized in the same manner.
But civil unions are not good enough. In order for the left to achieve their objective, the political left must compel all of America to capitulate, to embrace and honor homosexual unions as “marriage.” It is only in this way that the requisite societal dissolution may progress.
