Barrett Kalellis
Thursday, Aug. 21, 2003

In its ceaseless efforts to normalize homosexuality in this country, the highly organized gay lobby continues to press forward by attacking any institution, both public and private, that tends to resist this encroachment by adopting discriminatory membership policies. In the recent past, these have included the U.S. armed forces, the Boy Scouts of America and various religious denominations.

To achieve this goal, and under the banner of civil rights, gay advocates use all the arrows in their quiver: litigation leading to judicial fiat, liberal theology, legislative activism, medical revisionism, economic pressure and a mob of literati that tout the gay lifestyle in newspaper columns and movies, on radio talk shows, and with TV sitcoms and august PBS and cable network documentaries.

Now that certain liberal church denominations have redefined gay sins as merely misunderstandings, and practicing homosexuals are now eligible for high clerical appointments, it seems that biblical principles have lost their chachet as yardsticks for making categorical judgments about whether homosexual behavior is right or wrong.

The latest controversy is the marriage ceremony, which itself is both a religious and a secular institution. For thousands of years, and in most cultures, marriage has traditionally been defined as the union of one man and one woman, although some cultures have endorsed multi-partner unions. This tradition is now under assault by gays, primarily on the basis of both the Equal Protection Amendment (anti-discrimination) and the Full Faith and Credit (portability) Clause of the Constitution.

Today, whether the religiously motivated construe same-sex marriage as desirable or an abomination no longer has a bearing in the debate, since secularists fight tooth and nail to keep private beliefs from informing public policy, unless, of course, the matter is put to a national referendum.

That leaves only one arena in which to do battle: Should the government continue to legitimize marriage as a secular institution? If marriage can be redefined to include same-sex or even multi-party unions, are government’s interests still served?

Although historically derived from religious teachings, the State has officially sanctioned monogamous, heterosexual marriage as a social institution to provide an ideal framework for conceiving and raising children. Regardless if marriages fail, this is still the ideal to which couples aspire. If marriages with children fail, the children suffer and, by extension, so does society.

Even though couples may choose to be childless, government policy is always based on the child-rearing model, since stable families promote the continuance of an orderly society.

Astute defenders of traditional marriage, like Stanley Kurtz, have noted that it is the unique sexual dynamic between men and women that domesticates men — from their youthful wild ways to supporting their mates as wives and mothers. Simply redefining the union of two men as a "marriage" will not bring those social expectations into play. And there will be no high price to pay for cheating on a gay spouse since, according to some studies, there is rampant promiscuity in the gay community, even among those who have formed unions.

If government permits marriage to include same-sex or group partners, the whole institution loses its social relevance. Why bother for government to sanction personal unions at all? Stripped of its moral foundation, why not allow persons to live in any arrangement they want? Who cares?

Many will want to live together and claim a marriage right, no doubt, merely to gain the financial benefits that were created with the monogamous heterosexual model in mind.

As if to prove this point, one week after the Supreme Court struck down the Texas sodomy law, a polygamist in Utah petitioned the court, claiming the right to as many wives as he wants — it’s all about privacy.

Unless a rampant judiciary forces the nation to the brink, gay marriage proponents are going to run into the brick wall of majority opinion that homosexual practices are considered aberrant and deviant behavior. It has always been thus and always will be. For this reason alone, same-sex marriages should be prohibited, and children should not be raised by gay couples, regardless how well-intentioned.

Robert Bork put his finger on the problem when he noticed that the forces of radical individualism and egalitarianism often cooperate to thumb their noses at authority and traditional morality. Together, they deny the possibility that any one culture or moral view can be superior to another, and the result is what we are facing now — cultural and moral chaos, unfortunately both prominent and destructive features of our time.

Barrett Kalellis is a Michigan-based columnist and writer whose articles appear regularly in various local and national print and online publications.

He may be reached at kalellis@newsmax.com.

Editor's note:
"Treason" - Ann Coulter exposes the anti-American left: Click here now for special offer