Flip-Flopping on Gay Marriage

When in doubt, blame the gays:

President Bush and congressional Republicans are aiming the political spotlight this week on efforts to ban gay marriage, with events at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue--all for a constitutional amendment with scant chance of passage but wide appeal among social conservatives.

Bush said Monday he is "proud to stand with" those who support a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. The president's remarks Monday were timed to coincide with the Senate opening three days of debate on the issue. Neither chamber, though, is likely to pass the amendment by the two-thirds majority required to send it to the states--three quarters of which would then have to approve it.

In this manner, republicans can demand that the base stay loyal so that marriage can be protected. Apparently we are supposed to believe that just like with abortion, republicans are really serious about banning gay marriage. Note that Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land. That is also why we must vote for republicans. Funny, that.

Many Republicans support the measure because they say traditional marriage strengthens society; others don't but concede the reality of election-year politics.

"Marriage between one man and one woman does a better job protecting children better than any other institution humankind has devised," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. "As such, marriage as an institution should be protected, not redefined."

Query for Mr. Frist: If republicans are serious about protecting children, can we kindly end no-fault divorce? I am a firm believer that traditional--read: heterosexual--marriage is the best institution for raising children. Yet when one half of marriages end in divorce, it is preposterous to claim that gays are going to do a worse job raising children. All things being equal, a man and a woman who are married can out-parent gays. This is simply due to a difference in the sexes; while it is possible that a gay couple could provide the balanced influence of both sexes, they will need an outsider to so provide. Yet a single parent faces the same dilemma, and it is idiotic to believe that because the hands are gay, four hands are not better than two.

The rebuttal is that raising children in a homosexual environment is unhealthy. Raising children in a home which has been torn asunder by divorce isn't? From a Christian perspective, homosexuality is immoral, but so is divorce. Someone please explain the distinction. Why do we need to protect marriage from gays when heterosexuals have decimated it to the extent that there is little left to protect?

With divorce rates among born-agains greater than that of the population at large, and with other Christians, Catholics included, following right behind, no politician will dare take on divorce. s I see it, there are two possible consistent courses a Christian could advocate. If marriage is to be protected, it must be protected against all attacks, irrespective of the sexuality of the attacker.

On the other hand, since morality and legality are only linked when the people who makes the laws are moral, and the people are no longer in the least ways moral, one can simply render to Caesar and let the pagans do as they will. The Christian must answer, not to government, but to God, and it makes precious little difference, except as a potential for scandal, whether gays fornicate with or without a marriage certificate.

The latter course is the one I now take. Even supposing a gay marriage amendment could be passed, it will do little to stem the tide of the pending collapse. The battle remains a cultural one, and while laws can help change the hearts and minds of men, a culture which is dependent on hedonistic consumerism and the slavery of personal passion to control the masses will not stand for a victory, however insignificant, by those of us without power. Is it likely that a Supreme Court which has shown no respect for the intent of the founder's when it comes to the constitution will honor the will of the people? I think not. After all, it was not the people or the representatives of Massachusetts, but the state Supreme Court, which declared a right to gay marriage.

If the people vote for the republicans in the fall, and if republicans pass the amendment, and if enough of the states ratify it, and if the courts do not declare an amendment to the constitution unconstitutional--no it's not crazy; it happened in Colorado--then gays can't wreck marriage. Thank goodness. There are far too many ifs for something which will do little in the long run.

Maybe I should apologize to the Dutch. Praying may be our only option.