People who are on our side on issues such as abortion and the homosexual revolution need their “talking points,” quick retorts for when they are confronted with the left’s charge that they are intolerant, judgmental, and insufficiently deferential to the First Amendment rights of their fellow Americans.
It has been gratifying to see how the leaders of the pro-life movement have risen to this challenge. When they are hit with the accusation that they are seeking to impose their Catholic beliefs on the rest of the population, they don’t miss a beat. They rattle off the names of Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and atheists who also oppose legal abortion. The foot soldiers in the pro-life movement take it from there. They know how to make the case that the pro-life movement is not a “Catholic thing.”
The leaders in the effort to stop the spread of “gay marriage” should take a cue from the pro-lifers. It strikes me that they are too defensive when they make the case for a constitutional ban on homosexual marriage. The amendment proposed to do that, the Federal Marriage Amendment sponsored by Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colorado) and Senators Wayne Allard (R-Colorado), Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), and Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) reads in its totality: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor state nor federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.” You wouldn’t think anyone would have to be circumspect in making that case.
But how can we respond when the advocates of homosexual marriage argue that it is only a religious bias that makes us think that marriage should be limited to a man or a woman? James H. Smith, a columnist in my local newspaper in Connecticut, is a case in point. He has his pro-homosexual-marriage bumper sticker logic ready to go. He argues that if Christians believe that “marriage is the consummation of love,” then there is no reason to “bar some people in love, but let other lovers in. It shouldn’t be all that hard to understand that if more people who love each other get married, the institution of marriage will be stronger.”
What about Western civilization’s traditional understanding of marriage? Smith is loaded for bear. He says that those who use “our civilization” to make a case against homosexual marriage are only “trying to keep gay people down. Civilization, by definition, is a progression, a development of ideas, a continual awakening. Civilized societies acknowledge that they can learn from other civilizations. We alone do not hold the absolute truths.”
Here is my criticism of the defenders of traditional marriage: When they hear someone like Smith, they tend to resort to the “slippery-slope” argument. Their first response is to ask where we will draw the line if we permit homosexuals to marry. How will we be able to prohibit polygamy, for example?
Smith has an answer. He isn’t worried about the slippery slope. Let us slide. “Many Native American societies were polygamous for centuries. They lived wholly moral lives in their belief systems. They were polytheistic and prayed to many gods. That’s different from Christians and Jews, but not wrong. Islam is monotheistic yet allows polygamy, as do other cultures.” He calls on Americans to develop a “larger view of the world and of history.” He implores Americans to “lay bare your own long-held prejudices and open yourself to ideas. Ask if you want done unto you what is being done unto others right here and now in this country.”
I know: I don’t think many of the politicians and judges who favor homosexual marriages will be quoting James H. Smith to make their case. He has given too much away, spilled the beans. The advocates for “gay marriage” routinely pooh-pooh the notion that legalizing homosexual marriages will make it impossible for us to continue to outlaw polygamy, incest, and bestiality. They call it a scare tactic that makes it seem that our society will not be able to draw a line prohibiting these behaviors if we move the line just a bit to recognize homosexual marriage.
Are they right? They may be. George Orwell once wrote that “civilization is about drawing lines.” But who cares if they are right? We should not get into the “slippery slope” debate. There is no need for it. Our society has the right to hold homosexual marriage morally unacceptable, whether or not it can be demonstrated that it leads to any other aberrant behaviors.
But wouldn’t we be imposing our religious beliefs on those who do not share them if we do that? We would. So what? Laws do that. That’s what they are for. We have laws against murder, against robbery, against bigamy, against libel and perjury, against public lewdness, against false advertising. You don’t have to be a theologian to rattle off which of the Ten Commandments apply.
We have laws against “hate crimes.” The penalty is stiffer if you do violence to someone because of the color of his skin or his “sexual orientation” than if you merely want to render him unconscious to lift his wallet. We are told that this is necessary because the law is a great teacher, that we must send a message that bigotry will not be tolerated in our society. Colleges have codes of political correctness to ensure that the student body learns to respect diversity in racial and sexual matters.
In each of these instances, the force of law is used to shape our society in a manner consistent with moral beliefs; to coerce those who do not share those beliefs into behaving properly, morally, righteously. Some of those moral beliefs are rooted in the traditional values of the Christian West. Others spring from the secular humanist ethos of the past century. But all impose morality.
The proponents of laws to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman are doing nothing different. There is no reason for them to be excluded from the lawmaking process. They are as entitled to organize in the political arena as those who organize for civil rights or feminist causes. They are as entitled to be committed to their agenda as any other political activist.
Our society’s understanding of marriage and the family is central to our cultural identity. Defenders of the traditional view of marriage have as much right to seek laws reinforcing their beliefs as those who seek to undermine them. It is as American as apple pie for them to do so. You would think that the leftists would understand. They are the ones who claim William Lloyd Garrison, Norman Thomas, Susan B. Anthony, and Martin Luther King as their heroes.
James Fitzpatrick's new novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, is available from our online store. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net.
(This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.)